取引

特別レポート

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

特別レポート

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

Feature This week we are sending you a shorter-than-usual market update, as we are also publishing a Special Report exploring the outlook for USD cross-currency basis swap spreads. This report argues that USD basis swap spreads should widen over the next 12 months. Being a phenomenon associated with higher FX vols, this should hurt carry trades, including EM and dollar bloc currencies. It will also potentially create additional support for the USD. Also, next week, we will provide a deeper analysis of the fallout from the New Zealand government's dynamics. ECB Tapers? European Central Bank President Mario Draghi refused to call it "tapering," but he nonetheless announced that the ECB will be cutting back its asset purchases to EUR30 billion per month until at least September 2018. However, because the ECB will continue to proceed with re-investment of the stock of assets it holds, the monthly total presence of the ECB in European bond markets will stay above EUR 30 billion. Moreover, the ECB is keeping the door open to leaving its purchases in place beyond September 2019, if inflation does not keep track with the central bank's forecasts, and thus referred to the adjustment as being open-ended. Ultimately, the ECB does think that the recent rebound in inflation has been and remains a function of maintaining a very accommodative monetary setting. We think this option to keep the asset purchases in place beyond September 2018 is just this: an option. However, we do believe that yesterday's change in policy means the ECB will not increase interest rates until well into 2019. We also anticipate U.S. core inflation to begin outperforming euro area core inflation as U.S. financial conditions have eased significantly relative to the euro area - a key factor to redistribute inflationary pressures among these two economies (Chart I-1). As a result, because we anticipate that the Federal Reserve will increase the fed funds rate by more than the 67 basis points currently expected over the next two years, there could be some downside risk in EUR/USD. This downside risk is already highlighted by the large gap that has recently emerged between the 1-year/1-year forward risk-free rate spread between Europe and the U.S. versus the euro itself (Chart I-2). Chart I-1U.S. Inflation Set To Outperform Euro Area Prices Chart I-2Forward Interest Rates Point To A Lower Euro Moreover, the elevated long positioning right now further highlights the downside risk present in the euro (Chart I-3), probably explaining the European currency's rather violent reaction to what was a well-anticipated policy move. This means that EUR/USD could end 2017 in the 1.15 neighborhood, and fall further in 2018. Chart I-3Positioning Risk In EUR/USD Bottom Line: The ECB delivered exactly what was anticipated, yet the euro sold off. The ECB is unlikely to increase interest rates until well into 2019, suggesting the first anticipated rate hike in Europe is fairly priced. Thus, in order to justify any downside in the euro, one needs to be more positive on the Fed than what is currently priced into the U.S. interest rate curve. We fall into this camp. Moreover, positioning remains too long the euro. We expect EUR/USD to fall toward 1.15 by year end, and display more downside in 2018. Bank Of Canada The Bank of Canada (BoC) surprised the market this week by expressing a reversing of its recent pronounced hawkish bias, instead expressing a much more cautious tone. Where a closed output gap was once driving the need for tighter policy, residual labor market slack now warrants a more restrained approach to tightening. What has changed? NAFTA. The most recent and tenuous NAFTA negotiation round raised the specter of an end to the North American FTA. While NAFTA is still not dead, the rising probability that Canada-U.S. trade falls backs under the umbrella of the previous CUSFTA or even maybe something worse is causing a headache for Canadian policymakers. Some 20% of Canadian GDP is made up of products destined to be exported to the U.S., and this large chunk of GDP could be under some risk. Additionally, as the BoC highlighted, future investment decisions by firms in Canada may become investments in the U.S. to bypass regulatory uncertainty. Ultimately, if the Canada / U.S. trade relationship falls back under the CUSFTA umbrella, the impact on Canadian growth will be limited. Nonetheless, we think the BoC is correct to play its hand carefully, especially as the Canadian housing market is cooling. Moreover, a recent IPSOS survey revealed that around 40% of Canadian households would face financial difficulties if rates moved up significantly, which may justify a slower pace of hiking. With all this uncertainty looming, it is logical for the BoC to take its time before tightening policy anew. But in the end, we do anticipate the Canadian central bank to increase rates around two times next year, which is in line with the market's assessment: Canada's output gap is closing, and inflation is moving in the right direction. Thus, the outlook for the CAD is likely to be dominated by the outlook for oil. Robert Ryan, who runs BCA's Commodity And Energy Strategy service, expects WTI to move toward US$63/bbl next year, with upside risk to his forecast.1 This could help the CAD. However, the CAD does not seem particularly cheap against the USD when Canada's poor productivity performance is taken into account (Chart I-4), and speculators are now quite long the CAD (Chart I-5). As a result, our preferred medium to express positive views on the CAD is to be short AUD/CAD, where a valuation advantage is still present for the loonie (Chart I-6). Moreover, the AUD is more likely to suffer from China moving away from its investment-led growth model, while the CAD is less exposed to this risk. Chart I-4The CAD Is Not That Cheap Chart I-5Speculators Are Very Long The CAD Chart I-6Short AUD/CAD Bottom Line: The BoC is rightfully concerned that a breakdown of NAFTA would negatively affect the Canadian economy. While a return to CUSFTA would minimize any impact, the current high degree of uncertainty warrants that the BoC takes a more cautious stance. Ultimately, the BoC will increase rates next year, potentially two times. We continue to prefer to short AUD/CAD. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Upside Risks Dominate BCA's Oil Price Forecast", dated October 26, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 U.S. data has been strong: Manufacturing PMI came out at 54.5, stronger than expected; Services PMI came out at 55.9, also stronger than expected; Durable goods orders increased by 2.2%; New home sales increased by 18.9% monthly, the highest growth rate in 25 years; Initial jobless claims declined and beat expectations. Crucially, the DXY is above its 100-day moving average and has broken the reverse head-and-shoulders neckline, with momentum in the greenback's favor. The ECB's tapering weakened the euro by 1.4%. Further weakness in commodity currencies also allowed the dollar to gain momentum. We expect this momentum to continue as inflation in the U.S. re-emerges over the next six to twelve months. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 The ECB's decision was largely in line with market consensus, but the euro nonetheless fell significantly. The ECB will halve its rate of purchases to EUR 30 bn a month starting next year until at least September 2018. However, President Mario Draghi stated that this could be extended beyond September, or even increased, if conditions warrant it. Draghi noted that "domestic price pressures are still muted overall and the economic outlook and the path of inflation remain conditional on continued support from monetary policy", also stating that rates would remain low for an extended period of time, and possibly even "past the horizon of the net asset purchases". Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: The Leading Economic Index increased from 105.2 to 107.2 in the month of August. Nikkei Manufacturing PMI surprised to the downside, coming in at 52.5, declining from 52.9 the month before. However, corporate service prices year-on-year growth came in at 0.9%, against expectations of 0.8%. Following the overwhelming victory of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the USD/JPY traded above 114, before stabilizing just below later in the week. Now that Abe has won the election, he is freer to implement loose fiscal policy in order to increase his chances to amend the pacifist Japanese constitution. This, accompanied by 10-year JGB rates anchored around zero, and a Federal Reserve that is likely to hike more than expected, should push USD/JPY higher. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in Britain has been mixed: Gross Domestic product yearly and quarterly growth surprised to the upside, coming in at 1.5% and 0.4% respectively. Moreover, public sector net borrowing was also lower than expected coming in at 5.236 billion pounds for the month of September. However, BBA mortgage approvals came below expectations, coming in at 41.584 thousand, which is lower than the month before. The pound has gone up following the positive GDP reading. As of now the market considers there is a 91% probability that the Bank of England hikes rates in November. However any hikes beyond that would require a significant improvement in economic activity. Thus, we would tend to fade any strength in GBP/USD, as the Fed is more likely to hike rates than the BoE on a sustainable basis. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The AUD declined on weak consumer price numbers. The trimmed mean CPI remained steady at 1.8% annually, below the expected 2% rate, and weakened to 0.4% quarterly, down from 0.5%. The largest yearly decline was in communication (services or equipment) of 1.4%, although declines in food prices and clothing were also substantial at 0.9%. This is largely in line with our view that the consumer sector is handicapped with poor wage growth. We believe inflation is unlikely to move much higher; this will keep the RBA at bay. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand has been negative: Imports surprised to the upside, coming in at 4.92 billion dollars. This figure also increased form last month's reading. However exports underperformed expectations, coming in at 3.78 billion dollars for the month of September. Finally the trade balance, also underperformed expectations, coming in at -1.143 billion dollars. After the election of new Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern the kiwi has plunged, and now has a negative return year-to-date. The government is trying to implement three measures which significantly affect the value of the kiwi: a dual central bank mandate, restrictions on immigration, and a stop to foreign real estate purchases. All these measures lower the terminal rate for the RBNZ. With this being said, we are still shorting AUD/NZD given that commodity dynamics will dominate the movements of this cross. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD had an eventful week as the Bank of Canada came out with a monetary policy decision. The decision was in line with the consensus, but the statement was not. The Bank was particularly concerned "about political developments and fiscal and trade policies, notably the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement". Additionally, it was also noted that "because of high debt levels, household spending is likely more sensitive to interest rates than in the past". The Bank also made a U-turn in its view of the labor market, stating that "wage and other data indicate that there is still slack in the labor market". These unexpected remarks dropped the CAD's value by 1% against USD. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 The Franc continues to depreciate against the Euro, even as EUR/USD has gone down more than 2.5% since peaking early in December. Meanwhile, as the franc has depreciated, economic variables have improved. The KOF Industry Survey Business Climate indicator is now positive for the first time since 2011. Meanwhile, core inflation has reached 2011 highs as well. Additionally multiple components of PMI are at their highest level in the past 6 years. All of these factors bode well for the Swiss economy, and prove that the SNB's ultra-loose monetary policy and currency intervention is working. That being said, we would like to see more strength from key economic variables to consider shorting EUR/CHF, given that the recovery is still too fragile for the SNB to change policy. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 The Norges Bank left their key policy rate unchanged at 0.5% yesterday. The central bank highlighted that capacity utilization was below normal levels and that inflation was expected to be below 2.5% in the coming years. Furthermore, the comittee highlighted that although the labor market appears to be improving, inflation has been lower than expected, while the krone is also weaker than projected. The bank has reassured our view that even in the face of strong oil prices, slack is still too big in the Norwegian economy for the Norges Bank to start raising rates. Furthermore, a hawkish fed will further put upward pressure on USD/NOK. Than being said, EUR/NOK should depreciate, given that this cross is much more sensitive to oil than it is to rate differentials. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 The SEK has depreciated considerably in recent weeks owing to somewhat weaker inflation figures. It has weakened particularly against the EUR, as markets are expecting the Riksbank to follow the ECB in its rate path. This was confirmed by a particularly dovish tone from the recent monetary policy statement which exacerbated this decline, with the board expecting to maintain the current monetary policy until mid-2018, and even discussed a possible extension of asset purchase programs beyond December. The Board has "also taken a decision to extend the mandate that facilitates a quick intervention in the foreign exchange market". Finally, they lowered their inflation forecasts for both 2017 and 2018. Stefan Ingves is firmly in control. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights Hurricane Harvey will prove a bigger market-mover than North Korea's latest missile test; The worst flood in Houston's history will improve U.S. policymaking and remove domestic risks; North Korea justifies hedging against violent incidents, but actors are constrained from full-scale war; Insights from our travels in Asia suggest that U.S.-China cooperation is still meaningful. China's reform reboot faces constraints; Abenomics is not done yet. Feature As we go to press, two crises are developing. The one that has rattled the markets - and that we focus on in this Weekly Report - is the North Korean missile launch. However, we think the more investment-relevant one is the slow-moving Hurricane Harvey, which is about to inundate Houston - a metropolitan area with nearly 7 million people - with more rain. We cannot predict the ultimate impact on the economy of the developing natural disaster, but we do know that Houston is experiencing the greatest flood in its history. The scale of human suffering is likely being massively underestimated at present. Comparisons with Hurricane Katrina are not without merit, but Houston has a population about five times that of New Orleans. Investors may rightly ask, so what? The stock market actually rallied at the height of Hurricane Katrina and one would struggle to pick its date on a chart of the S&P 500. The impact on the economy and markets is likely to be tepid in the near term once again. The significance of Hurricane Harvey is its likely impact on politics. First, there is now no chance that the debt ceiling will be breached. We discussed the low odds last week and we reiterate them here. Second, odds are that a government shutdown is unlikely as well. It is unfathomable to shut down the government during an emergency. Imagine if the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had to cease operations. Wall or no wall on the Mexican border, Republicans in Congress and the White House will fund the government. More than that, Americans suffering in a Red State that voted for President Trump could be the catalyst that Republicans need to put their intra-party differences aside and start working with vigor on legislation, including tax reform. We could even contemplate legislative action on a bipartisan infrastructure plan, although the ability of U.S. policymakers to put aside grief and focus back on partisan bickering never ceases to amaze. The bottom line for us is that in six months' time, when investors look back on late August 2017, it will be Hurricane Harvey that is cited as having been market-relevant in the long term, not North Korea's n-th missile launch. That said, North Korea remains relevant. It has launched an avowed ballistic missile over Japan for the first time (as opposed to a space launch vehicle, which it has done in 1998 and 2009). The launch originated near Pyongyang, a warning to the U.S. that any strikes against launch sites would be complex (involving civilians) and tantamount to an attack on the capital and a declaration of war. The United States and its allies will be forced to respond to this brinkmanship by trying harder to establish that the military option is indeed credible despite the well-known constraints (the decimation of Seoul). Therefore more market volatility will ensue in the coming months and year. We do not rule out major violent incidents, though full-scale war still seems highly unlikely due to hard constraints on the various actors. (Please see "Appendix" for our updated checklist on whether the U.S. will attack.) While we do not expect either Pyongyang or Hurricane Harvey to derail the bull market, we recognize that valuations are stretched, volatility is low, and the market may be looking for a reason to sell off significantly. In this report, we discuss insights on North Korea and other key issues gleaned from our recent travels abroad. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy went on the road this summer for five weeks. We visited the American Midwest, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Taiwan, China, Japan, South Korea and the U.K. There we had the pleasure of speaking with clients across the asset management industry. Each region had its own set of specific questions and concerns, as well as insights. Over the next two weeks, we plan to share these with our entire client base. Going on the road is critical for investment strategists. It is an opportunity to stress-test and sharpen one's view through interaction with sophisticated investors. Meeting clients also ensures that you are asking the right questions. We are happy to report that our three main questions - how stimulative will U.S. tax reform be; is China willing to deleverage; and is Italy a potential source of global risk-off - are indeed on all of our clients' minds. This does not mean that everyone came to the same conclusions that we did, but at least we know that we are looking for the same answers. Sino-American Split Is Overstated Investors are no longer as quick to dismiss one of our central geopolitical theses: that the U.S. and China are on a path likely to end in the "Thucydides Trap."1 However, one of our clients was not so sure that U.S.-China relations are deteriorating as rapidly as they appear to be. He observed a pattern in bilateral trade that suggested to him that the two countries are working together, under the table, to keep relations from collapsing despite the unprecedented challenges posed by the post-2008 global political and economic environment. He began with the simple point that the U.S.'s rising trade protectionism against Chinese steel in recent years actually made it easier for President Xi to take aim at overcapacity problems in the steel sector in China. After U.S. steel imports from China collapsed, from 20% of total in 2008 to 3% in 2016, China was able to embark on a long-delayed purge of excess steel capacity, shutting down a reported 87mmt over the past year and a half (Chart 1). China moved up the steel product value chain partly as a result of U.S. actions.2 China also appears to have responded promptly to U.S. complaints about agricultural imports. In late 2016, amid a heated and protectionist presidential campaign, the U.S. government threatened to impose tariffs on China's grain exports and demanded that subsidies be removed so that U.S. companies could compete on a level playing field in China's domestic market. Corn prices were at a nine-year low; Beijing was giving rebates to domestic corn exporters and had amassed large corn inventories. Within a few months, in March 2017, China launched the agricultural side of its supply-side reforms. It removed the supports for corn, allowing prices to plummet and making way for lower Chinese supply and thus more U.S. imports (Chart 2). Chart 1U.S. And China Attack Chinese Steel Capacity Chart 2China's Supply-Side Agriculture Reforms Most recently, the client emphasized, China launched one of its periodic crackdowns on intellectual property violations.3 Enforcement was observable in China's mainstream online services, which largely lost the ability to stream content for which they lacked the rights.4 As with steel, China has a self-interest in these reforms, especially as it generates its own intellectual property. But it cannot have detracted from China's urgency that the U.S. announced a formal investigation in early August to determine whether China's intellectual property violations deserve punitive actions.5 It is as if China anticipated the U.S.'s moves coming out of the U.S.-China Comprehensive Economic Dialogue in July. In these and many other cases, a pattern seems to emerge: U.S. trade grievances boil up, U.S. authorities threaten punitive actions, China responds to the threat by vowing retaliation and pushing through supply-side reforms that are already in its interest. The process appears to be a win-win, however precarious. The client also suggested that the U.S. may be offering to become more constructive toward certain Chinese initiatives. For instance, China is pressing forward on the long-delayed launch of an oil futures contract on the Shanghai International Energy Exchange in the second half of 2017. This new benchmark would ostensibly rival Brent and West Texas Intermediate contracts and be settled in RMB instead of USD. To our client, China's moving forward with this scheme, immediately after top-level trade negotiations with the U.S., seemed to reveal the U.S.'s tacit support for RMB internationalization. Certainly the U.S. nodded at the IMF including the RMB in its special drawing rights basket.6 Presumably, then, the U.S. and China have not entirely lost the ability to deal with each other on sensitive issues in an atmosphere fraught with distrust. Moreover, both sides can attempt to roll with the punches. China can blame the difficulties of necessary internal reforms on U.S. protectionism, while U.S. protectionist impulses can be mitigated via China's internal reforms. This dynamic could become the silver lining in Sino-American relations in 2018, a year in which Xi will have the best opportunity to push reforms while Trump may be most eager to take protectionist actions ahead of the midterm election. A silver lining to a black cloud, of course. Bottom Line: Risks to Sino-American relations remain serious, but the two sides still retain some ability to manage tensions. The question is how much ability? Our own view has been that 2017 would largely be a year of Trump issuing "a shot across the bow" and then negotiating. Concrete, aggressive action would be more likely to occur in 2018. This remains our baseline case. But silent coordination of the kind described above could perhaps improve trade relations enough to satisfy Trump in 2018 and delay a Sino-U.S. confrontation. China has long dealt with protectionist threats from the U.S. by conceding various reforms and policy adjustments, especially by increasing U.S. imports. The U.S. has long accepted such a response. We doubt that this tactic will be enough in this day and age, but maybe so. North Korea Could Cause A Recession What about U.S.-China cooperation on North Korea? It appears as if coordination has improved in the face of a potential conflict. At the peak of tensions this summer, China has offered to implement sanctions, cutting off some trade and joint ventures, while the U.S. has given reassurances about U.S. military intentions in the event of a conflict.7 However, judging by conversations with clients on the mainland, a large gap still exists between U.S. and Chinese perceptions. In particular, Chinese clients pushed back against any implication that China is responsible for reining in North Korea's bad behavior. They highlighted China's emphasis on national autonomy, the idea that every country should be left alone to address its own problems in its own jurisdiction. Otherwise countries should resolve differences through diplomacy and dialogue, conducted as equals. The threat or use of force always makes things worse. The current North Korean situation is, from this perspective, America's fault. The North Koreans pursue nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles in order to deter a U.S. attack, having seen what happened to other nuclear aspirants like Iraq, Syria, and most recently Libya.8 In short, China sympathizes with its formal ally North Korea. It demands peaceful negotiations and denounces the threat of regime change. And it does not believe U.S. officials when they renounce regime change as an option, as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has recently done. "No one will believe that," one of our clients said, and least of all North Korea. (Quite reasonably, we would add.) This argument reinforces our view that China will not impose crippling sanctions on the North, even if it tries to pressure Pyongyang back to the negotiating table. Since the North cannot be expected to give up its nuclear weapons, the negotiations themselves will be limited from the outset. The U.S. essentially has to accept the status quo, possibly even the perpetual threat of a North Korean nuclear strike. This, in turn, increases the probability that the Trump administration will be disappointed with the outcome. Which is precisely why we expect the U.S. not only to bulk up its military alliance in the region but also to impose more "secondary sanctions" and trade tariffs on China. Sino-American tensions will get harder and harder to manage. While we can foresee skirmishes and violent incidents, we think the probability of a full-scale Second Korean War is low. Diplomacy is not exhausted, the U.S. alliance with regional powers remains intact, and, most importantly, North Korea has not committed an act of war (or acted as if it is about to, which would prompt U.S. preemption). Regarding the big picture, some of our clients are not so sanguine. One of them pointed out recent academic research arguing that armed conflict, as a cause of death in the human population, has declined. The number of violent deaths per 100,000 people has fallen from historic levels in the hundreds down to an average of 60 in the twentieth century, which includes two world wars, and down to the single digits in the post-WWII era (Chart 3). The client asks: Is this drop in war deaths sustainable? The implication is that the level of deaths has nowhere to go but up. Chart 3Human Deaths By War Have Collapsed In Post-WWII Era The client coupled this thought with another bearish theory. It is widely known that recessions are normally preceded by large financial or economic imbalances. Today many investors are encouraged by the apparent lack of any such imbalance. They read this as saying, "let the good times roll." Our client viewed it another way, suggesting that the imbalance that will cause the next major recession will be non-financial and non-economic, e.g. ecological, epidemiological, geopolitical, etc. Chart 4Global Conflicts Increasing In Frequency The client was not specifically hinting at a North Korean conflagration, though probably not ruling it out either. He was mostly concerned with the historic drop in deaths by conflict and how it might be reversed in the near future. Unfortunately this bleak suggestion that war might make a secular comeback is not incompatible with our view that geopolitical multipolarity goes hand in hand with a higher incidence of internationalized conflicts (Chart 4), which could be exacerbated by a decline in global trade. On the other hand, the fall in deaths is a product of a range of political, economic, social and scientific advances, and may not be reversed through geopolitical tensions alone. Bottom Line: The U.S. and China remain far apart in their perceptions of who is to blame for North Korea and what is to be done. China will not take responsibility for "solving" the problem as the U.S. demands. This reinforces our view that North Korean tensions have not yet peaked and remain market-relevant. We ultimately believe that a peaceful solution will prevail, but getting from here (tensions) to there (a negotiated settlement) entails further risks. China Will Try To Reform, But Won't Touch The Property Bubble "They've got to do something about the corporate leverage." This was the conclusion of a client who agreed with our view that President Xi Jinping will likely accelerate his reform agenda after the nineteenth National Party Congress this fall, and that deleveraging is the key indicator (Chart 5). Some clients in China - specifically banks - confirmed that they were under pressure from tightening financial regulation and as a result were both slowing the pace of lending and becoming more scrutinizing of borrowers' creditworthiness. Borrowing rates have ticked up (Chart 6). Chart 5High Time For Some Belt-Tightening Chart 6Chinese Cost Of Capital Ticks Up Clients also suggested that Chinese leaders would soon re-emphasize the country's transition away from GDP targets as a measure of successful governance and economic stewardship. When the Xi administration came to power, it sought to de-emphasize GDP targets and introduced new and alternative targets - such as urban and rural income per capita, labor productivity, corruption, air pollution - into its assessments of economic progress. But the administration was forced to return to GDP targets amid growth fears in 2015, prompting Premier Li Keqiang to promise "at least" 6.5% growth for the next five years. Now the attempt to elevate qualitative measures of governance looks set to resume. Xi held two meetings of the Central Leading Group for Deepening Overall Reform this summer, in which he noticeably prioritized "green growth" rather than plain old growth, and pushed for replicating and applying more broadly the pilot reforms that have been implemented since his reform agenda was first laid out in 2013. In mid-July, at the National Financial Work Conference, Xi called for local officials to be held accountable for local government debt - even beyond their term in office. And in late July, Yang Weimin, a key economic policymaker who reports to Xi, said, "we won't allow the leverage ratio to rise for the sake of maintaining growth."9 The implication is that GDP growth will be allowed to fall as the government attempts to make progress on difficult reform initiatives. Chart 7Bonds More Important In China Several clients also expressed confidence that China would resume economic "opening up" before long. It is well known that, over the past year, Beijing has sought to attract FDI by promising to implement a nationwide "negative list" and removing certain sub-sectors from that list, in a bid to counter recent weak FDI inflows and ongoing capital outflow pressure. Beijing has also taken steps to deepen its financial sector, such as by expanding and regularizing its bond markets (Chart 7) in preparation for opening the Hong Kong-Shanghai "bond connect," which will allow foreign investors to buy Chinese bonds and, we think, generate strong demand. To add to this list, clients stressed that China is beginning to think about what happens after it lifts the capital controls put in place last year to halt outflows. A number of institutions are interested in expanding their overseas portfolios when they get the "all clear." We would expect the re-opening to come after the central government completes a round of reforming, recapitalizing, and restructuring banks and SOEs, which could push the timing well into 2018 or 2019. But clients are clearly chomping at the bit - which may suggest that they anticipate capital controls to be lifted sooner rather than later. One important reform item that we were told not to expect is the imposition of a nationwide property tax. Chinese authorities delayed the implementation of the tax in 2016 due to the desire to reflate the property market. Presumably they will return to this initiative now that the economy has recovered: it makes long-term sense to give local governments a more stable source of revenue and to suck some air out of the property bubble gradually so that it does not burst (Chart 8). However, clients are skeptical about any reforms that could harshly suppress real estate prices due to the heavy concentration of household wealth in the property sector (Chart 9). Chart 8Provinces To Be Weaned Off Of Land Sales? Chart 9Chinese Wealth Stored In Housing If the property bubble should be popped, people's life savings would vanish into thin air and there would be chaos in the streets. A client in Hong Kong remarked that the Chinese public will pretty much accept anything as long as property prices continue to rise. Since everyone agrees that social stability is the critical aim of the ruling party, it stands to reason that reforms will not be allowed to threaten the property sector, at least not directly. If the property sector prevents serious attempts at deleveraging, then the environmental agenda will become all the more significant as the focus of the Xi administration in its second five-year term. The administration began by increasing central government spending for environmental regulation more than for any other category of spending (Table 1). And Xi's statements in July, previewing the National Party Congress, emphasized fighting pollution as one of three chief focal points (the others were controlling systemic risks and fighting poverty). Table 1Fiscal Priorities Of Recent Chinese Presidents In recent months, central inspectors have fanned out across the country to conduct local pollution inspections ahead of end-of-year deadlines. These have fueled market speculation about deep curbs coming to industrial overcapacity, causing the prices of certain commodities that China produces, like aluminum, to surge (Chart 10). These commodity prices have likely already seen the biggest moves - given China's sharp slowdown in 2014 and reflation in 2015-16 - but they are still sensitive to the policy mix in China, i.e. the relative amounts of capacity cuts and deleveraging that take place. Chart 10Supply-Side Reform Has Boosted Metals Bottom Line: Clients across the Asia-Pacific region were focused on the question of Chinese structural reforms. We got the sense that there was much skepticism over whether they would indeed be growth-constraining. But when pushed, clients focused on real estate prices as the one threshold policymakers would not dare to cross in China. What About Japan? A Visit With Mr. K One of our most esteemed clients is a seasoned Japanese global investor who shall go by the moniker of "Mr. K" in the following dialogue (and for future reference). Mr. K opened the dialogue with us by asking us for our view of Japan. Mr. K: What is your view on my country, on Japan? GPS: We tend to think that the current reflationary policy will continue. The Tokyo metropolitan elections did not sound the death knell for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (Chart 11). The BoJ has become more, not less, dovish, and is not likely to follow other central banks in tightening policy anytime soon. Abe retains control of both houses of the Diet and can increase government spending to boost the economy. And the LDP will continue reflation even if Abe falls. Mr. K: This may be true, reflation will continue. However, the Japanese economy is reaching a plateau after five years of Abenomics. The recent strong GDP numbers were not well-received because consumers feel the stagnation (Chart 12). Global demand, and Chinese demand, have provided a positive backdrop for Japanese manufacturers, but the domestic outlook is not wildly optimistic. Chart 11Abe No Longer In Free-Fall Chart 12Japanese Feel Stagnant Despite Strong Growth With economic policy, the key phrase is "TINA," There Is No Alternative. There is no alternative to Abe at the moment. If you look back at the Democratic Party of Japan's support in 2011 under Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, it was a real contender. Today, it is far from rivaling the LDP (Chart 13). The voting population is, apparently, comfortable. It is true that if Abe leaves, it will not make much of a difference, as long as the LDP remains in power. The younger generations do not seem troubled by the current state of affairs. They are well-trained to endure economic stagnation. There is a sense that those who stand out feel uncomfortable. College graduates looking for jobs are very conservative. While with Generation X there was always the expectation that tomorrow would be a brighter day, Generation Millennial has come not only to accept stagnation, but even to like the stability of flat growth. GPS: Isn't this kind of stagnation a good thing? Isn't it a case of Japan being in a "Goldilocks" phase? Mr. K: Stability and stagnation can be good for markets. First, the macro environment is decent. Corporations have large cash balances, external demand is strong, wage demand is subdued, and the exchange rate is weak. However, risk-taking is not prized, whether in the education system or the media. Public discourse tends to discourage high-risk investments. And risk-takers have not been properly rewarded over the past two decades in Japan (Chart 14), so confidence and risk-appetite are weak. Also, deflation is hard to defeat. The "100 Yen Shop" (dollar store) retail model is a good example. The goods are all cheap, but as long as you can bring more people in, you can make a profit. This is almost all deflationary. Moreover, the Japanese have nothing to spend on! They no longer need new cars, or big computers; they just need mobile phones, maybe a Nintendo Switch, etc. Second, as to the financial markets, greater deregulation is necessary to attract non-Japanese capital flows. Maybe then valuations will normalize (Chart 15). It is essential to see if leading companies continue to gain global competitiveness, in anything from Internet services to gaming. Watch valuations and watch cash flow. Chart 13Opposition Still Can't Touch Ruling LDP Chart 14Risk-Takers Punished In Japan Chart 15Japanese Valuations Still Low The key firms are not necessarily the keiretsu, but secondary or new manufacturers that are driving growth. Small caps are more leveraged to foreign exchange, whereas neither the Japanese domestic economy nor the value of the yen matter much to large multinationals anymore. To capitalize on the internal economy you want to be long small caps. Or better yet, long semi-large caps: those companies equivalent to the U.S. companies that make the difference between the S&P 500 and the S&P 600. These are some of the best plays in Japan because they are domestic-oriented and sensitive to the weaker yen. This will provide a tailwind for stocks elsewhere. Local property markets also offer a very good return over the risk-free rate. GPS: What do you make of our view that Abe will push reflationary policy ahead of his efforts to revise the constitution? Given that he needs a strong economy to pass the popular referendum? Mr. K: It is harder to increase fiscal spending in Japan than one might think. However, the North Korean threat is not going anywhere. And the media love "tensions." GPS: So it seems like you are positive about the markets in Japan, but are not yet sold on Abenomics? Mr. K: I suppose the lesson is, if it isn't too cold, stay on the ski slopes. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 For this term, please see Graham Allison, "The Thucydides Trap: Are The U.S. And China Headed For War?" The Atlantic, September 24, 2015, as well as Allison's new book, Destined For War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides's Trap? (New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017). 2 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China-U.S. Trade Relations: The Big Picture," dated November 17, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China's Geopolitical Pressure Points: Knowns, Unknowns And A Hedge," dated August 17, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "China cracks down on distribution of illegal publications," Xinhua, July 25, 2017, available at news.xinhuanet.com. China also highlighted the BRICS countries' joint efforts at enforcing intellectual property as it prepared to host the BRICS conference in Xiamen, Fujian in September. Please see Ministry of Commerce, "Ministry Of Commerce Holds Press Conference on 2017 BRICS Trade Ministers' Meeting," August 4, 2017, available at english.mofcom.gov.cn. 5 Please see the Office of the United States Trade Representative, "USTR Announces Initiation of Section 301 Investigation of China," August 2017, available at ustr.gov. 6 Other examples of U.S. cooperation with Chinese initiatives include the U.S. sending a small delegation to take part in the One Belt One Road (OBOR) conference in May. 7 In particular, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dunsford visited China, met with the Central Military Commission, and vowed to improve military-to-military relations. 8 Or a country like Ukraine, which agreed to give up its nuclear arsenal as soon as it became independent in 1994, only to see its territory carved up by global powers 20 years later (13 years after it emptied its missile silos). 9 Please see Sidney Leng, "China shifts gear from growth to debt cuts in race against rising tide of red ink," South China Morning Post, July 27, 2017, available at www.scmp.com. Appendix Table 2Will The U.S. Attack North Korea? Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Geopolitical tensions will stay elevated. We are not changing our strategic views. So long as the situation does not degenerate into a major military conflict or escalating trade wars with significant economic damages, the impact on both the broader growth outlook and financial markets should be limited. President Trump's recent decision to probe China's IPR practices is his first direct trade measure against China, and therefore is of important symbolic significance, but the near term impact should be limited. There is enough common ground for the two sides to avoid direct confrontation. We expect Beijing to cooperate with the U.S. administration to intensify pressure on North Korea. Short KRW/JPY as a hedge against geopolitical risk in The Korean Peninsula. There is an economic case for the trade, even without geopolitical considerations. Feature The Chinese economy is experiencing a summer lull, as most recent growth figures have disappointed, albeit slightly. Exports, production, investment and retail sales have all decelerated, underscoring that growth momentum is softening across the board. Investors have largely shrugged off the weaker-than-expected numbers, a sign that the market is not overly concerned about a major relapse down the road. We share investors' optimism, as discussed in some recent reports,1 but are watchful for signs of market complacency.2 After the most recent rally, multiples of Chinese equities are no longer exceptionally cheap by historical norms, even though they are still a lot cheaper compared with most other major global and EM bourses. We will discuss Chinese equity valuations in greater detail in the coming weeks. Geopolitical risks have dominated Greater China markets of late. The escalation of tensions surrounding North Korea briefly took their toll in the past week. On Monday, U.S. President Donald Trump authorized U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer to determine whether to launch an investigation into China's alleged theft of intellectual property. Overall, both events underscore rising geopolitical tensions globally, particularly around China. So long as the situation does not degenerate into a major military conflict or an escalating trade war that causes major economic damage, the tensions should not have a material impact on the outlook for the Chinese and global economy, as well as financial markets. A short position on the Korean won versus the Japanese yen offers a low-risk hedge against a sudden escalation of geopolitical tensions in the region. Intellectual Property Investigation: The Knowns And Unknowns It is unclear at the moment whether Trump is simply using the investigation as a bargaining chip to seek concessions/cooperation from China, or to start a trade war with lose-lose outcomes. The situation needs to be closely monitored and assessed continuously. For now, a few observations are in order: This is the first direct trade measure by the Trump administration against China, and therefore is of important symbolic significance, but the near-term impact should be limited. President Trump has only authorized his administration to determine whether or not to formally investigate Chinese policies and practices. It may take a year to finalize the decision, and even longer to begin negotiations and discussions with Chinese officials for solutions and remedies. Previous similar investigations against Chinese products resulted in bilateral agreements rather than all-out confrontations. Trump's decision is based on Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, which allows the president to unilaterally impose tariffs or other trade restrictions to protect U.S. industries from "unfair trade practices" of foreign countries. This was a popular trade tool in the 1980s and was used to impose tariffs against certain Japanese and Korean products, but has been rarely used in the past decade. In 2010 the Obama administration also accepted a petition under Section 301 to investigate China's state support for clean-energy exports, particularly solar panels and wind turbines, and the Chinese government later promised to limit some of these practices through bilateral negotiations. The World Trade Organization (WTO) has ruled that taking any such actions against other member countries without first securing approval under WTO rules is, in of itself, a violation of the WTO Agreement, and can be challenged under the WTO framework. In fact, section 301 investigations have not resulted in any trade sanctions since the WTO was set up in 1995. Table 1Top Challenges Doing Business In China More importantly, we see common ground enabling the U.S. and China to work together to improve China's Intellectual Property Rights, or IPR practices. From the U.S.'s perspective, while Trump's blunt accusations on China's trade policies are not completely justified and will not solve the massive trade imbalances between the two countries, his challenge on China's IPR infringement has legitimate ground, and resonates well within the broader American business community. American companies doing business in China have long listed intellectual property rights infringement and protectionism as top challenges, especially among industrial and resources businesses (Table 1). In other words, Trump's complaints on China's IPR practices reflects corporate America's rational voice rather than a sensational rant. China's own practices are also in conflict with its intentions to build a more open and market-friendly policy environment. Indeed, China has also been making notable progress to enhance IPR protections. In September 2015, in his state visit to the U.S., President Xi promised to limit the scope of national security reviews on investment, refrain from cyber-enabled IP theft, and uphold WTO agreements regarding market access for information and communications technology (ICT) products. China's deficits in IP royalty fees has increased sharply in recent years, while America's royalties surpluses have been expanding (Chart 1). Furthermore, 90% of American firms doing business in China believe that China's IPR enforcement has improved over the last five years, according to American Chamber Of Commerce In China (AmCham China) surveys.3 In short, there is certainly room for further improvement in China's IPR practices, and the broad direction fits with Trump's expectations, creating common ground for the two sides to avoid direct confrontation. We expect China's IPR practices will continue to converge towards international standards going forward. Chart 2 shows Chinese patent applications have exploded in recent years. As the country's technology continues to advance and local businesses are growing more aware of the value of intellectual property, China will develop a keen interest to safeguard its own IPRs. We are hopeful that Trump's investigation will provide a catalyst for further improvement in Chinese IPR practices, rather than derail broader bilateral trade. Chart 1China's Widening Deficits In IPR Royalty Chart 2China's Exploding Patent Applications ##br##Will Demand Stricter IPR Protections North Korea Tensions, And Short KRW/JPY As A Crisis Hedge The escalation of geopolitical tensions surrounding North Korea briefly took a toll on global and Greater China markets in the past week. The situation remains highly fluid, and the stakes are exceedingly high - both of which will put investors on edge in the weeks and months ahead. Our Geopolitical team in their latest assessment concludes that the U.S. is not likely to preemptively attack North Korea. However, the U.S. has an interest in signaling that it may conduct precisely such an attack, and brinkmanship could last for a long time.4 As far as China is concerned, there is genuine interest among the Chinese leadership to de-escalate tensions on the Korean Peninsula, but there is no easy solution. On one hand, it is absolutely against the country's best interests to collapse the North Korea regime. Such an outcome could see a surge of refugees to its densely populated and economically struggling Northeast region. Moreover, it could also potentially lead to a strong and unified Korea at the Chinese border that is a military ally to the United States. On the other hand, Beijing also feels that it has fallen victim to North Korea's nuclear ambitions, and has become growingly frustrated by its escalating provocations. China also fears that North Korea's nuclear program could encourage countries in the region, particularly Japan, to develop their own nuclear arsenals, which would be viewed as strategically threatening to China's national security. For now, we expect Beijing to cooperate with the U.S. administration to intensify pressure on North Korea. Already, China has supported the United Nations Security Council in imposing new sanctions on North Korea last week. Early this week, the Commerce Ministry announced a ban on imports of iron ore, iron, lead and coal from North Korea. These actions may have contributed to the softened tones from North Korea since, but it remains to be seen whether the impact will be long-lasting. The upshot is that the shared interests between China and the U.S. on various major global issues mean that the risk of an escalating trade war between the two countries should remain under control. For investors, bouts of geopolitical tension will likely bid up traditional safe-haven assets such as gold and the Swiss franc going forward. Another way to play the geopolitical risk is to short the Korean won (KRW) and long the Japanese yen (JPY). The KRW will obviously suffer devastating losses in even mild military skirmishes between the U.S. and North Korea, while the JPY may benefit from any "risk-off" unwinding of the yen carry trade. More importantly, economic fundamentals are not supportive of a stronger KRW, especially against the JPY, which means the downside risk in shorting the KRW/JPY is quite low, even without geopolitical considerations. Chart 3The Won Is Expensive Against The Yen The KRW is expensive against the JPY, based on a purchasing power parity (PPP) assessment (Chart 3). The 30% rally of KRW/JPY since 2012 has pushed it to an over two-sigma overshoot above its PPP fair value. Historically the won has rarely been sustainable at such elevated levels. Korea's economic outlook remains uninspiring. Capacity utilization has continued to decline, pricing power is weak, money growth is decelerating and real retail sales growth has stalled (Chart 4). Exports have been the bright spot in the overall growth picture, recovering strongly from last year's slump, but it is unrealistic to expect the export sector to continue to accelerate if growth numbers in China downshift. Softening exports will further weigh on Korea's growth outlook. In contrast, the latest growth numbers confirm that the Japanese economy has improved notably (Chart 5). Real GDP expanded by 1% in the second quarter compared with the previous three months, significantly beating expectations. While it remains to be seen whether Japan is able to maintain its regained momentum going forward, its growth gap with Korea has narrowed considerably of late, which will also lend support to the yen against its Korean counterpart. Chart 4Korea Growth Is Set To Moderate Chart 5Japan And Korea: Growth Gap Has Narrowed The bottom line is that geopolitical tensions in the Korean Peninsula will stay elevated. We are not changing our strategic views. So long as the situation does not degenerate into a significant military conflict that causes major economic damage, the geopolitical skirmishes should not have a material impact on both the broader growth outlook and financial markets. Investors may consider shorting the KRW/JPY as a hedge for geopolitical risks. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, "China Outlook: A Mid-Year Revisit", dated July 13, 2017, and "Rising Odds Of PBoC Rate Hikes", dated July 20, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: What Could Go Wrong?" dated August 3, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 AmCham In China 2016 White Paper 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights The U.S. dollar correction is entering its last innings as investors now only discount marginally more than one rate hike by the Fed over the next 12 months. The last leg of the USD's weakness is likely to be prompted by technical and political factors. Beyond this, the outlook for the U.S. economy remains healthy, yet investors have pared down their expectations, suggesting that positive surprises should emerge. The conciliatory tone of the so-called currency manipulator report suggests that the hopes of a Plaza 2.0 accord should get dashed. EUR/GBP has downside. Feature The dollar continues to decline. Doubts about President Trump's pro-growth agenda and higher borrowing costs are creating worries about future economic growth. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin's admonition that fiscal reform may be delayed only added fuel to the fire. The reality is a bit more nuanced than this. The global economy just experienced one of its most broad-based periods of improvement in decades. Earlier this year, our global economic and financial diffusion index, based on 106 indicators, hit its highest level since 1999 (Chart I-1). This upswing caused global growth expectations to surge, as highlighted by large moves in the global and U.S. stock-to-bond ratios. Chart I-1Broad-Based Economic Upswing Has Lifted Growth Expectations Still, such a pace of improvement is hard to maintain. The handicap is even greater given one of the sharpest increases in global borrowing costs of the past thirty years. Thus, an almost unavoidable growth disappointment is currently underway, as illustrated by the sudden swoon in global economic surprises. As negative surprises accumulate, it is natural for investors to tame their growth expectations, and in the process, to have pulled down their expectations for the level of the Fed funds rate 12 months out (Chart I-2). Unsurprisingly, the dollar has corrected in the process. Going forward, the flattening yield curve and weak inflation expectations could cause market expectations for the Fed Funds rate to fall further (Chart I-3). A downgrade in Fed expectations could push the DXY toward 97 - particularly given that the greenback currently stands at a crucial support (Chart I-4). Chart I-2A Full Rate Hike Has Been ##br##Purged From Expectations Chart I-3The Source Of ##br##The Worry Chart I-4Dollar At ##br##Crucial Spot Moreover, while our dollar capitulation index is already flirting with oversold readings, it can remain in that territory for extended periods of time. In fact, as long as this indicator stays below its 13-week moving average, the dollar tends to remain under downward pressure (Chart I-5). This would suggest that the window of weakness in the dollar has yet to be closed and that a break toward 98-97 in DXY is still very likely. Chart I-5Momentum Still A Headwind For The Dollar Outside of growth considerations, politics could also contribute to a last wave of selling in the dollar against the euro. Macron, the centrist candidate for the French presidency, is currently polling 25% of voting intentions for the first electoral round this weekend, ahead of Marine Le Pen. Yet the press continues to focus on Jean-Luc Mélanchon's surge in the polls, despite the fact that his popularity gains have stalled at 19%. This means that markets may get positively surprised Sunday night when French electoral results come in as the implied probability of a Le Pen / Mélanchon second round has risen. If as is more likely, Macron, not Mélanchon, makes it to the second round, it is important to remember that in head-to-head polls, he currently scores 64% vs 36% for Marine Le Pen (Chart I-6). Beyond these short-term dynamics, the outlook for the dollar continues to look brighter. To begin with, major leading indicators of the U.S. economy still point to a rebound later this year: The ISM manufacturing highlights that the decline in credit growth may be a temporary episode (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Positive Euro Stock This Weekend? Chart I-7U.S. Credit Growth Will Pick Up The U.S. CEO Confidence survey is at a 12 year high, and points toward both stronger capex and GDP growth (Chart I-8). The soft job number in March is likely to have been an aberration, as various indicators suggest that job growth will remain perky (Chart I-9). Moreover, this is happening in an environment where labor market slack is likely to prove limited. Not only is the headline U-3 unemployment rate now in line with NAIRU, but also hidden labor market slack - as approximated by discouraged workers and part-time workers for economic reasons - has greatly normalized (Chart I-10), suggesting that healthy job creation should result in accelerating wage growth this year. The elevated level of consumer confidence along with the healthy state of household finances - debt to disposable income still stands near 15-year lows and debt-service payments are at multi-generational lows - are together pointing toward stronger consumer spending. Chart I-8When CEOs Are Happy, ##br##So Is The Economy Chart I-9Soft March Payrolls: ##br##An Aberration Chart I-10U.S. Labor Market ##br##Slack Is Limited These developments are important as our Composite Capacity Utilization Gauge for the United States has now firmly moved into no-slack territory (Chart I-11). As such, improvements in the U.S. economy later this year will give the Fed plenty of ammunition to increase rates. Thus, we think that markets are ultimately underestimating the FOMC's capacity to lift rates by only anticipating marginally more than one rate hike over the next 12 months. Chart I-11U.S. Capacity Constraints Are Getting Hit As a result, buy any further dips in the dollar. We are already long the USD against commodity currencies, but will use any weakness to close our short USD/JPY trade and begin accumulating the dollar against the euro. In terms of level, we will close our short USD/JPY position at 107 and look to open a short EUR/USD bet at 1.10. Bottom Line: Markets are revising down their expected path for U.S. interest rates, causing a correction in the dollar in the process. After a period of robust and widespread growth improvement, expectations had become lofty and a period of indigestion was all but inevitable. However, forward looking indicators for U.S. growth are still healthy. With U.S. spare capacity becoming increasingly limited, investors are in the process of overdoing their downward adjustment in future U.S. rates. Use any further pull back in the U.S. dollar to buy the greenback. Currency Manipulators On Notice? Not Really This week, the U.S. Treasury published its annual report on Forex policies for the U.S.'s major trading partners, the so-called currency manipulator report. This time around, the report was especially interesting in light of the aggressive campaign rhetoric from President Trump. Chart I-12Conditions For Inflation Are ##br##Emerging In Japan Six countries were highlighted as hitting two of the three criteria necessary to be labeled currency manipulators. These were China, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Switzerland, and Taiwan. Most interesting was the tone of the discussion around China and Japan. Regarding China, the Treasury acknowledged that the PBoC is intervening in the currency market, however not to depress the value of the yuan, but to support it. The discussion was centered on the need for China to ease import restrictions and promote household consumption in order to narrow both the overall current account surplus and the bilateral trade surplus with the United States. These would be steps in the right direction to normalize the Sino-U.S. trade disequilibrium without entering in an all-out trade war. The discussion vis-à-vis Japan was also nuanced. Obviously, Japan's US$69 billion trade surplus with the U.S. was flagged, but the Treasury also acknowledged that the country's 3.7% current account surplus mostly reflected a very large positive income balance. Additionally, the Treasury also recognized that the large surplus was a reflection of Japan's poor domestic demand and that Japan needed to complement its very accommodative monetary policy with further fiscal boost and reforms. We interpreted this comment as a tacit acceptance that Abenomics and the BoJ's policy were squarely domestically focused and that the weak yen was a casualty, not the ultimate end-goal of these policies. With this recognition, it seems unlikely that the calls for a Plaza 2.0 accord would go anywhere. Instead, we expect similar demands to the one exerted on China to take precedence: more opening of the domestic market to imports and more Japanese FDI in the U.S. With this, the U.S. will live with a very dovish BoJ. In this optic, a key development emerged this week in Japan. Two BoJ governors have been replaced by two Abe philosophical allies, Mr. Hitoshi Suzuki and Mr. Goshi Kataoka. Therefore, Japan's monetary policy will remain very accommodative going forward as the near total control of the board by ultra-doves reinforces the institution's commitment to "irresponsible" monetary policy. Most importantly, our Composite Capacity Utilization Gauge for Japan is now in the zone where core inflation should accelerate (Chart I-12). This suggests that inflationary dynamics are likely to emerge after the current wave of global negative economic surprises abates. This should result in exactly what the BoJ wants: lower real rates and higher inflation expectations. This would be poisonous for the yen. Any further yen rally should be used to once again short the JPY. With regards to Germany, the Treasury acknowledged that ECB monetary policy is out of Berlin's control, but it would like to see more efforts to boost domestic demand, and a higher real exchange rate. In other words, at this point the Treasury seems to be hoping for higher German inflation more than for a higher euro. This too is re-assuring considering the initial aggressive stance of the Trump administration toward Germany. Switzerland, Korea, and Taiwan are in slightly more precarious conditions as all have been engaging in open market operations to depress the value of their currencies in recent years. However, with the softened tone exhibited toward China, Japan, and Germany, there is a high chance that the Treasury will find ways to turn a blind eye on these countries going forward. Bottom Line: The current U.S. administration is softening its tough rhetoric on trade and it is coming to grips with the reality that it may not be able to bully its trading partners into appreciating their currencies. Instead, Trump is likely to have to be content with fewer trade barriers to access these nations, and further efforts to stimulate domestic demand, which indirectly may help U.S. exports to these countries. We see these developments as steps in the right direction that should decrease the risks currently hanging over global trade. Politics Abound: What To Do With The Euro And The Pound? This week, Theresa May called for a snap election on June 8. The market perceived this announcement as very positive for the U.K.: it will decrease the risk of a very harsh form of Brexit. A larger Conservative victory, which seems highly likely based on current polls, implies that May will be less reliant on the most extremist Brexiters to govern. As such, the U.K. is perceived to be more likely to concede on some key EU demands such as Brussels's request that London pays the GBP 60 billion it owes to the EU's 2014-2020 budget. If these demands are met by the U.K., it is expected that the EU will be less intransigent when it comes to negotiating transitional agreements. On these dynamics, GBP/USD rallied 2.2% on Tuesday and now stands above its 200-day moving average for the first time since that fateful June 2016 night. EUR/GBP too was hurt by the pound rally, retesting its post referendum lows. What is the outlook for GBP/USD and EUR/GBP? The picture for EUR/GBP is the cleanest. A quick rally next week if Macron clenches a spot in the second round of the French election is very likely, especially as investors might have discounted the positive implications of the election on the pound too quickly. Any such rally should be used to begin building short EUR/GBP positions. EUR/GBP is currently trading 12% above its PPP fair value, but it is also trading at a large premium to real interest rate differentials (Chart I-13, top panel). Moreover, investors are starting to adjust upward the expected path of short rates in the U.K. relative to the euro area. This historically has been associated with a stronger pound (Chart I-13, bottom panel). Additionally, as we have argued, the negative factors affecting the U.K. economy are well known. Yet, the stability of long-term U.K. household inflation expectations suggests that the adjustment in consumption in response to high inflation caused by the lower pound could be limited as households may look through any temporary bump in inflation.1 Finally, positioning and sentiment on EUR/GBP are extremely stretched. Historically, such extended levels of bullishness toward the euro relative to the pound have been followed by sharp sell-offs in EUR/GBP (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Real Rates Points To ##br##EUR/GBP Downside Chart I-14Investors Are Positioned For##br## Further Euro Strength When it comes to the GBP/USD, the pound may continue to rebound in the short term toward 1.35. However, the upside in GBP/USD is likely to be capped if our bullish view on the dollar does pan out. This is why we prefer to express positive views on the pound via a short position in EUR/GBP. Bottom Line: The June 8 U.K. general election is important as it does increase the probability that Theresa May will be able to soften the U.K.'s negotiating stance on key budgetary points regarding Brexit. This means that longer and smoother transitional agreements between the U.K. and the EU are likely to emerge at the end of the Article 50 negotiations. Meanwhile, EUR/GBP is expensive relative to PPP metrics and rate differentials. The risk of a breakdown below 0.83 is growing, especially as investors are not positioned for a rally in the pound against the euro. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 For a more detailed discussion of the U.K. economy, please refer to the Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report titled "GBP: Dismal Expectations", dated January 13, 2017 available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 The greenback's weakness has been a result of declining price and wage pressures this month. A weaker than expected jobless claims and Philadelphia Fed Manufacturing Survey are both indications of the current economic soft patch. However, this is a temporary setback that will do little to alter the Fed's intended hiking cycle. The DXY is currently at a crucial technical level and could face significant pressure from an appreciating euro in the run-up to the French elections. After the outcome of these elections is digested, a return to robust U.S. data will likely propel the greenback upwards as the Fed will keeping lifting rates relative to the rest of the G10. Report Links: The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Healthcare Or Not, Risks Remain - March 24, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 The euro strengthens on the back of an optimistic interpretation of Praet's speech in New York. The central banker alluded to diminishing growth risks, but pointed out that short-term risks still remain. It seems that markets have priced in the end of the ECB's easing cycle. Further lifting the euro is expectations that Emmanuel Macron is on his way to the second round of the French election. However, it remains true that peripheral economies are stumbling along with high unemployment and little-to-no wage growth, which points toward widening U.S./European real rate differentials in the longer term. Inflation figures remained unchanged in March both in monthly and annual terms. An annual core inflation figure of 0.7% implies that inflationary pressures remain muted. A bearish outlook on the euro after the French elections is warranted. Report Links: The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 ECB: All About China? - April 7, 2017 Healthcare Or Not, Risks Remain - March 24, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 On Tuesday the Japanese parliament nominated Hitoshi Suzuki and Goshi Kataoka to replace two members of the BoJ who had been serial dissenters of Governor Kuroda. This development is important as both of the nominees are known reflationists, which confirms our thesis that the Abe government is committed to support Kuroda's agenda. As the BoJ becomes increasingly dominated by doves, Kuroda will have more leeway in implementing radical reflationary measures, which is bearish for the yen on a cyclical basis. On a tactical basis, we believe the downtrend in USD/JPY might be approaching its last legs, given that we expect the dollar correction to end soon. On the other hand, a risk-off period in the markets seems probable, thus we will stay short NZD/JPY to capture investor's risk aversion. Report Links: U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 JPY: Climbing To The Springboard Before The Dive - February 24, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Cable surged following Theresa May's call of a snap election as the market became less bearish on the U.K. economy given that the election provides an opportunity for the Prime Minister to assert her power over the more radical MPs, and thus set the stage for a softer Brexit. We continue to be relatively optimistic on the pound, particularly against the euro, as we believe that the market is too pessimistic on the U.K. economy. Furthermore, the BoE has shown much less dovish than the ECB as Governor Carney has stated that they will undergo "some modest withdrawal of stimulus" in the next few years, while many members seem to be leaning towards a rate hike. Taking these factors into account, as well as the overly bullish positioning on the euro relative to the pound, we are now confident in shorting EUR/GBP. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits -December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The antipodean currency experienced significant downside amidst dovish remarks by the RBA. Highlighted in the minutes were worries associated with the labor market, with members citing higher unemployment and underemployment as contributors to faltering wage growth. As a corollary, the rise in underlying inflation is expected to be "more gradual", with headline inflation expected to reach its 2% target sometime this year. However, members also stressed the role of energy prices, which could complicate the process. An important observation is the adverse impact of Hurricane Debbie on coal production, a major export for Australia. In merrier news, China's economy outperformed expectations, achieving a growth rate of 6.9% in Q1. However, this is a backward looking indicator and likely corroborates the AUD's strength in Q1, while the recent weakness in Chinese capital spending plans and residential property prices are more accurate indicators of future AUD development. Report Links: U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 AUD And CAD: Risky Business - March 10, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 This week, kiwi headline inflation came at 2.2%, not only surpassing expectations but also reaching the upper half of the 1%-3% target inflation range for the RBNZ. This confirms our suspicion that inflationary pressures in New Zealand are much stronger than what the RBNZ would lead you to believe, and opens the possibility that the RBNZ could abandon its neutral bias for a more hawkish one. This should help the NZD outperform the AUD on a cyclical basis, given that the Australia's domestic inflationary pressures are much weaker. On a tactical basis, we continue to be short the NZD relative to the JPY, given that a China induced risk-off episode will boost safe heavens and hurt carry currencies. Report Links: U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat - March 31, 2017 Et Tu, Janet? - March 3, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Within the commodity space, CAD should benefit against other commodity currencies. Oil is likely to face relatively consistent global demand vis-a-vis other commodities, such as industrial metals, as it is more insusceptible to the "unwinding of the Trump trade". Moreover, BCA foresees an extension of the OPEC production cuts for the remainder of the year, which will support oil-based currencies. Faltering capital expenditure in China will work against industrial metal demand, further accentuating this development. Limiting the CAD's upside, however, is a stronger USD this year, most probably after April is over. Real rate differentials will evolve in favor of the USD, limiting the upside to commodity prices in general. The result will be an outperformance of CAD relative to AUD and NZD. Finally, the recent non-resident tax implemented by Ontario my cause hick-ups in Canada's largest housing market. Report Links: The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 AUD And CAD: Risky Business - March 10, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Economic data in Switzerland continues to improve as various measures such as manufacturing PMI, employment PMI and purchase prices have reached 2011 highs. These developments along with rising inflation, will reassure the SNB that the unofficial floor under EUR/CHF has been effective. Nevertheless, we expect the SNB to keep this floor in place until the end of the year, as not only do French elections pose a short term risk, but core inflation and wage growth would have to stay high for a sustainable period of time for the SNB to consider removing accomodation. Moreover, the removal of the floor would likely be gradual, as the SNB has learned from 2015 that a sharp appreciation in the franc could quickly undo any economic progress. Report Links: The Fed And The Dollar: A Gordian Knot - April 14, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Although USD/NOK has been quite uncorrelated with oil in recent months, EUR/NOK continues to be highly correlated with oil prices. Overall, we expect the NOK to exhibit weakness against the dollar on a cyclical basis given that dollar bull markets tend to weigh on this cross. Moreover, the Norges Bank will continue to have a dovish bias, given that inflation is falling sharply and economic conditions remain weak. However, on a tactical basis, it is possible that the NOK outperforms the AUD, given that base metals are more sensitive to weaknesses in the Chinese economy. Oil, on the other hand, should stay relatively resilient, given that an extension of the OPEC deal until the end of the year seems very likely. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits -December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 The SEK has largely been trading on the news flow from the U.S. and the euro area following a quiet week in Sweden. Similar to the DXY, USD/SEK is at a crucial technical spot, and EUR/SEK is likely to continue its uptrend in the run-up to the French election. Next week's Riksbank meeting is the last meeting before asset purchases end in June. As inflationary pressures are unlikely to subside substantially, we firmly believe that asset purchases will not be extended further. Nevertheless, while not shifting the policy rate, the Riksbank is likely to reiterate that a future cut is more likely than a future hike, especially as recent inflation figures have disappointed. This is likely to help USD/SEK in the longer run. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights The Trump-Xi summit offers hopeful signs that the two sides are mending once-severely tested bilateral relations. The risk of escalation in trade tensions has declined. President Trump and President Xi have different time horizons in setting policy priorities. Trump needs immediate success on trade and job creation to show to his working-class electorates, while Xi's primary objective is to avoid the "Thucydides trap". This offers space for compromises. Unless the Trump administration addresses America's "savings shortage," the country's external deficit will not change materially. Any serious negotiations on bilateral trade imbalances between China and the U.S. must deal with the root causes. Feature The summit between President Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping in Mar-a-Lago last week was hailed by both sides as an "ice breaking" success. Even though no substantive details have been offered, the two countries have formulated a new mechanism for senior-level dialogue, and established a 100-day process for addressing bilateral trade frictions. The risk still exists that Trump could unilaterally impose punitive measures against Chinese goods with his administrative powers, and it is overly simplistic to draw too much information from one particular event. However, the Trump-Xi summit confirms a developing trend: that some of President Trump's highly controversial remarks on his campaign trail are being quickly rolled back. The risk of escalating trade tensions between the world's two largest economies has on margin abated. Trump Goes Mainstream? America's China policy under recent administrations can best be described as "congagement" - an ambiguous mixture of containment and engagement by varying degrees. Trump's remarks on the campaign trail and in his early days in office suggested he was mainly interested in confrontation. But the Trump-Xi summit, along with some recent developments, implies that Trump's China policy is coming back to the middle ground, at least for now. After setting off a fierce firestorm on the Taiwan issue late last year, Trump reaffirmed the "One China" policy in a February phone call with President Xi, re-stating long-standing U.S. policy and easing a key source of diplomatic tensions. Taiwan is still re-emerging as a source of risk.1 But it is unquestionably positive in the short-term that Trump backed away from his initial, highly provocative approach. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin stated in February that the Trump administration will stick to the existing statutory process in judging whether China manipulates its currency, a marked departure from Trump's repeated campaign pledges. It is almost certain that China will not be named a currency manipulator in the U.S. Treasury's upcoming semi-annual assessment due later this week.2 In his visit to Beijing last month, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson used Chinese verbiage to characterize the U.S.-China relationship. This verbiage was not repeated by other officials during Xi's visit to Florida, so it is unclear whether it signals the Trump administration's adoption of China's idea of a "new model of great power relations." Nonetheless, it is a drastic change from Tillerson's aggressive remarks at his congressional confirmation hearings, when he suggested blockading Chinese-built islands in the South China Sea. Separately, Secretary of Defense James Mattis, on his first trip abroad to Japan and South Korea, said he did not anticipate any "dramatic military moves" in the South China Sea. More recently, Steve Bannon, White House Chief Strategist, was removed from the National Security Council. It is futile to try to understand all the internal power struggles within the new administration. Nevertheless, Bannon's departure from the NSC is probably a positive development, viewed through the Chinese lens. Bannon not long ago openly identified China as a major threat to the U.S. and predicted a war in the South China Sea as inevitable. In short, President Trump's summit with President Xi marked continued "mainstreaming" of his China policy. Some strong anti-China rhetoric from him and his inner circle has apparently been sanded off, setting the stage for constructive negotiations with Beijing. Can China Accommodate? The restructuring of the Sino-U.S. comprehensive dialogue and the declaration of a 100-day process for addressing economic frictions are probably the most tangible outcomes from the discussions between the two leaders during the summit. Further detail deserve close attention in order to map out how relations between the world's two largest economies will evolve in the near future. In our view, China is likely to make concessions and avoid confrontations. First, trade appears to be front and center in President Trump's grand dealings with China, an important change compared with previous U.S. administrations that also focused heavily on values and ideological issues, such as democracy, freedom of speech and human rights. From China's perspective, the government has a lot more flexibility in making concessions on trade and economic fronts than in dealing with ideological differences. In the past, China has almost always yielded to U.S. pressure on trade-related issues. For instance, China depegged the RMB from the dollar in 2005 and allowed the RMB to continue to appreciate after the global economic recovery began, all under American political pressure. Chinese senior officials routinely led massive commercial delegations touring the U.S. with big procurement orders for everything from aircraft to agricultural goods in order to address American complaints. Both the U.S. and China understand that bilateral trade imbalances favor the U.S. in the event of an all-out trade war, which China will try its best to avoid. Strategically, President Trump and President Xi have different time horizons in setting policy priorities. Trump needs immediate success on trade and job creation to deliver on promises to his working-class electorate, while Xi is more interested in establishing a cooperative and productive strategic standing with the world's sole superpower. Xi's primary objective is to avoid the "Thucydides trap" - the likelihood of conflict between a rising power and a currently dominant one - by convincing the U.S. to grant China greater global sway. In this vein, Trump's withdrawal from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) has been viewed as an important positive development from Xi's perspective, and it is likely that Beijing will offer incentives to further discourage President Trump to "pivot to Asia". It is already rumored that Beijing has drafted investment plans in the U.S. that could create 700,000 jobs, as well as further opening up agricultural goods imports and financial market access. We suspect these deals will be announced during the 100-day negotiation period, which should give Trump a much-needed boost in his approval ratings. Economically, Trump's resentment of China's trade practices is based on the old growth model that the country no longer adheres to. Trump's version of Chinese manufacturers - "sweat shops" operating in "pollution heaven" heavily dependent on state subsidies and a cheap currency - is increasingly out of touch with today's reality, as discussed in detail in a previous report.3 In a nutshell, Chinese manufacturers have quickly climbed up the value-add ladder due to rapidly rising labor costs, and pollution control has become an urgent social issue. Meanwhile, the RMB has been under constant downward pressure in recent years, and the Chinese authorities may welcome coordinated efforts to weaken the dollar and support the yuan. In short, China will not find it too painful to accept Trump's terms and conditions, as the "sick parts" of the Chinese economy will inevitably be cleansed regardless of pressure from the U.S. The risk to this view is that Trump finds China's progress too slow and grows impatient. Previous American presidents have come to accept China's gradualism and have demurred from punitive measures. Trump, with his populist base and promises, may at some point find it politically expedient to exact a price on China for failing to deliver the desired results on his electoral timeline. Across the board tariffs on Chinese imports are unlikely, but highly symbolic sanctions and anti-dumping measures remain distinct possibility. The End Game Of Sino-U.S. Trade Imbalances However, any immediate concessions from China on trade will do little to fundamentally change the U.S.'s external imbalances. It is well known that a country's current account balance is the residual of its national savings and domestic capital spending. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect a meaningful reduction in the country's current account deficit without lifting America's domestic savings rate. Chart 1 shows the chronic nature of America's external deficit. It is worth noting that the "Nixon shock" in 1971 - the policy package of closing the gold window and imposing across-the-board tariffs on imports - was triggered when the U.S. was on track to have its first annual trade deficit since the 19th century. Fast forward 46 years later, various attempts by American administrations have failed to rescue the deteriorating trend. Many countries over the years such as Germany, Japan and newly-industrialized economies in Asia were all singled out as conducting unfair trade practices with the U.S., but none of the bilateral and multi-lateral efforts were effective with lasting impact. A fundamental change in global trade over the past four decades has been the rapid industrialization of China. In essence, China has become the final point of an increasingly integrated global assembly line, and therefore America's chronic deficit has been transferred from other countries to China. Chart 2 shows China's surplus with the U.S. has ballooned, while other countries' surpluses have dwindled. This has put China squarely under the spotlight, replacing previous scapegoats. Chart 1America's Secular Deficit... Chart 2... From Changing Sources From China's perspective, the country will continue to run a surplus with the U.S. so long as it remains in the most manufacturing-intensive phase of its development curve, though the product mix will continue to shift from lower-value-added goods to higher-value-added ones. Meanwhile, the Chinese corporate sector will shift production capacity to even lower cost countries, similar to what Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan have done in relation to China since the early 1980s when China began to open up. Already, China's direct investment to Vietnam has surged in recent years, which partially explains the sharp increase in Vietnam's trade surpluses with the U.S. (Chart 3). In fact, Vietnamese trade surplus with the U.S. account for 15% of the country's GDP, even though its overall trade balance is barely positive. This means that America's demand for cheap consumer goods is the main driving forces for its deficit, rather than any particular country's unfair trade practices. The fact is that the U.S. has moved beyond industrialization and become a post-industrial society, where the service sector generates more wealth than the manufacturing sector. China's shrinking share of imports from the U.S. is the mirror image of America's shrinking share of the manufacturing sector in the overall economy (Chart 4). Furthermore, the self-imposed restrictions on some high-tech goods exports to China further limits American firms growth potential, as this is the most competitive segment of America's manufacturing sector in the global market. Without removing these restrictions, it is unrealistic to expect a material increase in sales to China. Chart 3The "China Factor" In Vietnam's##br## Growing Trade Surpluses Chart 4America's Deindustrialization And ##br##Shrinking Market Share In China For now, the Trump-Xi summit offers hopeful signs that the two sides are mending severely tested bilateral relations and that the risk of escalation in trade tensions has declined. Trump may adopt a "good cop / bad cop" strategy that creates greater volatility. Longer term, unless the Trump administration addresses America's "savings shortage," the country's external deficit will not change materially. Imposing tariffs on Chinese imports only pushes Chinese surpluses to other less-competitive countries; it does not bring jobs back to the U.S. Any serious negotiations on bilateral trade imbalances between China and the U.S. must deal with the root causes. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan's Election: How Dire Will The Straits Get?" dated January 13, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The RMB: Back In The Spotlight," dated March 16, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Dealing With The Trump Wildcard," dated January 26, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Global political risks are understated in 2018; U.S. policy will favor the USD, as will global macro trends; Trump's trade protectionism will re-emerge; China will slow, and may intensify structural reforms; Italian elections will reignite Euro Area breakup risk. Feature In our last report, we detailed why political risks are overstated in 2017.1 First, markets are underestimating President Trump's political capital when it comes to passing his growth agenda. Second, risks of populist revolt remain overstated in Europe. Third, political risks associated with Brexit probably peaked earlier this year. Next year, however, the geopolitical calendar is beset with potential systemic risks. First, we fear that President Trump will elevate trade to the top of his list of priorities, putting fears of protectionism and trade wars back onto the front burner. In turn, this could precipitate a serious crisis in the U.S.-China relationship and potentially inspire Chinese policymakers to redouble their economic reforms - so as not to "let a good crisis go to waste." That, in turn, would create short-term deflationary effects. Meanwhile, we fear that investors will have been lulled to sleep by the pro-market outcomes in Europe this year. The series of elections that go against populists may number seven by January 2018 (two Spanish elections, the Austrian presidential election, the Dutch general election, the French presidential and legislative elections, and the German general election in September). However, the Italian election looms as a risk in early 2018 and investors should not ignore it. Investors should remain overweight risk assets for the next 12 months. Our conviction level, however, declines in 2018 due to mounting geopolitical risks. Mercantilism Makes A Comeback Fears of a trade war appear distant and alarmist following the conclusion of the Mar-a-Lago summit between U.S. President Donald Trump and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping. We do not expect the reset in relations to last beyond this year. Trump has issued a "shot across the bow" and now the two sides are settling down to business - but investors should avoid a false sense of complacency.2 Investors should remember that candidate Trump's rhetoric on China and globalization was why he stood out from the crowd of bland, establishment Republican candidates. Despite the establishment's tenacious support for globalization, Americans no longer believe in the benefits of free trade, at least not as defined by the neoliberal "Washington Consensus" of the past two decades (Chart 1). We take Trump's views on trade seriously. They certainly helped him outperform expectations in the manufacturing-heavy Midwest states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (Chart 2). And yet, Trump's combined margin of victory in the three states was just 77,744 votes -- less than 0.5% of the electorate of the three states! That should be enough to keep him focused on fulfilling his campaign promises to Midwest voters, at least if he wants to win in 2020.3 Chart 1America Belongs To The Anti-Globalization Bloc Chart 2Protectionism Boosted Trump In The Rust Belt In 2017, Trump's domestic agenda has taken precedent over international trade. The president is dealing with several key pieces of legislation, including the repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act, comprehensive tax reform, the repeal of Obama-era regulations, and infrastructure spending. However, there is considerable evidence that trade will eventually come back up: President Trump's appointments have favored proponents of protectionism (Table 1) whose statements have included some true mercantilist gems (Table 2). Table 1Government Appointments Certifying That Trump Is A Protectionist Table 2Protectionist Statements From The Trump Administration Secretary of Treasury Steven Mnuchin, who is not known as a vociferous proponent of protectionism, prevented the G20 communique from reaffirming a commitment to free trade at the March meeting of finance officials in Baden-Baden, Germany.4 Such statements were staples of the summits over the past decade. The Commerce Department - under notable trade hawk Wilbur Ross - looks to be playing a much more active role in setting the trade agenda under President Trump. Ross has already imposed a penalty on Chinese chemical companies in a toughly worded ruling that declares, "this is not the last that bad actors in global trade will hear from us - the games are over." He is overseeing a three-month review of the causes of U.S. deficits, planning to add "national security" considerations to trade and investment assessments, proposing a new means of collecting duties in disputes, and encouraging U.S. firms to bring cases against unfair competition. Ross is likely to be joined by a tougher U.S. Trade Representative (who has historically been the most important driver of trade policy in the executive branch). In addition, we believe that Trump's success on the domestic policy front, in combination with the global macro environment, will lead to higher risk of protectionism in 2018. There are three overarching reasons: Domestic Policy Is Bullish USD: We do not know what path the White House and Congress will take on tax reform. We think tax reform is on the way, but the path of least resistance may be to leave reform for later and focus entirely on tax cuts in 2017. Whatever the outcome, we are almost certain that it will involve greater budget deficits than the current budget law augurs (Chart 3). Even a modest boost to government spending will motivate the Fed to accelerate its tightening cycle at a time when the output gap is nearly closed and unemployment is plumbing decade lows (Chart 4). This will perpetuate the dollar bull market. Chart 3Come What May, Trump Will Increase The Budget Deficit Chart 4A Fiscal Boost Will Accelerate Inflation Chinese Growth Scare Is Bullish USD: At some point later this year, Chinese data is likely to decelerate and induce a growth scare. Our colleague Yan Wang of BCA's China Investment Strategy believes that the Chinese economy is on much better footing than in early 2016, but that the year-on-year macro indicators will begin to moderate.5 This could rekindle investors' fears of another China-led global slowdown. Meanwhile, Chinese policymakers have gone forward with property market curbs and begun to tighten liquidity marginally on the interbank system. The seven-day repo rate, a key benchmark for Chinese lending terms, has surged to its highest level in two years, according to BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy. It could surge again, dissuading small and medium-sized banks from bond issuance (Chart 5). Falling commodity demand and fear of another slowdown in China will weigh on EM assets and boost the USD. European Political Risks Are Bullish USD: Finally, any rerun of political risks in Europe in 2018 will force the ECB to be a lot more dovish than the market expects. With Italian elections to be held some time in Q1 or Q2 2018 - more on that risk below - we think the market is getting way ahead of itself with expectations of tighter monetary policy in Europe. The expected number of months till an ECB rate hike has collapsed from nearly 60 months in July 2016 to just 20 months in March, before recovering to 28 months as various ECB policymakers sought to dampen expectations of rate hikes (Chart 6).6 In addition, our colleague Mathieu Savary of BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has noted that a relationship exists between EM growth and European monetary policy (Chart 7), which suggests that any Chinese growth scares would similarly be euro-bearish and USD-bullish.7 Chart 5Interbank Volatility Will ##br##Dampen Chinese Credit Growth Chart 6Market Is Way Ahead Of ##br## Itself On ECB Hawkishness Chart 7EM Spreads, ECB Months-To-Hike: ##br##Same Battle The combination of Trump's domestic policy agenda and these global macro-economic factors will drive the dollar up. At some point in 2018, we assume that USD strength will begin to irk Donald Trump and his cabinet, particularly as it prevents them from delivering on their promise of shrinking trade deficits. We suspect that President Trump will eventually reach for the "currency manipulation" playbook of the 1970s-80s. There are two parallels that investors should be aware of: 1971 Smithsonian Agreement - President Richard Nixon famously closed the gold window on August 15, 1971 in what came to be known as the "Nixon shock."8 Less understood, but also part of the "shock," was a 10% surcharge on all imported goods, the purpose of which was to force U.S. trade partners to appreciate their currencies against the USD. Much like Trump, Nixon had campaigned on a mercantilist platform in 1968, promising southern voters that he would limit imports of Japanese textiles. As president, he staffed his cabinet with trade hawks, including Treasury Secretary John Connally who was in favor of threatening a reduced U.S. military presence in Europe and Japan to force Berlin and Tokyo to the negotiating table.9 Economists in the cabinet opposed the surcharge, fearing retaliation from trade partners, but policymakers favored brinkmanship.10 The eventual surcharge was said to be "temporary," but there was no explicit end date. The U.S. ultimately got other currencies to appreciate, mostly the deutschmark and yen, but not as much as it wanted. Critics in the administration - particularly the powerful National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger - feared that brinkmanship would hurt Trans-Atlantic relations and thus impede Cold War coordination between allies. As such, the U.S. removed the surcharge by December without meeting most of its other objectives, including increasing allied defense-spending and reducing trade barriers to U.S. exports. Even the exchange-rate outcomes of the deal dissipated within two years. 1985 Plaza Accord - The U.S. reached for the mercantilist playbook again in the early 1980s as the USD rallied on the back of Volcker's dramatic interest rate hikes. The subsequent dollar bull market hurt U.S. exports and widened the current account deficit (Chart 8). U.S. negotiators benefited from the 1971 Nixon surcharge because European and Japanese policymakers knew that Americans were serious about tariffs. The result was coordinated currency manipulation to drive down the dollar and self-imposed export limits by Japan, both of which had an almost instantaneous effect on the Japanese share of American imports (Chart 9). Chart 8Dollar Bull Market And ##br## Current Account Balance Chart 9The U.S. Got What It ##br##Wanted From Plaza Accord The Smithsonian and Plaza examples are important for two reasons. First, they show that Trump's mercantilism is neither novel nor somehow "un-American." It especially is not anti-Republican, with both Nixon and Reagan having used overt protectionism as a negotiating tool in recent history. In fact, Trump's Trade Representative, the yet-to-be-confirmed Robert Lighthizer, is a veteran of the latter agreement, having negotiated it for President Ronald Reagan.11 Second, the experience of both negotiations in bringing about a shift in the U.S. trade imbalance will motivate the Trump administration to reach for the same "coordinated currency manipulation" playbook. The problem is that 2018 is neither 1971 nor 1985. The Trump administration will face three constraints to using currency devaluation to reduce the U.S. trade imbalance: Chart 10Globalization Has Reached Its Apex Chart 11Global Protectionism Has Bottomed Economy: Europe and Japan were booming economies in the early 1970s and mid-1980s and had the luxury of appreciating their currencies at the U.S.'s behest. Today, it is difficult to see how either Europe or China can afford significant monetary policy tightening that engineers structural bull markets in the euro and RMB respectively. For Europe, the risk is that peripheral economies may not survive a back-up in yields. For China, monetary policy tightness would imperil the debt-servicing of its enormous corporate debt horde. Apex of Globalization: U.S. policymakers could negotiate the 1971 and 1985 currency agreements in part because the promise of increased trade remained intact. Europe and Japan agreed to a tactical retreat to get a strategic victory: ongoing trade liberalization. In 2017, however, this promise has been muted. Global trade has peaked as a percent of GDP (Chart 10), average tariffs appear to have bottomed (Chart 11), and the number of preferential trade agreements signed each year has collapsed (Chart 12). Temporary trade barriers have ticked up since 2008 (Chart 13). To be clear, these signs are not necessarily proof that globalization is reversing, but merely that it has reached its apex. Nonetheless, America's trade partners will be far less willing to agree to coordinated currency manipulation in an era where the global trade pie is no longer growing. Geopolitics: During the Cold War, the U.S. had far greater leverage over Europe and Japan than it does today over Europe and China. While the U.S. is still involved in European defense, its geopolitical relationship with China is hostile. What happens when the Smithsonian/Plaza playbook fails? We would expect the Trump administration to switch tactics. Two alternatives come to mind: Protectionism: As the Nixon surcharge demonstrates, the U.S. president has few legal, constitutional constraints to using tariffs against trade partners.12 As the Trump White House grows frustrated in 2018 with the widening trade imbalance, it may reach for the tariff playbook. The risk here is that retaliation from Europe and China would be swift, hurting U.S. exporters in the process. Dovishness: There is a much simpler alternative to a global trade war: inflation. Our theory that the USD will rally amidst domestic fiscal stimulus is predicated on the Fed hiking rates faster as inflation and growth pick up. But what if the Fed decides to respond to higher nominal GDP growth by hiking rates more slowly? This could be the strategy pursued by the next Fed chair, to be in place by February 3, 2018. We do not buy the conventional wisdom that "President Trump will pick hawks because his economic advisors are hawks" for two reasons. First, we do not know that Trump's economic advisors will carry the day. Second, we suspect that President Trump will be far more focused on winning the 2020 election than putting a hawk in charge of the Fed. Chart 12Low-Hanging Fruit Of Globalization Already Picked Chart 13Temporary Trade Barriers Ticking Up Bottom Line: Putting it all together, we expect that U.S. trade imbalances will come to the forefront of the political agenda in 2018. This will especially be the case if the USD continues to rally into next year, contributing to the widening of the trade deficit. We expect any attempt to reenact the Smithsonian/Plaza agreements to flame out quickly. America's trade partners are constrained and unable to appreciate their currencies against the USD. This could rattle the markets in 2018 as investors become aware that Trump's mercantilism is real and that chances of a trade war are high. On the other hand, Trump may take a different tack altogether and instead focus on talking down the USD. This will necessitate a compliant Fed, which will mean higher inflation and a weaker USD. Such a strategy could prolong the reflation trade through 2018 and into 2019, but only if the subsequent bloodbath in the bond market is contained. China Decides To Reform Presidents Trump and Xi launched a new negotiation framework on April 6 that they will personally oversee, as well as a "100 Day Plan" on trade that we expect will result in a flurry of activity over the next three months. One potential outcome of the meeting is a rumored plan for massive Chinese investment into the U.S. that could add a headline 700,000 jobs, complemented with further opening of China's agricultural, automotive, and financial sectors to U.S. investment and exports. Investors may be fêted with more good news, especially with President Trump slated to visit China before long. President Trump, a prominent China-basher, may decide that the deals he brings home from China will be enough to convince the Midwest electorate that he has gotten the U.S. a "better deal" as promised. This would enable him to stabilize China relations in order to focus on other issues, as all presidents since Reagan have done. However, we doubt that the Sino-American relationship can be resolved through short-term trade initiatives alone. There is too much distrust, as we have elucidated before.13 The 100-day plan is a good start but it carries an implicit threat of tariffs from the Trump administration if China fails to follow through; and China is not likely to give Trump everything he wants. Moreover, strategic and security issues are far from settled, despite some positive gestures. As such, we expect both economic and geopolitical tensions to resurface in 2018. Meanwhile Chinese policymakers may decide to use tensions with the U.S. as an opportunity to redouble efforts towards structural reforms at home. Since the Xi Jinping administration pledged sweeping pro-market reforms in 2013, the country has shied away from dealing with its massive corporate debt hoard (Chart 14) and has only trimmed the overcapacity in sectors like steel and coal (Chart 15). It fears incurring short-term pain, albeit for long-term gain. However, if Beijing can blame any reform-induced slowdown on the U.S. and its nationalist administration, it will make it easier to manage the political blowback at home, providing a means of rallying the public around the flag. Chart 14China's Corporate Debt Pile Still A Problem... Chart 15...And So Is Industrial Overcapacity China has, of course, undertaken significant domestic reforms under the current administration. It has re-centralized power in the hands of the Communist Party and made steps to improve quality of life by fighting pollution, expanding health-care access, and loosening the One Child policy. These measures have long-term significance for investors because they imply that the Chinese state is responsive to the secular rise in social unrest over the past decade. The political system is still vulnerable in the event of a major economic crisis, but the party's legitimacy has been reinforced. Nevertheless, what long-term investors fear is China’s simultaneous backsliding on key components of economic liberalization. Since the global financial crisis, the government has adopted a series of laws that impose burdens on firms, especially foreign and private firms, relating to security, intellectual property, technology, legal (and political) compliance, and market access. Moreover, since the market turmoil in 2015-16, the government has moved to micromanage the country’s stock market, capital account, banking and corporate sectors, and Internet and media. The general darkening of the business environment is a major reason why investors have not celebrated notable reform moves like liberalizing deposit interest rates or standardizing the business-service tax. These steps require further reforms to build on them (i.e. to remove lending preferences for SOEs, or to provide local governments with revenues to replace the business tax). But all reforms are now in limbo as the Communist Party approaches its “midterm” party congress this fall. Most importantly for investors, the government has still not shown it can "get off the train" of rapid credit growth that has underpinned China's transition away from foreign demand (Chart 16). The country's relatively robust consumer-oriented and service-sector growth remains to be tested by tighter financial conditions. And the property sector poses an additional, perpetual financial risk, which policymakers have avoided tackling with reforms like the proposed property tax (a key reform item to watch for next year).14 The PBoC's recent tightening efforts come after a period of dramatic liquidity assistance to the banks (Chart 17), and even though interbank rates remain well below their brief double-digit levels during the "Shibor Crisis" in 2013 (see Chart 5 above, page 6), any tightening serves to revive fears that financial instability could re-emerge and translate to the broader economy. Chart 16China's Savings Fueling Debt Buildup Chart 17PBoC Lends A Helping Hand What signposts should investors watch to see whether China re-initiates structural reforms? Already, personnel changes at the finance and commerce ministries, as well as the National Development and Reform Commission and China Banking Regulatory Commission, suggest that the Xi administration may be headed in this direction. Table 3 focuses on the steps that we think would be most important, beginning with the party congress this fall. Given current levels of overcapacity and corporate leverage, we suspect that genuine structural reform will begin with a move toward deleveraging, and involve a mix of bank recapitalization and capacity destruction, as it did in the 1990s and early 2000s. These reforms included the formation of new central financial authorities, like policy banks, regulatory bodies, and asset management companies, to oversee the cleaning up of bank balance sheets and the removal of numerous inefficient players from the financial sector.15 They eventually entailed transfers of funds from the PBoC, from foreign exchange reserves, and from public offerings as major banks were partially privatized. On the corporate side, the reforms witnessed the elimination of a range of SOEs and layoffs numbering around 40% of SOE employees, or 4% of the economically active workforce at the time. Table 3Will China Launch Painful Economic Restructuring Next Year? Chinese President Jiang Zemin launched these reforms after the party congress of 1997, just as his successor, Hu Jintao, attempted to launch similar reforms following the party congress of 2007. The latter got cut short by the Great Recession. The question now for Xi Jinping's administration is whether he will use his own midterm party congress to launch the reforms that he has emphasized: namely, deep overcapacity cuts and financial and property market stabilization through measures to mitigate systemic risks.16 Bottom Line: China may decide to use American antagonism as an "excuse" to launch a serious structural reform push following this fall's National Party Congress. Short-term pain, which is normal under a reform scenario in any country, could then be blamed on an antagonistic U.S. trade and geopolitical policy. While reforms in China are a positive in the long term, we fear that a slowdown in China would export deflation to still fragile EM economies. And given Europe's high-beta economy, it could also be negative for European assets and the euro. Europe's Divine Comedy Investors remain focused on European elections this year. The first round of the French election is just 11 days away and polls are tightening (Chart 18). Although Marine Le Pen is set to lose the second round in a dramatic fashion against the pro-market, centrist Emmanuel Macron (Chart 19), she could be a lot more competitive if either center-right François Fillon or left-wing Jean-Luc Mélenchon squeaks by Macron to get into the second round.17 Chart 18Melenchon's Rise: Comrades Unite! Chart 19Le Pen Cruisin' For A Bruisin' The risk of someone-other-than-Macron getting into the second round is indeed rising. However, Mélenchon's rise thus far appears to be the mirror image of Socialist Party candidate Benoît Hamon's demise. At some point, this move will reach its natural limits: not all Hamon voters are willing to switch to Mélenchon. At that point, the Communist Party-backed Mélenchon will have to start taking voters away from Le Pen. This is definitely possible, but would also create a scenario in which it is Mélenchon, not Le Pen, that faces off against a centrist candidate in the second round. As such, we see Mélenchon's rise primarily as a threat to Le Pen, not Macron.18 While we remain focused on the French election, we think that any market relief from that election - and the subsequent German one - will be temporary. By early next year, investors will have to deal with Italian elections. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no clarity in terms of who will win the Italian election. If elections were held today, the Euroskeptic Five Star Movement (M5S) would gain a narrow victory (Chart 20). However, it is not clear what electoral law will apply in the next election. The current law on the books, which the Democratic Party-led (PD) government is attempting to reform by next February, would give a party reaching 40% of the vote a majority-bonus. As Chart 20 illustrates, however, no party is near that threshold. As such, the next election may produce a hung parliament with no clarity, but with a Euroskeptic plurality. Meanwhile, the ruling center-left Democratic Party is crumbling. Primaries are set for April 30 and will pit former PM Matteo Renzi against left-wing factions that have coalesced into a single alliance called the Progressive and Democratic Movement (DP). For now, DP supports the government of caretaker PM Paolo Gentiloni, but its members have recently embarrassed the government by voting with the opposition in a key April 6 vote in the Senate. If Renzi wins the leadership of the Democratic Party again, DP members could formally split and contest the 2018 election as a separate party. The real problem for investors with Italy is not the next election, whose results are almost certain to be uncertain, but rather the Euroskeptic turn in Italian politics. First, aggregating all Euroskeptic and Europhile parties produces a worrying trend (Chart 21). And we are being generous to the pro-European camp by including the increasingly Euroskeptic Forza Italia of former PM Silvio Berlusconi in its camp. Chart 20Five Star Movement Set For Plurality Win Chart 21Euroskeptics Take The Lead Unlike its Mediterranean peers Spain and Portugal, Italian support for the euro is still plumbing decade lows -- no doubt a reflection of the country's non-existent economic recovery (Chart 22). It is difficult to see how Italians can regain confidence in European integration given that they are unwilling to pursue painful structural reforms. Chart 22Italian Economic Woes Hurt Euro Support The question is not whether Italy will face a Euroskeptic crisis, but rather when. It may avoid one in 2018 as the pro-euro centrists cobble together a weak government or somehow entice the center-right into forming a grand coalition. But even in that rosy scenario, such a government is not going to have a mandate for painful structural reforms that would be required to pull Italy out of its low-growth doldrums. As such, it is unlikely that the next Italian government will last its full five-year term. Bottom Line: Investors should prepare for a re-run of Europe's sovereign debt crisis, with Italy as the main event. We expect this risk to be delayed until after the Italian election in 2018, maybe later. However, it is likely to have global repercussions, given Italy's status as the third-largest sovereign debt market. Will Italy exit the euro? Our view is that Italy needs a crisis in order to stay in the Euro Area, as only the market can bring forward the costs of euro exit for Italian voters by punishing the economy through the bond market. The market, economy, and politics have a dynamic relationship and Italian voters will be able to assess the costs of an exit first hand, as yields approach their highs in 2011 and Italian banks face a potential liquidity crisis. Given that support for the euro remains above 50% today, we would expect that Italians would back off from the abyss after such a shock, but our conviction level is low.19 Housekeeping This week, we are taking profits on our long MXN/RMB trade. We initiated the trade on January 25, 2017 and it has returned 14.2% since then. The trade was a play on our view that Trump's protectionism would hit China harder than Mexico. Given the favorable conclusion to the Mar-a-Lago summit - and the likely easing of risks of a China-U.S. trade war in the near term - it is time to book profits on this trade. We still see short-term upside to MXN and investors may want to pair it by shorting the Turkish lira. We expect more downside to TRY given domestic political instability, which we expect to continue beyond the April 15 constitutional referendum. We see both the yes and no outcomes of the referendum as market negative. In addition, we are closing our short Chinese RMB (via 12-month non-deliverable forwards) trade for a profit of 5.89% and our long USD/SEK trade for a gain of 1.27%. Our short U.K. REITs trade has been stopped out for a loss of 5%. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 For this negotiating sequence, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "A Q&A On Political Dynamics In Washington," dated November 24, 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com, and Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Geopolitics Of Trump," dated December 2, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Trump loves to win. 4 Please see Federal Ministry of Finance, Germany, "Communique - G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors Meeting," dated March 18, 2017, available at www.bundesfinanzministerium.de. 5 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Growth: Testing Time Ahead," dated April 6, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 6 The head of the Lithuanian central bank, Vitas Vasiliauskas, was quoted by the Wall Street Journal in early April stating that "it is too early to discuss an exit because still we have a lot of significant uncertainties." This was followed by the executive board member Peter Praet dampening expectations of even a reduction in the bank's bond-buying program and President Mario Draghi stating that the current monetary policy stance remained appropriate. 7 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "ECB: All About China?" dated April 7, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see Douglas A. Irwin, "The Nixon shock after forty years: the import surcharge revisited," World Trade Review 12:01 (January 2013), pp. 29-56, available at www.nber.org, and Barry Eichengreen, "Before the Plaza: The Exchange Rate Stabilization Attempts of 1925, 1933, 1936 and 1971," Behl Working Paper Series 11 (2015). 9 Treasury Secretary John Connally was particularly protectionist, with two infamous mercantilist quips to his name: "foreigners are out to screw us, our job is to screw them first," and "the dollar may be our currency, but it is your problem." 10 Paul Volcker, then Undersecretary of the Treasury, provided some color on this divide: "As I remember it, the discussion largely was a matter of the economists against the politicians, and the outcome wasn't really close." 11 We highly recommend that our clients peruse Lighthizer's testimony to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Beginning at p. 29, he recommends three key measures: using the 1971 surcharge as a model (p. 31); going beyond "WTO-consistent" policies (p. 33); and imposing tariffs against China explicitly (p. 35). Please see Robert E. Lighthizer, "Testimony Before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission: Evaluating China's Role in the World Trade Organization Over the Past Decade," dated June 9, 2010, available at www.uscc.gov. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, and Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Reports, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think," dated October 4, 2013, and "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. See also the recent Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Market Equity Sector Strategy Special Report, "The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?" dated March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report, "Chinese Property Market: A Structural Downtrend Just Started," dated June 4, 2015, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "China: Is Beijing About To Blink?" in Monthly Report, "What Geopolitical Risks Keep Our Clients Awake?" dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 At a meeting of the Central Leading Group on Financial and Economic Affairs, which Xi chairs, the decision was made to make some progress on these structural issues this year, but only within the overriding framework of ensuring "stability." The question is whether Xi will grow bolder in 2018. Please see "Xi stresses stability, progress in China's economic work," Xinhua, February 28, 2017, available at news.xinhuanet.com. 17 That said, the most recent poll - conducted between April 9-10 - shows that Mélenchon may be even more likely to defeat Le Pen than Macron. He had a 61% to 39% lead in the second round versus Le Pen. 18 In the second round, Macron is expected to defeat Mélenchon by 55% to 45%, according to the latest poll, conducted April 9-10. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights ­­The U.S. Treasury is unlikely to label China as a currency manipulator in the upcoming semi-annual assessment in April. A bigger threat is the possibility that President Trump unilaterally imposes punitive tariffs or import quotas on Chinese goods through administrative powers. The risk of that at the moment is low. The current episode of Chinese capital outflow can be largely viewed as the unwinding of the RMB "carry trade". The PBoC's official reserves have functioned as a reservoir to buffer volatile cross-border capital flows driven by short-term speculative incentives. Beyond the near term, the Chinese authorities will likely continue to encourage domestic entities to directly acquire foreign assets to improve the returns of the country's overall international investment positions. The grand trend of increasing Chinese overseas investment by the private sector will resume once the downward pressure on the RMB dissipates. Feature As we go to press this week, the Federal Reserve has just released its interest rate decision. The 25-basis-point rate hike was well anticipated, and the markets should be assuaged by the fact that the Fed does not anticipate a more rapid pace of rate hikes than it did in December. As far as China is concerned, the RMB, which has been put on the backburner by global investors in recent months, is once again back in the spotlight, as its descent against the dollar has resumed after a relatively calm period. Both Chinese interest rates and the USD/CNY have been pushed higher by the latest moves in U.S. Treasury prices and the broad dollar trend (Chart 1). Chart 1The U.S. Connection Beyond The Currency Manipulator U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin signaled late last month that he wants to use a regular review process of foreign-exchange markets to identify currency manipulators, which means the U.S. administration intends to follow normal legal procedure to decide if China is manipulating its currency. This is a significant departure from President Donald Trump's repeated campaign trail promises, and has reduced the odds of an immediate clash between the U.S. and China on the RMB. If the Treasury follows the formal process laid out in statutory law, it is unlikely to label China as a currency manipulator in the upcoming semi-annual assessment to be published in April, simply because the country does not meet all the conditions required for being charged with currency manipulation, as discussed in detail in our previous report.1 Even if China was indeed labeled a currency manipulator in the April assessment, the existing procedure does not authorize the administration to immediately impose punitive measures. Instead, the law requires the Treasury to negotiate with the allegedly "guilty" party to correct the currency manipulation and remove unfair trade practices. Even if negotiations fail, the punitive measures that the Treasury must follow under the existing legal framework are largely symbolic for a country like China. The recommended remedial measures such as prohibiting federal procurement from offending countries and seeking additional surveillance through the International Monetary Fund are hardly biting for China. In short, a "currency manipulation" charge, even if it were imposed, would mostly be a symbolic move, and the real economic consequences would be limited. A bigger threat is the possibility that President Trump unilaterally imposes punitive tariffs or import quotas on Chinese goods through administrative powers, which would be far more unpredictable and would inevitably lead to harsh retaliation from the Chinese side. The risk of that at the moment is low. President Trump appears to be occupied with domestic issues and has notably toned down his anti-China rhetoric. Meanwhile, President Xi is reportedly scheduled to visit the U.S. next month, at which time he will likely seek to improve bilateral ties. We expect both sides will try to set up a new high-level mechanism for effective communication and negotiations over key policy issues to replace the annual U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialog (S&ED) under the Obama administration. Given the numerous "China hawks" in President Trump's inner circle, trade frictions between the two countries will likely increase, but the risks appear to be pushed out to at least next year. Where Did The Money Go? China's official foreign reserves have stabilized at around US$3 trillion in recent months, compared with a peak of over US$4 trillion in the second quarter of 2014. The common perception is that the People's Bank of China (PBoC) has been fighting a constant bleed of domestic capital, and the rapid decline in its foreign reserves means an ever-smaller war chest, which will eventually force the PBoC to surrender. There has been open debate within China's policy-making circles and prominent think-tanks on whether the PBoC should protect the RMB exchange rate or preserve its official reserves. While the decimal changes in China's official reserves have been grabbing headlines among the financial media of late, much less known is China's total international investment positions. In fact, China having a hefty current account surplus means the country's domestic savings exceed its domestic investment, and subsequently the excess savings become holdings of foreign assets - the PBoC's official reserves are just a part of the country's growing total foreign claims. Therefore, it is important to have a closer look at China's total foreign investment positions to understand cross-border capital flows. On the asset side, since the second quarter of 2014 when official reserves peaked out, China's total foreign assets have continued to grow, albeit at a slower pace (Chart 2). The decline in official reserves has been more than offset by increases in other forms of investments. Specifically, direct overseas investments, foreign loans and holdings for foreign securities increased by US$503 billion, US$170 billion and US$79 billion, respectively, between Q2 2014 and Q3 2016, the latest available data points, compared with a US$792 billion decline in official reserves during the same period. In other words, the country as a whole has continued to accumulate foreign assets, but the corporate sector and households have been increasing their holdings at the same time that the public sector has been trimming positions. On the liability side, the Chinese corporate sector has been paying back foreign debt aggressively since Q2 2014, which also increased demand for foreign currencies and contributed to the decline in the PBoC's official reserves. Loans and trade credit taken by Chinese firms dropped by US$423 billion between Q2 2014 and Q3 2016. The outstanding balance of total foreign loans and trade credit at the end of Q3 2016 stood at US$583 billion, almost half the US$1 trillion peak in Q2 2014 (Chart 2, bottom panel). Regarding foreigners' claims in China, the RMB fluctuation has had no meaningful impact on both foreign direct investments (FDIs) and foreigners' investments in Chinese domestically listed securities such as stocks and bonds. In fact, both FDIs and foreign investments in Chinese securities have continued to rise despite heightened anxieties on the RMB (Chart 3). However, foreigners' liquid holdings of Chinese financial assets, cash and savings deposits have dropped by US$100 billion from a peak of US$441 billion in Q2 2014 to US$340 billion at the end of Q3 2016. This could well be the withdrawal of foreign "hot money" that flew into China in previous years. Chart 2Where Did The Money Go? Chart 3Foreign Investment In China: The Ins And Outs Taken together, the decline in China's official reserves appears less disconcerting. Chinese companies' debt repayments and foreign "hot money" repatriation accounted for the lion's share of the decline in Chinese foreign reserves since 2014. Therefore, the current episode can be largely viewed as the unwinding of the RMB "carry trade": In previous years, when the RMB was appreciating against the dollar, Chinese firms undertook loans in dollars and foreign 'hot money" also rushed into China - the tide has been reversing as the USD/CNY trend has shifted. The PBoC's official reserves have functioned as a reservoir to buffer volatile cross-border capital flows driven by short-term speculative incentives. Chinese Foreign Reserves: The Big Picture While the dominant concern at the moment is that Chinese official reserves, still by far the largest in the world, are not enough to maintain exchange rate stability, easily forgotten is that the consensus was the opposite a mere three years ago (Chart 4). Back then the prevailing view was that the country had too much foreign reserves, which was both a waste of resources and an economic burden. While popular perceptions in the marketplace always swing dramatically, it is important to keep the big picture in mind. At the onset, official reserves currently account for 50% of China's total international investment positions. This is a notable decline from a peak of 71% in 2009, but still far higher than any other major economy (Chart 5). For example, Japanese official reserves account for 16% of total international claims, 26% for Taiwan, and a mere 2% for the U.S. Chart 4Chinese Official Reserves Are ##br##Still By Far The Largest Chart 5Chinese International Assets Are ##br##Primarily Official Reserves As China's foreign assets are primarily represented in official reserves, the return of China's foreign claims is extremely low, as official reserves are mainly invested in risk-free highly liquid assets, with achieving higher returns always having been of secondary consideration. The average return of Chinese foreign assets has been hovering around 3%, not much higher than U.S. Treasury yields (Chart 6). By contrast, foreign investments in China are primarily engaged in the real economy and are able to garner much higher yields. This mismatch, ironically, has led to a net loss in China's international investment position. In other words, even though China is a massive net creditor to the rest of the world, the country's net investment income has in fact been negative, as the country pays a lot more to foreign investors than it gets from its own overseas investments. Chart 6China Gets Less Than It Pays This mismatch has been one of the key reasons why the PBoC in previous years tried to encourage domestic entities to hold foreign assets directly rather than through official channels in the form of foreign reserves. The more recent rapid increase in capital outflows from the Chinese corporate sector and households has challenged the PBoC's near-term priority to maintain exchange rate stability, prompting the authorities to tighten capital account controls to support the RMB. From a big-picture point of view, however, the Chinese authorities will likely continue to encourage domestic entities to directly acquire foreign assets to improve the returns of the country's overall international investment positions. All in all, the near term CNY/USD cross rate will remain largely determined by the Fed action and the broad trend of the dollar, but the PBoC will continue to intervene to prevent major currency depreciation. The RMB is unlikely to depreciate against the greenback more than other major currencies in a period of dollar strength. The grand trend of increasing Chinese overseas investment by the private sector will resume once the downward pressure on the RMB dissipates. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China As A Currency Manipulator?," dated November 24, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

特別レポート

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