取引

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

ハイライト ビットコインの「合成」供給が金融デリバティブを通じて増加し、大手既存テクノロジー企業によるビットコイン類似の代替通貨の立ち上げが加わると、暗号通貨市場は自らの重みで崩壊するでしょう。 今後数年で供給増に起因する圧力を受け得る他の分野としては、原油、ハイイールド債、世界の不動産、低ボラティリティ取引が挙げられます。 対照的に、米国株式市場は自社株買いと自発的な上場廃止により株式供給の減少が観察されています。 投資家はハイイールド債に対して米国株をロングすることを検討しつつ、ボラティリティ上昇に備えるべきです。 このような結果は1990年代後半に起きた状況に類似している可能性があり、その期間はVIXとクレジットスプレッドが上昇傾向にある一方で株式は史上最高値を更新し続けました。 NAFTA交渉の決裂はカナダドルとメキシコ・ペソにとって依然として主要なリスクです。 特集 供給過剰でバブルが崩壊する 価格上昇の「治療法」はさらなる価格上昇である。ドットコムと住宅バブルは完全に自然消滅したわけではない。その崩壊は市場に新たな供給が波のように押し寄せたことで促進された。ドットコム・バブルの場合、2000年には新規公開（IPO）や二次公募による株式の洪水が投資家を圧倒し（チャート1）、インターネット株の価格に大きな下押し圧力を与えた。住宅ブームも同様に新規建設の急増によって覆された。住宅投資は2006年にGDP比6.6%と55年ぶりの高水準に達した（チャート2）。 チャート1 供給過剰による崩壊：例1 Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 1 Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 1 チャート2 供給過剰による崩壊：例2 Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 2 Burst By Too Much Supply: Example 2 ビットコインは同様の運命をたどろうとしているのだろうか？表面的には「いいえ」のように見えるかもしれない。より多くのビットコインが「マイニング」されるにつれ、追加生産の計算上のコストは指数関数的に上昇する。理論上、流通可能なビットコインは2100万枚に制限され、その約80%は既に生成されている（チャート3）。しかし、表面の下を見れば、ビットコインはさまざまな「供給側」要因に脆弱である可能性がある。 チャート3 ビットコイン：大部分は既に採掘済み ビットコイン：大部分はすでにマイニング済み ビットコイン：大部分はすでにマイニング済み まず第一に、ビットコインの価値に連動する金融デリバティブの拡大は、暗号通貨の「合成」供給を生み出す脅威となる。 株式のコールオプションを売る（ライトする）とき、オプションの売り手は実質的に弱気の賭けをし、買い手は強気の賭けをしている。オプションを売るという行為自体が追加のロング・ポジションを生み、それは追加のショート・ポジションによってちょうど相殺される。さらに、特定のコールオプションを売る決定が類似のコールオプションの価格を押し下げる程度に、基礎となる株価も押し下げられるだろう。これは単純に、株式に対するロングエクスポージャーは現物株を保有するかそのコールオプションを保有することで得られるからである。後者の価格を傷つけるものは前者の価格も傷つける。 ビットコイン先物が取引され始めると、ビットコインに対して弱気の投資家はショートポジションを作り、結果として流通するビットコインの実質的な数量を増加させることができる。これは公式の発行枚数が同じままであっても起こり得る。 模倣は最大の賛辞 ビットコインの合成的な供給増はビットコイン投資家の懸念の一つである。もう一つの懸念は、ビットコイン類似の代替通貨からの競争の増大である。現在、数百もの暗号通貨が存在し、その多くはビットコインを支えるブロックチェーン技術のわずかな変形を使用している。 チャート4 政府は取り分を要求するだろう 政府は取り分を求めるだろう 政府は取り分を求めるだろう これまで新通貨の拡散は主に寝室やガレージで働く技術に精通した起業家によって牽引されてきた。しかし今や企業も参入している。営業しているらしいコダックの株価は、今週自社の暗号通貨を発表したことで3倍になった。これはこれから起こることのほんの一例に過ぎない。 フェイスブック、アマゾン、ネットフリックス、グーグルのような巨大企業が自社の暗号通貨を発行するのを妨げるものは何だろうか。彼らはすでに安全なグローバルネットワークを持っている。アマゾンは販売ごとに数コインを配り始め、消費者が新通貨で同社のオンラインストアから商品を購入できるようにすることもできる。やり方は簡単だ。1 唯一のもっともらしい制約は法的なものである：政府が自国の法定通貨への需要が落ちることを恐れて新興の暗号通貨を潰す脅威だ。数週間前に述べたように、米政府は通貨を印刷しその資金で財やサービスを購入する能力から年間約$100 billion、約1000億ドルのシニョレッジ収入を得ている（チャート4）。2 大企業が暗号通貨分野に参入すると、政府は遅かれ早かれ厳しい対応を取る可能性が高い。今週の韓国政府が取引所での暗号通貨取引禁止を検討するという報道は、その兆候である。 他にどの分野が？ 新規供給の津波に脆弱な他の分野はどこか？四つが思い浮かぶ： 原油：BCAの強気の原油見通しは大当たりだった。ブレントは昨年6月の44ドルから現在の69ドルまで上昇した。しかし今後の追加上昇はそれほど容易ではないかもしれない。当社のエネルギー・ストラテジストは米国シェール生産者の損益分岐点を50ドル台前半と見積もっている。3 現在はその水準を大きく上回っており、シェール供給は加速するだろう。これは短期的に価格がさらに上昇し得ないという意味ではないが、原油の長期的な上昇余地を制限する。 不動産：世界の多くで超低金利が住宅価格の急増を後押しした。カナダ、オーストラリア、ニュージーランド、および欧州の一部では、インフレ調整後の住宅価格は大不況前の水準を大きく上回っている（チャート5）。米国の実質住宅価格はまだ2006年のピークを下回っているが、商業用不動産（CRE）価格は新高値に達している（チャート6）。米国のCREセクター内の賃料上昇は鈍化し始めており、供給が徐々に需要に追いつきつつあることを示唆している（チャート7）。 チャート5 低金利が##br##住宅価格を押し上げた地域 低金利が住宅価格を押し上げた地域 低金利が住宅価格を押し上げた地域 チャート6 商業用不動産価格が##br##不況前の水準を上回った 商業用不動産の価格は景気後退前の水準を上回っている 商業用不動産の価格は景気後退前の水準を上回っている チャート7 賃料の伸びは鈍化している 家賃の伸びが鈍化している 家賃の伸びが鈍化している 企業債務：低金利は企業にクレジットを活用させた。米国および多くの国で企業債務の対GDP比はほぼ過去最高水準にある（チャート8A およびチャート8B）。クレジットスプレッドは依然として非常にタイトだが、これも企業債が市場に出てくるにつれて変わる可能性がある。 チャート8A 企業債務の対GDP比が##br##過去最高水準に近い 企業債務対GDP比は過去最高水準に迫っている 企業債務対GDP比は過去最高水準に迫っている チャート8B 企業債務の対GDP比が##br##過去最高水準に近い 企業債務の対GDP比は記録的高水準に迫っている 企業債務の対GDP比は記録的高水準に迫っている 低ボラティリティ取引：最近のブルームバーグの見出しは「ショート・ボラティリティ・ファンドに史上最多の資金が流入」と叫んでいた。4 Cboeで取引されるボラティリティ契約の数は2012年以降で10倍以上に増加した。ネットのショート投機ポジションは現在史上最高水準にある（チャート9）。トレーダーはここ数年、ボラティリティが低下することに賭けて巨額の利益を上げてきた。問題は、ボラティリティが上昇し始めると、同じトレーダーがポジションを一斉に手放す可能性があり、さらにボラティリティが高まる懸念があることだ。 前掲の分野とは対照的に、株式市場は自社株買いと自発的な上場廃止により株式供給の侵食を受けている。S&Pの除数（ディバイザー）は2005年以降8%以上低下している。米国の上場企業数は1990年代後半以降ほぼ半減している（チャート10）。この傾向がすぐに逆転する可能性は低く、利益率の高止まりと多くの企業が法人税減税を利用して自社株買いを加速させる誘惑があることを考えれば、なおさらである。 チャート9 低ボラティリティへの需要が高い 低ボラティリティへの需要が高まっている 低ボラティリティへの需要が高まっている チャート10 株式市場における供給の減少 株式市場における供給の侵食 株式市場における供給の侵食 株価上昇に賭ける一方、ボラティリティとクレジットスプレッドの上昇も見込む 前述の議論は、今後数か月で株価とボラティリティ、クレジットスプレッドの関係が変化する可能性を示唆している。これは初めてのことではない。チャート11は、1990年代後半にVIXとクレジットスプレッドが上昇傾向に転じた一方でS&P500は史上最高値を更新し続けたことを示している。今、我々は類似の局面に入る可能性がある。 米国でのトレンド超過の成長継続とインフレ上昇は米国債利回りを押し上げるだろう。我々は2016年7月5日に「35年間の債券ブルマーケットの終焉」と宣言したが、これはちょうど10年物米国債利回りが終値で史上最安の1.37%を記録したその日だった。5 利上げは資金繰りに苦しむ借り手を苦しめ、クレジットスプレッドを拡大させる。企業の業況が悪化し次の景気後退の時期が近づくにつれて株式のボラティリティも上昇するだろう。我々の基本シナリオでは、米国および世界は2019年後半に景気後退に陥ると見ている。 金融市場は景気後退を実際に起こる前に嗅ぎつける。ただし歴史が示すように、それは景気後退開始の約6か月前にしか起こらないことが多い（表1）。これは、世界の株式は今後12か月程度は上昇を続け得ることを示唆する。これを念頭に、我々はS&P500のロング対ハイイールド債を新規トレードとして開始する。 チャート11 株価が上昇する中でもボラティリティは上昇し、スプレッドは##br##拡大し得る 株価が上昇すると、ボラティリティが高まり、スプレッドが拡大する可能性があります。 株価が上昇すると、ボラティリティが高まり、スプレッドが拡大する可能性があります。 表1 手仕舞いにはまだ早い ビットコインはDeFANG化されるか？ ビットコインはDeFANG化されるか？ 通貨に関するクイック・ヒット（4点） 今週は4つの項目が通貨およびフィクスト・インカム市場を揺るがした。第一は中国が米国債の購入を減速または停止するという報道だ。中国の国家外為管理局（SAFE）はその報道を「フェイクニュース」と非難した。 騒ぎの中で見落とされがちなのは、中国の保有する米国債残高が2011年以降ほぼ横ばいで推移しているという事実である（チャート12）。中国は依然として高度に管理された通貨を持つ。資本流出がもはや発生していないため、中国人民銀行（PBoC）は外貨準備の再構築を始めるだろう。米国債市場が世界で最大かつ最も流動的であることを考えれば、中国が余剰外貨の多くを米国に置かざるを得ないのは避けがたいように思える。 第二は日本銀行が保有する国債の買入目標を引き下げると発表したことだ。これは既に1年以上続いている動きを形式化したに過ぎない。日本銀行のJGB買入は過去12か月で急減しており、主因は80兆円という目標が国債の年間ネット発行額30〜35兆円のほぼ2倍であるためだ（チャート13）。 チャート12 中国の米国債保有：##br##2011年以降ほぼ横ばい 中国の米国債保有高：2011年以降ほぼ横ばい 中国の米国債保有高：2011年以降ほぼ横ばい チャート13 日銀は国債買入を##br##削減している 日本銀行（BoJ）は国債の買入を縮小している 日本銀行（BoJ）は国債の買入を縮小している 最終的には、これらはそれほど重要ではないはずだ。日本銀行は価格（JGBの利回り）をターゲットにすることも、数量（保有国債の枚数）をターゲットにすることもできるが、両方を同時にターゲットにすることはできない。日銀がすでに前者を行っているという事実は後者を無意味にする。そして長期インフレ期待が日銀の目標からほど遠い現状では、前者が変わる見込みは低い。 では円には何を意味するのか。円は割安であり、経常収支の黒字はGDP比で4%に膨らんでいる（チャート14）。投機筋の円ショートも非常に大きい（チャート15）。これは短期的な上昇の可能性を高めるが、同僚のMathieu Savaryが今週指摘したように、6世界の国債利回りが上昇する一方で日本の利回りが据え置かれる場合、円が大きく上昇して持続するのは難しい。総合的には、今年はUSD/JPYがやや強含むと予想している。 チャート14 円は既に割安... 円はすでに安い… 円はすでに安い… チャート15 ...かつ不人気 ...そして愛されない ...そして愛されない 第三の項目はECBの12月議事録で、中央銀行が2018年初めにコミュニケーション方針を見直すと示唆された点だ。市場が織り込んでいるより速くECBが金融政策を正常化するという憶測がある。もしそうなればEUR/USDはさらに強含むだろう。 もちろんこれは起こり得るが、それにはユーロ圏の成長が上振れサプライズを出す必要があるだろう。それは決して確実ではない。ユーロ圏の経済サプライズ・インデックスは下落に転じ始めており、相対的には米国に対して急落している（チャート16）。米国とは異なり、ユーロ圏のクレジット・インパルスは現在マイナスである（チャート17）。ユーロ圏の金融環境も米国に比べて大幅に引き締まっている（チャート18）。 チャート16 ユーロ圏の経済サプライズが##br##下落に転じ始めている ユーロ圏の経済サプライズが小幅に低下 ユーロ圏の経済サプライズが小幅に低下 チャート17 ユーロ圏のクレジット・インパルスのマイナスは##br##成長の重しとなる ユーロ圏のマイナスのクレジット・インパルスが成長を圧迫するだろう ユーロ圏のマイナスのクレジット・インパルスが成長を圧迫するだろう チャート18 金融環境の乖離は##br##米国をユーロ圏より有利にする 金融環境の乖離は米国をユーロ圏よりも有利にする 金融環境の乖離は米国をユーロ圏よりも有利にする 一方で、EUR/USDは2016年以降、金利差の変化から予想される以上に上昇している（チャート19）。ユーロに対する投機的ポジショニングも、2017年初頭の大幅ショートから今日では大幅ロングへと変化している（チャート20）。妥当な割安感と健全な経常収支の黒字はユーロに有利に働くが、我々の最良の見立てはEUR/USDが今後数か月で上昇分の一部を手放すだろうというものである。 チャート19 金利差で説明される以上にユーロは##br##強含んだ ユーロは金利差で正当化される以上に上昇している ユーロは金利差で正当化される以上に上昇している チャート20 ユーロのポジショニング：大幅ショートから##br##史上最高のロングへ ユーロ・ポジショニング：大幅にショートから過去最高のロングへ ユーロ・ポジショニング：大幅にショートから過去最高のロングへ 最後に、今週は米国がNAFTA交渉から撤退するという報道を受けてカナダドルとメキシコ・ペソが圧迫された。ここで述べた4項目のうち、これが我々にとって最も懸念材料である。グローバルなサプライチェーンは高度に統合されている。それを破壊するものは大きな混乱を招くであろう。ある程度、トランプはこれを理解しているが、支持基盤は貿易に厳しくあってほしいと望んでおり、そうしなければ再選の見込みはさらに厳しくなることも彼は知っている。最終的には新たなNAFTA合意が成立すると期待しているが、そこに至る道のりはでこぼこだろう。 事務連絡 当社のグローバル・インダストリアルのロング／ユーティリティのショートのトレードは、9月29日に開始して以来12.4%の利益が出ている。利益保護のためストップを10%に引き上げる。2年物USD/サウジ・リヤルのフォワード契約のロングは損失2.9%で満了とし、サウジアラビアの財務状況が最近改善していることを踏まえ、同トレードは再導入しない。 ピーター・ベレジン, チーフ・グローバル・ストラテジスト グローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 本トピックに関する貴重な示唆を頂いたSHIG Partners LLC代表イゴール・ヴァッセルマン氏に感謝する。 2 グローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー・スペシャル・レポート「ビットコインのマクロ的影響（Bitcoin's Macro Impact）」、2017年9月15日付；およびグローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー・ウィークリー・レポート「フラット化したイールドカーブを恐れるな（Don't Fear A Flatter Yield Curve）」、2017年12月22日付を参照されたい。 3 エネルギー・セクター・ストラテジー・ウィークリー・レポート「損益分岐点分析：シェール企業が自立するには約50ドルの原油が必要（Breakeven Analysis: Shale Companies Need ~$50 Oil To Be Self-Sufficient）」、2017年3月15日付を参照。 4 Dani Burger, "Short-Volatility Funds Are Being Flooded With Cash," Bloomberg, 2017年11月6日。 5 グローバル・インベストメント・ストラテジー・スペシャル・アラート「35年間の債券ブルマーケットの終焉（End Of The 35-year Bond Bull Market）」、2016年7月5日付を参照。 6 フォーリン・エクスチェンジ・ストラテジー「円：QQEは死んだ！YCC万歳！（Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC!）」、2018年1月12日付を参照。 タクティカル・グローバル・アセット・アロケーションの推奨 ストラテジー & マーケット・トレンド タクティカル・トレード 戦略的推奨 クローズド・トレード

Feature It has been a Geopolitical Strategy tradition, since our launch in 2012, to include our best and worst forecasts of the year in our end-of-year Strategic Outlook monthly reports.1 Since we have switched over to a weekly publication schedule, we are making this section of our Outlook an individual report.2 It will also be the final publication of the year, provided that there is no global conflagration worthy of a missive between now and January 10, when we return to our regular publication schedule. The Worst Calls Of 2017 A forecasting mistake is wasted if one learns nothing from the error. Alternatively, it is an opportunity to arm oneself with wisdom for the next fight. This is why we take our mistakes seriously and why we begin this report card with the zingers. Overall, we are satisfied with our performance in 2017, as the successes below will testify. However, we made one serious error and two ancillary ones. Short Emerging Markets Continuing to recommend an overweight DM / underweight EM stance was the major failure this year (Chart 1). More specifically, we penned several bearish reports on the politics of Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey throughout the year to support our view.3 What did we learn from our mistake? The main driving forces behind EM risk assets in 2017 have been U.S. TIPS yields and the greenback (Chart 2). Weak inflation data and policy disappointments as the pro-growth, populist economic policy of the Trump Administration stalled mid-year supported the EM carry trade throughout the year. The post-election dollar rally dissipated, while Chinese fiscal and credit stimulus carried over into 2017 and buoyed demand for EM exports. Chart 1The Worst Call Of 2017: Long DM / Short EM Chart 2How Long Can The EM Carry Trade Survive? Our bearish call was based on EM macroeconomic and political fundamentals. On one hand, our fundamental analysis was genuinely wrong. Emerging markets were buoyed by Chinese stimulus and a broad-based DM recovery. On the other hand, our fundamental analysis was irrelevant, as the global "search-for-yield" overwhelmed all other factors. Chart 3The Dollar Ought ##br##To Rebound Chart 4Chinese Monetary Conditions Point##br## To Slowing Industrial Activity Going forward, it is difficult to see this combination of factors emerge anew. First, the U.S. economy is set to outperform the rest of the world in 2018, particularly with the stimulative tax cut finally on the books, which should be dollar bullish (Chart 3). Second, downside risks to the Chinese economy are multiplying (Chart 4) as policymakers crack down on the shadow financial sector and real estate (Chart 5). BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has shown that EM currencies are already flagging risks to global growth. Their "carry canary indicator" - EM currencies vs. the JPY - is forecasting a sharp deceleration in global growth within the next two quarters (Chart 6). Chart 5Chinese Growth ##br##Slowing Down? Chart 6After Carry Trades Lose Momentum,##br## Global IP Weakens That said, we have learned our lesson. We are closing all of our short EM positions and awaiting January credit numbers from China. If our view on Chinese financial sector reforms is correct, these figures should disappoint. If they do not, the EM party can continue. "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin" In our defense, the title of our first Weekly Report of the year belied the nuanced analysis within.4 We argued that the Trump administration would begin its relationship with China with a "symbolic punitive measure," but that it would then "seek high-level negotiations toward a framework for the administration's relations with China over the next four years." This was largely the script followed by the White House. We also warned clients that it would be the "lead up to the 2018 or 2020 elections" that truly revealed President Trump's protectionist side. Nonetheless, we were overly bearish about trade protectionism throughout 2017. First, President Trump did not name China a currency manipulator. Second, the border adjustment tax (BAT), which we thought had a 55% chance of being included in tax reform, really was dead-on-arrival. Third, the "Mar-A-Lago Summit" consensus lasted through the summer, buoying companies with relative exposure to China relative to the S&P 500 (Chart 7).5 Chart 7Second Worst Call Of 2017:##br## Alarmism On Protectionism Why did we get the Trump White House wrong on protectionism? There are three possibilities: Constraints error: We strayed too far from our constraints-based model by focusing too much on preferences of the Trump Administration. While we are correct that the White House lacks constraints when it comes to trade, tensions with North Korea this year - which we forecast correctly - were a constraint on an overly punitive trade policy against China. Preferences error: We got the Trump administration preferences wrong. Trade protectionism is the wool that Candidate Trump pulled over his voters' eyes. He is in fact an establishment Republican - a pluto-populist - with no intention of actually enacting protectionist policies. Timing error: We were too early. Year 2018 will see fireworks. Unfortunately for our clients, we have no idea which error we committed. But Trump's national security speech on Dec. 18 maintained the protectionist threat, and there are several key deadlines coming up that should reveal which way the winds are blowing: New Year: Trump will have to decide on January 12 and February 3 whether to impose tariffs on solar panels and washing machines, respectively, under Section 201 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974. This ruling will have implications for other trade items. End of Q1: NAFTA negotiations have been extended through the end of Q1 2018. As we recently posited, the abrogation of NAFTA by the White House is a 50-50 probability.6 The question is whether the Trump administration follows this up with separate bilateral talks with Canada and Mexico, or whether it moves beyond NAFTA to clash directly with the WTO instead.7 The U.K. Election (Although We Got Brexit Right!) Our forecasting record of U.K. elections is abysmal. We predicted that Theresa May would preserve her majority in the House of Commons, although in our defense we also noted that the risks were clearly skewed to the downside given the movement of the U.K. median voter to the left.8 We are now 0 for 2, having also incorrectly called the 2015 general election (we expected the Tories to fail to reach the majority in that election).9 On the other hand, we correctly sounded the alarm on Brexit, noting that the probability was much closer to 50% than what the market was pricing at the time.10 What gives? The mix of U.K.'s first-past-the-post system and the country's unique party distribution makes forecasting elections difficult. Because the Tories are essentially the only right-of-center party in England, they tend to outperform their polls and win constituencies with a low-plurality of votes. As such, in 2017, we ignored the strong Labour momentum in the polls, expecting that it would stall. It did not (Chart 8). That said, our job is not to call elections, but to generate alpha by focusing on the difference between what the market is pricing in and what we believe will happen. If elections are a catalyst for market performance - as was the case with the French one this year - we track them closely in a series of publications and adjust our probabilities as new data comes in. For U.K. assets this year, by contrast, getting the Brexit process right was far more relevant than the general election. Our high conviction view that the EU would not be punitive, that the U.K. would accept all conditions, and that the May administration would essentially stick to the "hard Brexit" strategy it defined in January ended up being correct.11 This allowed us to call the GBP bottom versus the USD in January (Chart 9). Chart 8Third Worst Call Of 2018: The U.K. Election Chart 9But We Got Brexit - And Cable! - Right What did we learn from our final error? Stop trying to forecast U.K. elections! The Best Calls Of 2017 The best overall call in 2017 was to tell clients to buy the S&P 500 in April and never look back. Our "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" missive on April 26 was preceded by our analysis of global geopolitical risks and opportunities.12 In these, we concluded that "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017" and "Understated In 2018."13 As such, the combination of strong risk asset performance and low volatility did not surprise us. It was our forecast (Chart 10). U.S. Politics: Tax Cuts & Impeachment Not only did we forecast that President Trump would manage to successfully pass tax reform in 2017, but we also correctly called the GOP's fiscal profligacy.14 We get little recognition for the latter in conversations with clients and colleagues, but it was a highly contentious call, especially after seven years of austere rhetoric from the fiscal conservatives supposedly running the Republican Party. We were also correct that impeachment fears and the ongoing Mueller Investigation would have little impact on U.S. assets.15 Chart 11 shows that the U.S. dollar and S&P 500 barely moved with each Trump-related scandal (Table 1). Chart 10The Best Call Of 2017: Getting The Market Right Chart 11No Real Impact From Trump Imbroglio By correctly identifying the ongoing "Trump Put" in the market, we were able to remain bullish on U.S. equities throughout the year and avoid calling any pullbacks. Table 1An Eventful Year 1 Of The Trump Presidency Europe (All Of It) Our performance forecasting European politics and markets has been stellar this year. Instead of reviewing each call, the list below simply summarizes each report: "After Brexit, N-Exit?" - Although technically a call made in 2016, our view that Brexit would cause a surge in support for the EU was a view for 2017.16 Several anti-establishment populists failed to perform in line with their 2015-2016 polling, particularly Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" - We definitely answered this question in the negative, going back to November 2016.17 This allowed us to recommend clients go long the euro vs. the U.S. dollar (Chart 12). Moreover, we argued that regardless of who won the election, the next French government would embark on structural reforms.18 As a play on our bullish view of France, we recommended that clients overweight French industrials vs. German ones (Chart 13). "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italy In Purgatorio" - We correctly assessed that Italian Euroskpetics would migrate towards the center on the question of the euro. However, we missed recommending the epic rally in Italian equities and bonds that should have naturally flowed from our political view.19 "Fade Catalan Risks" - Based on our 2014 net assessment, we concluded that the Catalan independence drive would be largely irrelevant for the markets.20 This proved to be correct this year. "Can Turkey Restart The Immigration Crisis?" - Earlier in the year, clients became nervous about a potential diplomatic breakdown between the EU and Turkey leading to a renewal of the immigration crisis.21 We reiterated our long-held view that the immigration crisis did not end because of Turkish intervention, but because of tighter European enforcement. Throughout the year, we were proven right, with Europeans becoming more and more focused on interdiction. Chart 12Second Best Call Of 2017: The Euro... Chart 13...And France In Particular China: Policy-Induced Financial Tightening Throughout 2016-17, in the lead-up to China's nineteenth National Party Congress, we argued that the stability imperative would ensure an accommodative-but-not-too-accommodative policy stance.22 In particular, we highlighted the ongoing impetus for anti-pollution controls.23 This forecast broadly proved to be correct, as the government maintained stimulus yet simultaneously surprised the markets with financial and environmental regulatory crackdowns throughout the year. Once these regulatory campaigns took off, we argued that they would remain tentative, since the truly tough policies would have to wait until after the party congress. At that point, Xi Jinping could re-launch his structural reform agenda, primarily by intensifying financial sector tightening.24 Over the course of the year, this political analysis began to be revealed in the data, with broad money (M3) figures suggesting that money growth decelerated sharply in 2017 (Chart 14). In addition, we correctly called several moves by President Xi Jinping at the party congress.25 Chart 14Third Best Call Of 2017:##br## Chinese Reforms? (We Will See In 2018!) Our view that Chinese policymakers will restart reforms after the party congress is now becoming more widely accepted, given Xi's party congress speech Oct. 18 and the news from the December Politburo meeting.26 Where we differ from the market is in arguing that Beijing's bite will be worse than its bark. We are concerned that there is considerable risk to the downside and that stimulus will come much later than investors think this time around. Our China view was largely correct in 2017, but the real market significance will be felt in 2018. There are still several questions outstanding, including whether the crackdown on the financial sector will be as growth-constraining as we think. As such, this is a key view that will carry over into 2018. Thankfully, we should know whether we are right or wrong by the March National People's Congress session and the data releases shortly thereafter. North Korea - Both A Tail Risk And An Overstated Risk We correctly identified North Korea as a key 2017 geopolitical risk in our Strategic Outlook and began signaling that it was no longer a "red herring" as early as April 2016.27 In April 2017, we told clients to prepare for safe haven flows due to the likelihood that tensions would increase as the U.S. established a "credible threat" of war, a playbook that the Obama administration most recently used against Iran.28 While we flagged North Korea as a risk that would move the markets, we also signaled precisely when the risk became overstated. In September, we told clients that U.S. Treasury yields would rise from their lows that month as investors realized that the North Korean regime was constrained by its paltry military capability.29 At the same time, we gave President Trump an A+ for his performance establishing a credible threat, a bet that worked not only on Pyongyang, but also on Beijing. Since this summer, China has begun to ratchet up economic pressure against North Korea (Chart 15). Chart 15Fourth Best Call Of 2017: North Korea Middle East And Oil Prices BCA Research scored a big win this year with our energy call. It would be unfair for us to take credit for that view. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy as well as our Energy Sector Strategy deserve all the credit.30 Nonetheless, we helped our commodity teams make the right calls by: Correctly forecasting that Saudi-Iranian and Russo-Turkish tensions would de-escalate, allowing OPEC and Russia to maintain the production-cut agreement;31 Emphasizing risks to Iraqi production as tensions shifted from the Islamic State to the Kurdish Regional Government; Highlighting the likely continued decline, but not sharp cut-off, of Venezuelan production, due to the regime's ability to cling to power even as the conditions of production worsened.32 In addition, we were correct to fade various concerns regarding renewed tensions in Qatar, Yemen, and Lebanon throughout the year. Despite the media narrative that the Middle East has become a cauldron of instability anew, our long-held view that all the players involved are constrained by domestic and material constraints has remained cogent. In particular, our view that Saudi Arabia would engage in serious social reforms bore fruit in 2017, with several moves by the ruling regime to evolve the country away from feudal monarchy.33 Going forward, a major risk to our view is the Trump administration policy towards Iran, our top Black Swan risk for 2018. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Assistant ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com 1 Due to the high volume of footnotes in this report, we have decided to include them at the end of the document. For a review of our past Strategic Outlooks, please visit gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 For the rest of our 2018 Outlook, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, and "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Turkey: Military Adventurism And Capital Controls," dated December 7, 2016, "South Africa: Back To Reality," dated April 5, 2017, "Brazil: Politics Giveth And Politics Taketh Away," dated May 24, 2017, "South Africa: Crisis Of Expectations," dated June 28, 2017, "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "G19," dated July 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 The outcome at the WTO Buenos Aires summit last week offered a possible way out of confrontation between the Trump administration and the WTO. It featured Europe and Japan taking a tougher line on trade violations, namely China, to respond to the Trump administration grievances that, unaddressed, could escalate into a full-fledged Trump-WTO clash. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How Long Can The 'Trump Put' Last?" dated June 14, 2017 and "U.K. Election: The Median Voter Has Spoken," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.K. Election Preview," dated February 26, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me?' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017 and "Political Risks Are Understated In 2017," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes And Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017 and "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 14, 2014 and "Why So Serious?" dated October 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Five Questions On Europe," dated March 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 24 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy We," dated June 28, 2017, "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 25 We argued in our 2017 Strategic Outlook that while Xi's faction would gain a majority on the Politburo Standing Committee, he would maintain a reasonable balance and refrain from excluding opposing factions from power. We expected that factional struggle would flare back up into the open (as with the ouster of Sun Zhengcai), and that Xi would retire anti-corruption chief Wang Qishan, but not that Xi would avoid promoting a successor for 2022 to the Politburo Standing Committee. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016 and "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 28 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 29 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 30 If you are an investor with even a passing interest in commodities and oil, you must review the work of our colleagues Robert Ryan and Matt Conlan. 31 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Forget About The Middle East?" dated January 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 32 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Venezuela: Oil Market Rebalance Is Too Little, Too Late," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 33 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise," dated November 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

特別レポート

Feature It has been a Geopolitical Strategy tradition, since our launch in 2012, to include our best and worst forecasts of the year in our end-of-year Strategic Outlook monthly reports.1 Since we have switched over to a weekly publication schedule, we are making this section of our Outlook an individual report.2 It will also be the final publication of the year, provided that there is no global conflagration worthy of a missive between now and January 10, when we return to our regular publication schedule. The Worst Calls Of 2017 A forecasting mistake is wasted if one learns nothing from the error. Alternatively, it is an opportunity to arm oneself with wisdom for the next fight. This is why we take our mistakes seriously and why we begin this report card with the zingers. Overall, we are satisfied with our performance in 2017, as the successes below will testify. However, we made one serious error and two ancillary ones. Short Emerging Markets Continuing to recommend an overweight DM / underweight EM stance was the major failure this year (Chart 1). More specifically, we penned several bearish reports on the politics of Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey throughout the year to support our view.3 What did we learn from our mistake? The main driving forces behind EM risk assets in 2017 have been U.S. TIPS yields and the greenback (Chart 2). Weak inflation data and policy disappointments as the pro-growth, populist economic policy of the Trump Administration stalled mid-year supported the EM carry trade throughout the year. The post-election dollar rally dissipated, while Chinese fiscal and credit stimulus carried over into 2017 and buoyed demand for EM exports. Chart 1The Worst Call Of 2017: Long DM / Short EM Chart 2How Long Can The EM Carry Trade Survive? Our bearish call was based on EM macroeconomic and political fundamentals. On one hand, our fundamental analysis was genuinely wrong. Emerging markets were buoyed by Chinese stimulus and a broad-based DM recovery. On the other hand, our fundamental analysis was irrelevant, as the global "search-for-yield" overwhelmed all other factors. Chart 3The Dollar Ought ##br##To Rebound Chart 4Chinese Monetary Conditions Point##br## To Slowing Industrial Activity Going forward, it is difficult to see this combination of factors emerge anew. First, the U.S. economy is set to outperform the rest of the world in 2018, particularly with the stimulative tax cut finally on the books, which should be dollar bullish (Chart 3). Second, downside risks to the Chinese economy are multiplying (Chart 4) as policymakers crack down on the shadow financial sector and real estate (Chart 5). BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has shown that EM currencies are already flagging risks to global growth. Their "carry canary indicator" - EM currencies vs. the JPY - is forecasting a sharp deceleration in global growth within the next two quarters (Chart 6). Chart 5Chinese Growth ##br##Slowing Down? Chart 6After Carry Trades Lose Momentum,##br## Global IP Weakens That said, we have learned our lesson. We are closing all of our short EM positions and awaiting January credit numbers from China. If our view on Chinese financial sector reforms is correct, these figures should disappoint. If they do not, the EM party can continue. "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin" In our defense, the title of our first Weekly Report of the year belied the nuanced analysis within.4 We argued that the Trump administration would begin its relationship with China with a "symbolic punitive measure," but that it would then "seek high-level negotiations toward a framework for the administration's relations with China over the next four years." This was largely the script followed by the White House. We also warned clients that it would be the "lead up to the 2018 or 2020 elections" that truly revealed President Trump's protectionist side. Nonetheless, we were overly bearish about trade protectionism throughout 2017. First, President Trump did not name China a currency manipulator. Second, the border adjustment tax (BAT), which we thought had a 55% chance of being included in tax reform, really was dead-on-arrival. Third, the "Mar-A-Lago Summit" consensus lasted through the summer, buoying companies with relative exposure to China relative to the S&P 500 (Chart 7).5 Chart 7Second Worst Call Of 2017:##br## Alarmism On Protectionism Why did we get the Trump White House wrong on protectionism? There are three possibilities: Constraints error: We strayed too far from our constraints-based model by focusing too much on preferences of the Trump Administration. While we are correct that the White House lacks constraints when it comes to trade, tensions with North Korea this year - which we forecast correctly - were a constraint on an overly punitive trade policy against China. Preferences error: We got the Trump administration preferences wrong. Trade protectionism is the wool that Candidate Trump pulled over his voters' eyes. He is in fact an establishment Republican - a pluto-populist - with no intention of actually enacting protectionist policies. Timing error: We were too early. Year 2018 will see fireworks. Unfortunately for our clients, we have no idea which error we committed. But Trump's national security speech on Dec. 18 maintained the protectionist threat, and there are several key deadlines coming up that should reveal which way the winds are blowing: New Year: Trump will have to decide on January 12 and February 3 whether to impose tariffs on solar panels and washing machines, respectively, under Section 201 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974. This ruling will have implications for other trade items. End of Q1: NAFTA negotiations have been extended through the end of Q1 2018. As we recently posited, the abrogation of NAFTA by the White House is a 50-50 probability.6 The question is whether the Trump administration follows this up with separate bilateral talks with Canada and Mexico, or whether it moves beyond NAFTA to clash directly with the WTO instead.7 The U.K. Election (Although We Got Brexit Right!) Our forecasting record of U.K. elections is abysmal. We predicted that Theresa May would preserve her majority in the House of Commons, although in our defense we also noted that the risks were clearly skewed to the downside given the movement of the U.K. median voter to the left.8 We are now 0 for 2, having also incorrectly called the 2015 general election (we expected the Tories to fail to reach the majority in that election).9 On the other hand, we correctly sounded the alarm on Brexit, noting that the probability was much closer to 50% than what the market was pricing at the time.10 What gives? The mix of U.K.'s first-past-the-post system and the country's unique party distribution makes forecasting elections difficult. Because the Tories are essentially the only right-of-center party in England, they tend to outperform their polls and win constituencies with a low-plurality of votes. As such, in 2017, we ignored the strong Labour momentum in the polls, expecting that it would stall. It did not (Chart 8). That said, our job is not to call elections, but to generate alpha by focusing on the difference between what the market is pricing in and what we believe will happen. If elections are a catalyst for market performance - as was the case with the French one this year - we track them closely in a series of publications and adjust our probabilities as new data comes in. For U.K. assets this year, by contrast, getting the Brexit process right was far more relevant than the general election. Our high conviction view that the EU would not be punitive, that the U.K. would accept all conditions, and that the May administration would essentially stick to the "hard Brexit" strategy it defined in January ended up being correct.11 This allowed us to call the GBP bottom versus the USD in January (Chart 9). Chart 8Third Worst Call Of 2018: The U.K. Election Chart 9But We Got Brexit - And Cable! - Right What did we learn from our final error? Stop trying to forecast U.K. elections! The Best Calls Of 2017 The best overall call in 2017 was to tell clients to buy the S&P 500 in April and never look back. Our "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" missive on April 26 was preceded by our analysis of global geopolitical risks and opportunities.12 In these, we concluded that "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017" and "Understated In 2018."13 As such, the combination of strong risk asset performance and low volatility did not surprise us. It was our forecast (Chart 10). U.S. Politics: Tax Cuts & Impeachment Not only did we forecast that President Trump would manage to successfully pass tax reform in 2017, but we also correctly called the GOP's fiscal profligacy.14 We get little recognition for the latter in conversations with clients and colleagues, but it was a highly contentious call, especially after seven years of austere rhetoric from the fiscal conservatives supposedly running the Republican Party. We were also correct that impeachment fears and the ongoing Mueller Investigation would have little impact on U.S. assets.15 Chart 11 shows that the U.S. dollar and S&P 500 barely moved with each Trump-related scandal (Table 1). Chart 10The Best Call Of 2017: Getting The Market Right Chart 11No Real Impact From Trump Imbroglio By correctly identifying the ongoing "Trump Put" in the market, we were able to remain bullish on U.S. equities throughout the year and avoid calling any pullbacks. Table 1An Eventful Year 1 Of The Trump Presidency Europe (All Of It) Our performance forecasting European politics and markets has been stellar this year. Instead of reviewing each call, the list below simply summarizes each report: "After Brexit, N-Exit?" - Although technically a call made in 2016, our view that Brexit would cause a surge in support for the EU was a view for 2017.16 Several anti-establishment populists failed to perform in line with their 2015-2016 polling, particularly Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" - We definitely answered this question in the negative, going back to November 2016.17 This allowed us to recommend clients go long the euro vs. the U.S. dollar (Chart 12). Moreover, we argued that regardless of who won the election, the next French government would embark on structural reforms.18 As a play on our bullish view of France, we recommended that clients overweight French industrials vs. German ones (Chart 13). "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italy In Purgatorio" - We correctly assessed that Italian Euroskpetics would migrate towards the center on the question of the euro. However, we missed recommending the epic rally in Italian equities and bonds that should have naturally flowed from our political view.19 "Fade Catalan Risks" - Based on our 2014 net assessment, we concluded that the Catalan independence drive would be largely irrelevant for the markets.20 This proved to be correct this year. "Can Turkey Restart The Immigration Crisis?" - Earlier in the year, clients became nervous about a potential diplomatic breakdown between the EU and Turkey leading to a renewal of the immigration crisis.21 We reiterated our long-held view that the immigration crisis did not end because of Turkish intervention, but because of tighter European enforcement. Throughout the year, we were proven right, with Europeans becoming more and more focused on interdiction. Chart 12Second Best Call Of 2017: The Euro... Chart 13...And France In Particular China: Policy-Induced Financial Tightening Throughout 2016-17, in the lead-up to China's nineteenth National Party Congress, we argued that the stability imperative would ensure an accommodative-but-not-too-accommodative policy stance.22 In particular, we highlighted the ongoing impetus for anti-pollution controls.23 This forecast broadly proved to be correct, as the government maintained stimulus yet simultaneously surprised the markets with financial and environmental regulatory crackdowns throughout the year. Once these regulatory campaigns took off, we argued that they would remain tentative, since the truly tough policies would have to wait until after the party congress. At that point, Xi Jinping could re-launch his structural reform agenda, primarily by intensifying financial sector tightening.24 Over the course of the year, this political analysis began to be revealed in the data, with broad money (M3) figures suggesting that money growth decelerated sharply in 2017 (Chart 14). In addition, we correctly called several moves by President Xi Jinping at the party congress.25 Chart 14Third Best Call Of 2017:##br## Chinese Reforms? (We Will See In 2018!) Our view that Chinese policymakers will restart reforms after the party congress is now becoming more widely accepted, given Xi's party congress speech Oct. 18 and the news from the December Politburo meeting.26 Where we differ from the market is in arguing that Beijing's bite will be worse than its bark. We are concerned that there is considerable risk to the downside and that stimulus will come much later than investors think this time around. Our China view was largely correct in 2017, but the real market significance will be felt in 2018. There are still several questions outstanding, including whether the crackdown on the financial sector will be as growth-constraining as we think. As such, this is a key view that will carry over into 2018. Thankfully, we should know whether we are right or wrong by the March National People's Congress session and the data releases shortly thereafter. North Korea - Both A Tail Risk And An Overstated Risk We correctly identified North Korea as a key 2017 geopolitical risk in our Strategic Outlook and began signaling that it was no longer a "red herring" as early as April 2016.27 In April 2017, we told clients to prepare for safe haven flows due to the likelihood that tensions would increase as the U.S. established a "credible threat" of war, a playbook that the Obama administration most recently used against Iran.28 While we flagged North Korea as a risk that would move the markets, we also signaled precisely when the risk became overstated. In September, we told clients that U.S. Treasury yields would rise from their lows that month as investors realized that the North Korean regime was constrained by its paltry military capability.29 At the same time, we gave President Trump an A+ for his performance establishing a credible threat, a bet that worked not only on Pyongyang, but also on Beijing. Since this summer, China has begun to ratchet up economic pressure against North Korea (Chart 15). Chart 15Fourth Best Call Of 2017: North Korea Middle East And Oil Prices BCA Research scored a big win this year with our energy call. It would be unfair for us to take credit for that view. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy as well as our Energy Sector Strategy deserve all the credit.30 Nonetheless, we helped our commodity teams make the right calls by: Correctly forecasting that Saudi-Iranian and Russo-Turkish tensions would de-escalate, allowing OPEC and Russia to maintain the production-cut agreement;31 Emphasizing risks to Iraqi production as tensions shifted from the Islamic State to the Kurdish Regional Government; Highlighting the likely continued decline, but not sharp cut-off, of Venezuelan production, due to the regime's ability to cling to power even as the conditions of production worsened.32 In addition, we were correct to fade various concerns regarding renewed tensions in Qatar, Yemen, and Lebanon throughout the year. Despite the media narrative that the Middle East has become a cauldron of instability anew, our long-held view that all the players involved are constrained by domestic and material constraints has remained cogent. In particular, our view that Saudi Arabia would engage in serious social reforms bore fruit in 2017, with several moves by the ruling regime to evolve the country away from feudal monarchy.33 Going forward, a major risk to our view is the Trump administration policy towards Iran, our top Black Swan risk for 2018. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Assistant ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com 1 Due to the high volume of footnotes in this report, we have decided to include them at the end of the document. For a review of our past Strategic Outlooks, please visit gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 For the rest of our 2018 Outlook, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, and "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Turkey: Military Adventurism And Capital Controls," dated December 7, 2016, "South Africa: Back To Reality," dated April 5, 2017, "Brazil: Politics Giveth And Politics Taketh Away," dated May 24, 2017, "South Africa: Crisis Of Expectations," dated June 28, 2017, "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "G19," dated July 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 The outcome at the WTO Buenos Aires summit last week offered a possible way out of confrontation between the Trump administration and the WTO. It featured Europe and Japan taking a tougher line on trade violations, namely China, to respond to the Trump administration grievances that, unaddressed, could escalate into a full-fledged Trump-WTO clash. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How Long Can The 'Trump Put' Last?" dated June 14, 2017 and "U.K. Election: The Median Voter Has Spoken," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.K. Election Preview," dated February 26, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me?' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017 and "Political Risks Are Understated In 2017," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes And Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017 and "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 14, 2014 and "Why So Serious?" dated October 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Five Questions On Europe," dated March 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 24 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy We," dated June 28, 2017, "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 25 We argued in our 2017 Strategic Outlook that while Xi's faction would gain a majority on the Politburo Standing Committee, he would maintain a reasonable balance and refrain from excluding opposing factions from power. We expected that factional struggle would flare back up into the open (as with the ouster of Sun Zhengcai), and that Xi would retire anti-corruption chief Wang Qishan, but not that Xi would avoid promoting a successor for 2022 to the Politburo Standing Committee. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016 and "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 28 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 29 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 30 If you are an investor with even a passing interest in commodities and oil, you must review the work of our colleagues Robert Ryan and Matt Conlan. 31 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Forget About The Middle East?" dated January 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 32 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Venezuela: Oil Market Rebalance Is Too Little, Too Late," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 33 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise," dated November 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Growth in the Taiwanese economy has trended sideways this year, but a budding turnaround in weak domestic demand suggests that growth should improve in 2018. The appreciation of the TWD from its 2016 low reflects investor inflows rather than bullish fundamentals. The risk of a protectionist backlash means that monetary authorities are reluctant to intervene aggressively to limit the rise. We recommend that investors stick with our existing long MSCI China / short Taiwan trade, for now. A breakout in relative Taiwanese tech sector performance coupled with a weakening TWD would likely be a sufficient basis to close the trade at a healthy profit. Feature We last wrote about Taiwan in February of this year,1 when the risk of protectionist action from the Trump administration loomed large. While there have been no negative trade actions levied against Taiwan this year, macro factors, particularly the strength of the currency, continue to argue for an underweight stance within the greater China bourses (China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan). Our long MSCI China / short Taiwan trade has generated an impressive 19% return since its inception in February. The trade has become significantly overbought, but we recommend that investors stick with it, for now. A material easing in pressure on Taiwan's trade-weighted exchange rate appears to be the most likely catalyst to close the trade and to upgrade Taiwan within a portfolio of greater China equities. The Taiwanese Economy In 2017: What Has Changed? Real GDP growth in Taiwan has generally trended sideways in 2017, decelerating in the first half of the year and then recovering in the third quarter (Chart 1). While these fluctuations in its growth profile have been somewhat muted, overall GDP growth has masked a sizeable divergence between domestic demand and export growth. Taiwan is a highly trade-oriented economy, with exports of goods & services accounting for nearly 65% for its GDP, and a recent acceleration in real export volume has positively contributed to overall growth. Over 50% of Taiwan's exports are tech-based, and Chart 1 panel 2 highlights the close link between global semiconductor sales (which have risen sharply over the past year) and Taiwanese nominal exports. But as Chart 1 panel 3 shows, growth in real domestic demand has fallen back into contractionary territory, driven largely by a sharp decline in gross fixed capital formation. This decline in investment is somewhat surprising, given the close historical relationship between Taiwan's real exports and investment (Chart 2, panel 1). But the sharp drop may have been a lagged response to the export shock that occurred during the synchronized global growth slowdown in 2015, as it led to a non-trivial accumulation of inventory (Chart 2, panel 2). The recent acceleration of export growth and a renewed draw in inventories suggests that the severe pullback in investment is likely to reverse in the coming year. Chart 1A Divergence Between Domestic Demand##br## And Exports Chart 2Investment Likely To Rebound Over ##br##The Coming Year The evolution of Taiwanese capital goods imports is likely to provide an important confirming signal about the trend in real investment, given the close historical correlation between the two series. For now, the growth in capital goods imports is rebounding from negative territory (Chart 3), which is consistent with the view that investment is set to recover. Finally, while real consumer spending growth also decelerated in the first half of the year, the acceleration in Q3 has brought consumption back to its 5-year moving average. More importantly, Chart 4 highlights that the consumer confidence index in Taiwan is closely correlated with real spending, with the former heralding a rise in the latter over the coming months. Chart 3Capital Goods Signal An Investment Recovery Chart 4Consumption Also Set To Improve Bottom Line: Growth in the Taiwanese economy has trended sideways this year, but a budding turnaround in weak domestic demand suggests that growth should improve in 2018. The Taiwanese Dollar: Driven By Flows, Not Fundamentals Taiwanese stock prices have underperformed Greater China bourses since the beginning of the year (Chart 5), despite the recent improvement in real export growth and signs of an impending improvement in domestic demand. To us, this underperformance has been largely caused by the strength in the Taiwanese currency. The Taiwanese dollar has appreciated since early-2016, both against the U.S. dollar and in trade-weighted terms (Chart 6). Although the currency retreated from May to August of this year, it has since resumed its uptrend and currently stands between 8-9% higher than last year's low in trade-weighted terms. Chart 5Significant Underperformance Of ##br##Taiwan Vs Greater China Chart 6Material Currency Appreciation##br## Since Early-2016 Crucially, Chart 7 highlights that the rise in the TWD cannot be explained by relative monetary policy or by an improvement in the terms of trade. The chart shows how the USD/TWD began to decouple from the relative 2-year swap rate spread in early-2016, and how the trend in Taiwan's export price index has been negatively correlated with the trade-weighted exchange rate. The best explanation for the recent strength in Taiwan's currency appears to be a surge in capital inflows oriented towards Taiwan's equity market (Chart 8). Foreign ownership of Taiwanese stocks has increased significantly over the past few years and is currently at a record high of 43%. Given that Taiwan's equity market is enormously tech-focused, it appears that global investors have been attracted to Taiwanese stocks as part of a play on the global tech rally. As we will discuss below, this has become somewhat of a self-defeating strategy, at least in terms of Taiwan's relative performance vs Greater China bourses. While it is possible that monetary authorities will attempt to combat the appreciation of the Taiwanese dollar, Chart 9 highlights that there is little room to maneuver. First, Taiwan's policy rate of 1.375% is already extremely low, and is only 12.5 bps above the level that prevailed during the worst of the global financial crisis. Second, panels 2 and 3 suggests that while past central bank intervention was successful at depreciating the TWD, monetary authorities also seem reluctant to allow Taiwan to be labeled as a currency manipulator. Our proxy for central bank intervention is the rolling 3-month average daily depreciation in TWD/USD in the first 30 minutes of aftermarket trading, a period that the central bank has historically used to intervene in the foreign exchange market. The chart shows that periods of intervention have been associated with a subsequent decline in TWD/USD, but that intervention durably ended once Taiwan was added to the U.S. Treasury's watch list of potential currency manipulators (first vertical line). Taiwan was removed from the watch list in October of this year (second vertical line), after central bank intervention ceased. Chart 7Currency Strength Not Supported ##br##By Fundamentals Chart 8Equity-Oriented Capital Inflows##br## Are Pushing Up The TWD Chart 9Little Room For Policy ##br##To Push Down The Exchange Rate Bottom Line: The appreciation of the TWD from its 2016 low reflects investor inflows rather than bullish fundamentals. While there is scope for further central bank intervention to help depreciate the currency, the risk of a protectionist backlash means that monetary authorities are reluctant to act. The Relative Outlook For Taiwanese Equities Table 1 presents a simple performance attribution analysis for Taiwan's year-to-date stock returns relative to Greater China bourses,2 in an attempt to answer the following question: Has Taiwan underperformed because it is underweight sectors that have outperformed, or because its highly-weighted sectors underperformed? To test this question we calculate a "hypothetical" return for the Taiwanese stock market, which shows what would have occurred if Taiwan's tech and ex-tech sectors had earned the benchmark return instead of their own. Table 1Taiwan's Poor Performance This Year Is Due To Its Tech Sector The table clearly shows that Taiwan would have substantially outperformed Greater China in this hypothetical scenario, underscoring that its sector weighting is not the source of the underperformance. While both Taiwan's tech and ex-tech indexes underperformed those of Greater China, it is apparent that most of the gap in performance can be linked to Taiwan's tech sector. Tech accounts for roughly 60% of Taiwan's equity market capitalization, and the sector significantly underperformed Greater China tech this year. Chart 10 highlights that Taiwan's tech sector underperformance is significantly explained by the rise in Taiwan's trade-weighted currency. Panels 2 & 3 of the chart shows Taiwan's rolling 1-year tech sector beta and alpha vs Greater China tech, both compared with the (inverted) year-over-year percent change in the trade-weighted exchange rate. Here, we define alpha using Jensen's measure, which is the difference between Taiwan's tech sector price return and what would have been expected given its beta and Greater China's tech sector performance. The chart clearly shows that the sharp rise in Taiwan's trade-weighted exchange rate caused both a decline in Taiwan's tech sector beta (from a historical average of about 1) as well as a significantly negative alpha over the past year. Chart 10, in combination with the currency-driven downtrend in Taiwan's export prices shown in Chart 7, suggests that Taiwan's equity market has suffered in relative terms due to the outsized appreciation in its currency. This is somewhat ironic, as we noted above that the currency appreciation itself appears to be caused by capital inflow oriented towards Taiwan's tech sector, meaning that global investors have inadvertently contributed to Taiwan's equity market underperformance relative to Greater China bourses. Looking forward, there are cross-currents affecting the outlook for Taiwanese stock prices. Chart 11 shows that technical conditions and relative valuation argue against maintaining an underweight stance; Taiwanese stocks are heavily oversold vs Greater China, and have de-rated in relative terms since the beginning of the year. Taiwanese tech in particular is quite cheap in relative terms. In addition, panel 1 of Chart 10 suggests that Taiwanese tech (in relative terms) may have undershot the appreciation in the currency. Chart 10Taiwan's Tech Underperformance Is Explained By Currency Appreciation Chart 11Taiwan Vs China: Oversold, And Cheaper Than Usual However, Taiwan's tech sector is mostly made up of the semiconductors & semiconductor equipment industry group, and there are signs that the growth rate in global semiconductor sales is in the process of peaking. Chart 12 illustrates the close correlation between the growth of global semi sales and Taiwan's absolute 12-month forward earnings per share, with the recent gap likely having occurred due to the currency impact noted above. The chart suggests that earnings expectations for Taiwan are highly unlikely to accelerate if semi sales growth slows, meaning that Taiwanese stocks, particularly the tech sector, currently lack a catalyst to re-rate. Chart12Taiwan Is Lacking A Re-Rating Catalyst From our perspective, a lasting depreciation in the currency appears to be the most likely catalyst for a re-rating, as it would increase the odds that the relationship shown in Chart 10 would durably recouple. Until then, any exogenous rebound in relative tech sector performance is likely to be met with a self-limiting TWD appreciation. Bottom Line: We recommend that investors, for now, stick with our existing long MSCI China / short Taiwan trade. However, a breakout in relative Taiwanese tech sector performance coupled with a weakening TWD would likely cause us to close the trade, and upgrade Taiwanese stocks to at least neutral within a greater China equity portfolio. Stay tuned. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Assistant linx@bcaresearch.com 1 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Taiwan's 'Trump' Risk", dated February 2, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 We use MSCI's Golden Dragon index to represent Greater China, which includes China investable, Hong Kong, and Taiwanese stocks. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Overstated geopolitical risks in 2017 are giving way to understated risks in 2018; The reshuffle of China's government raises policy headwinds for global growth and EM assets; U.S. politics will be roiled by a leftward turn and Trump's protectionism and foreign policy; Italian politics, more than German, is the chief threat to European risk assets; Volatility and the USD will rise; shift to neutral on European risk assets; close tactical long on Chinese Big Banks. Feature BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has operated this year on a high conviction view that geopolitical risks would be overstated, thus generating considerable upside for risk assets. Our analysis focused on three particular "red herrings": European populism, U.S. politics, and Brexit.1 Meanwhile we identified North Korea as a genuine geopolitical risk, though not one that would cause us to change our "risk on" outlook. We therefore take issue - and perhaps offense - with the contemporary narrative that "geopolitics did not matter" in a year when the S&P 500 rose by 15% and VIX plumbed historic lows (Chart 1). Stocks rose and the VIX stayed muted precisely because geopolitical risks were overstated earlier in the year. Investors who correctly assessed the balance of geopolitical risks and opportunities would have known to "buy in May and enjoy your day."2 At the same time that we encouraged investors to load up on risk this year, we cautioned that 2018 would be a challenging year.3 Three themes are now coming into focus as 2017 draws to a close: Politics has become a headwind to growth in China as Beijing intensifies deleveraging and structural reforms; U.S. fiscal and monetary policy favor the USD, which will reignite trade protectionism from Washington D.C.; Italian elections may reignite Euro Area breakup risk. In this report, we update our view on these three risks. Data out of China are particularly concerning: broad money (M3) growth has decelerated sharply with negative implications for the economy (Chart 2).4 M3 is at last ticking up but the consequences of its steep drop have not yet translated to the economy. Our message to clients since 2016 has been that the nineteenth Party Congress would mark a turning point in President Xi Jinping's tenure, that he would see his political capital replenished, and that Beijing's pain threshold would therefore rise appreciably in 2018. Hence we do not expect any new stimulus to be quick in coming or very large. Chart 1Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day Chart 2China's Money Impulse Spells Slowdown What happens in China will not stay in China. Signs of cracks are emerging in the buoyant global growth narrative (Chart 3), with potentially serious consequences for emerging markets (EM) (Chart 4).5 Chart 3Signs Of Cracks Forming Chart 4EM Manufacturing: Rolling Over China: Ramping Up For The New Year Crackdown The aftermath of the Communist Party's nineteenth National Party Congress is unfolding largely as we expected: with a reboot of President Xi Jinping's reform agenda. Chinese economic data are starting to reflect the consequences of tighter policy since late last year (Chart 5), and BCA's China Investment Strategy has shown consumer-oriented sectors outperforming industrials and materials since the party congress, as the reform drive would have one expect.6 China's policymakers have already allowed the monetary impulse - the rate of growth in the supply of money - to slow to the lowest levels in recent memory. This bodes ill for Chinese imports and base metal prices (Chart 6), as BCA's Emerging Market Strategy has emphasized.7 Chart 5Expect More Disappointments From China Chart 6Chinese Imports And Base Metals At Risk It is true that policymakers will re-stimulate the economy when they reach their pain threshold, but with Xi Jinping's political capital replenished and the party and state unified under him, we expect that threshold to have moved higher than financial markets expect. Yes, the government will try to prevent its policies from being highly disruptive and destabilizing - as with the People's Bank of China injecting liquidity to ease rapidly rising bond yields (Chart 7) - but the bottom line is that it is pressing forward with tightening. How can we be so sure that this policy trajectory is set? The initiatives in the early stages of implementation after the congress confirm our view that the central government is hardening the line on several key economic-political fronts: Financial regulatory overhaul: People's Bank Governor Zhou Xiaochuan has made a series of dire comments about China's financial risks and the danger that it is reaching a "Minsky Moment," or accumulation of risks that will end in a catastrophe.8 Zhou's likeliest replacements are both financial reformers, and one of them, Guo Shuqing, is the hawkish regulator who has led the crackdown on shadow lending this year (Chart 8). Moreover, whoever heads the central bank will have the benefit of new financial oversight capabilities. The Financial Stability and Development Commission (FSDC), a new entity charged with coordinating the country's various financial regulatory agencies, has just held its first meeting. Its inaugural chairman, Vice-Premier Ma Kai, is likely to retire soon, but rumors are swirling that his replacement will be Liu He, President Xi's top economic thinker and a reformist, who wrote an ominous article about excessive leverage in the People's Daily in May 2016 and has now made it onto the Politburo. If Liu He takes charge, given his very close relationship with Xi, the FSDC will be irresistible. If not, the FSDC will still be effective, judging by the fact that Ma Kai's replacement will likely be someone, like Ma, who sits on both the Politburo and State Council. Chart 7China's Bond Yields Rising Sharply Chart 8Shadow Banking Has Peaked Local government crackdown: Local government officials in two cities in Inner Mongolia have canceled urban metro projects due to excessive debt, reportedly under orders from the central government. Other cities in other provinces have suggested that approvals for such projects are being delayed.9 In other words, the central government is no longer endlessly accommodating debt-financed local government projects, even projects that support priority goals like urbanization and interior development. This news, so soon after the party congress, is likely to be the tip of the iceberg, which suggests that local government spending cannot be assumed to shake off its weakening trend anytime soon (Chart 9). Top officials pointed out local government leverage as a systemic risk, along with shadow banking, at the National Financial Work Conference in July, and both the outgoing finance minister and the outgoing central bank chief have called for reining in local governments. The latter's comments were formally endorsed by being included in the Communist Party's official "party congress study guide," suggesting that they are more than just the parting advice of a soon-to-be retiree. Property tightening: China's real estate sector, which provides 22% of investment in the country, is feeling the squeeze from financial tightening and targeted measures to drive out speculation since October 2016 (Chart 10). More, not less, of a squeeze is expected in both the short and long term. In the short term, inspections of commercial housing for corruption and speculative excesses could exert an additional dampening effect. In the medium and long term, the Xi administration plans to roll out a nationwide property tax, according to Huang Qifan, an economic policymaker tied to the legislature, "in the near future, not ... 10-20 years. It could happen in the next several years."10 The tax was delayed in 2016 amid economic turmoil. A national property tax would be an important fiscal reform that would tamp down on the asset bubble, rebalance the growth model, and enable the government to redistribute wealth from multiple homeowners to lower income groups. Chart 9Local Government Spending Is Weak Chart 10Property Tightening Continues Industrial restructuring: Environmental curbs on outdated and excess industrial capacity are continuing. Although China aggressively cut overcapacity in coal, steel and other sub-sectors over the past twelve months, it continues to face larger overcapacity than other economies (Chart 11), particularly in glass, cement, chemical fertilizers, electricity generation and home construction. It is also possible that SOE restructuring will become more aggressive. Currently, SOEs listed on the Shanghai exchange are rallying relative to the A-share market, as they have tended to do when the Communist Party reaffirms its backing of the state sector (Chart 12). However, announcements of SOE reforms in this administration have also triggered phases of under-performance. SOEs targeted for reforms face greater scrutiny of their finances and operations.11 Moreover, any SOE is vulnerable to the new wave of the anti-corruption campaign.12 National Supervision Commission: The new anti-corruption czar, Zhao Leji, will be a very influential figure if he is even to hold a candle to his predecessor, Wang Qishan. Zhao is to oversee the creation of a nationwide anti-corruption system that targets not only the Communist Party, as before, but every public official. The new commission will have branches at each level of administration (city, province, central government) and will combine the various existing anti-corruption agencies under one head. The purpose is not merely to root out political enemies (as administration critics, with some justice, would argue) but also to improve the effectiveness of policy implementation and address public grievances that threaten to undermine the regime. The latest environmental curbs have shown that employing anti-corruption teams to help enforce broader economic policy can be highly effective. Xi and Zhao Leji look set to extend this practice to state ministries, including financial regulators.13 It is not clear whether they will succeed in rebuilding the regime's legitimacy in public eyes, but in the short term an initiative like this should send a chilling effect throughout the state bureaucracy, similar to that which occurred among local government party chiefs in 2014 after the initial anti-corruption campaign was launched.14 Chart 11Overcapacity Still A Problem For China Chart 12SOEs Preserved, But Face Reforms In short, preparations are under way for Xi's second five-year term in office. (Perhaps not his last term, as the party congress also made clear.)15 New agencies and personnel suggest that the administration is embarking on an intensification of policy tightening. Tougher policy is viewed as necessary, not optional: top leadership has repeatedly stated that a lack of action on systemic threats will lead to regime-threatening crises down the road.16 Chart 13China's Impact On Global Growth How will this agenda impact the rest of the world? Our colleagues at China Investment Strategy hold that China may step up reforms but will not do so in a way that will negatively impact China's imports or key assets like base metal prices.17 However, from a political perspective, we view the combination of Xi's political capital with the new financial and anti-corruption commissions as likely to increase policy effectiveness to an extent that causes banks to lend less eagerly and local governments and SOEs to err on the side of less borrowing and spending. This will reduce demand for imports and commodities and will also raise the tail-risk of excessive tightening. China's contribution to global growth had fallen over the years, but has recently rebounded on the back of stimulus in 2015-16 (Chart 13). As such, it will not take much of a drag on import growth in 2018 to have a global impact. The most exposed commodity exporters to China (outside of oil) are Brazil, Chile and Peru (with Indonesia and South Africa also at risk), while the most exposed exporters of capital goods are Taiwan and South Korea, followed by Southeast Asia (the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand). Looking at the China-exposed countries whose stocks rallied the most while China stimulated in 2016, the prime candidates for a negative impact in 2018 will be Brazil and Peru, and less so Hungary and Thailand. Bottom Line: The Xi administration is rebooting its reform agenda and has a higher tolerance for pain than the market yet realizes. Centralization, deleveraging and industrial restructuring have been deemed necessary to secure the long-term stability of the regime. China's policy risks are understated and the next wave of stimulus will not be as rapidly forthcoming as financial markets expect. U.S.: Trouble In (GOP) Paradise Markets have rallied throughout the year despite a lack of policy initiatives from the U.S. Congress. Judging by the performance of highly taxed S&P 500 equities, the rally this year has not been about the prospects of tax reform (Chart 14).18 Rather, markets have responded to strong earnings data and a lack of policy initiatives. Wait, what? Yes, markets have rallied because nothing has been accomplished. Investors just want President Trump and the Republican-held Congress to maintain a pro-business regulatory stance (Chart 15) and not do anything anti-corporate. Doing nothing is just fine. Chart 14Market Has Doubted Tax Reform Chart 15Market Has Cheered De-Regulation Here Come The Socialists Dems The Democratic Party leads the 2018 generic Congressional vote polling by 10.8%, up from 5.9% in May (Chart 16). The generic ballot polling is notoriously unreliable as most U.S. electoral districts are politically designed to be safe seats - "gerrymandered" - and as such are unlikely to respond to nation-wide polling (Chart 17). However, Republican support has fallen and Democratic candidates have performed extremely well this year. Chart 16U.S. Public Leans Democratic Chart 17Electoral System Reduces Competition First, candidates for governor in Virginia and New Jersey have outperformed their polling in November elections. Second, in the four special elections this summer, Democrats narrowed Republican leads by 18%. If the electoral results from Table 1 are replicated in 2018, Republicans could face a massacre in the House of Representatives. In addition, Republicans are suddenly vulnerable in Alabama, where the anti-establishment Senate candidate, and Breitbart-endorsee, Roy Moore is struggling with accusations of pedophilia (Chart 18). Table 12017 Special Elections Are Ominous For The GOP Chart 18Republican Senate Majority May Lose A Seat Why should investors fear a Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives? Yes, the odds of impeachment proceedings against President Trump would rise, but we are on record saying that investors should fade any impeachment risk to assets.19 The greater risk is that the Democratic Party has turned firmly to the left with its new manifesto, "A Better Deal." A strong performance by unusually left-of-center Democratic candidates could spook financial markets that have been lulled into complacency by the lack of genuine populism from the (thus far) pluto-populist president. Protectionism While most investors are focused on the ongoing NAFTA negotiations - which we addressed in last week's Special Report20 - we would draw attention again to the shift towards protectionism by the Republicans in the Senate. Normally a bastion of pro-business free-traders, the Senate has turned to the left on free trade. Senator John Cornyn (R, Texas) has introduced a bill to make significant reforms to the process by which the United States reviews foreign investments for national security, led by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). Two further bills, one in the House and another in the Senate, would also significantly tighten access to the U.S. by foreign investors. China is foremost in their sights. In early 2018, investors will also be greeted by two significant decisions. First, on tariffs: Trump will have to decide on January 12 and February 3 whether to impose tariffs on solar panels and washing machines, respectively, under Section 201 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974. The International Trade Commission has already determined that imports of these goods can cause material injury to U.S. industries, so Trump merely has to decide whether to impose tariffs (likely from 35% to 50%), import quotas (which have never received limits from courts), or bilaterally negotiated export limitations from trade partners.21 The consequences would go beyond the current, country-specific tariffs on these items, setting a precedent that would expose a wide range of similar imports to punitive action, and more broadly would signal to the world that the U.S.'s protectionist turn under Trump is real.22 Second, the White House has allegedly completed a comprehensive review of China policy under way since June.23 The review is said to focus on economic rather than strategic matters and to call for the use of punitive measures to insist that China alter tactics long complained about by the United States, including intellectual property theft, export subsidies, and forced tech transfer from joint ventures in China. Already the U.S. is investigating China for intellectual property theft under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, with results that could prompt tariffs no later than August 2018.24 As if on cue, Wang Yang, a new inductee on China's Politburo Standing Committee and a prominent reformer, wrote an editorial in the People's Daily declaring that China should protect intellectual property, not require tech transfers, and give foreign firms equal treatment under the "Made in China 2025" plan.25 China has made similar promises and the U.S. has made similar threats many times before, so decisions in the coming months will be telling. Ultimately we fear that President Trump may feel compelled to ratchet up protectionism in 2018 for two reasons. First, Americans within his populist base will grow restless as they do the math on the tax legislation and realize that their champion is not quite the populist they voted for. Trump will need to re-convince them of his protectionist credentials and independence from Washington elites and the policy status quo. Second, if our view on Chinese slowdown and American fiscal thrust is correct, the USD bull market should restart in 2018. This would hurt U.S. export competitiveness, expand the trade deficit, and motivate U.S. companies to invest abroad, a paradox of President Trump's tax and fiscal policy. The White House may, therefore, be compelled to reach for mercantilist solutions to an FX problem. Foreign Policy The final reason to worry is a "Lame Duck" presidency. Far more predictable presidents sought relevancy abroad late in their mandate. For example, President George H. W. Bush committed troops to Somalia on his way out of the White House. President Bill Clinton bombed Yugoslavia. Given Trump's dismal approval polling and a potentially historic "wave" election for the Democrats in November, President Trump could similarly shift focus to geopolitics. If that shift includes confronting regional powers like China (and/or North Korea), or Iran, risk premiums may rise. In the meantime, we expect tax cuts to pass. The going is getting tougher in the Senate. The decision to include the repeal of the Obamacare individual mandate - designed to cut another $300 billion in government spending over the next ten years - will make it more difficult to secure 51 Senate votes. We maintain our view that the final legislation may need until Q1 to pass. Between now and then, legislators may need a failure or two in order to realize that the clock is ticking toward the midterms. Bottom Line: Markets have cheered lack of action from the Congress. However, the going will get tougher in 2018 as investors fret about protectionism, President Trump's itch to remain relevant, and a potential takeover of the House by the most left-of-center Democratic Party in a generation. Europe: Germany Is A Passing Risk, Focus On Italy The collapse of coalition talks in Germany is not a structural concern for Europe. The breakdown in the negotiations occurred because of the immigration debate, in which the right-of-center Christian Social Union (CSU) and the Free Democratic Party (FDP) struck out a different position from the ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the liberal Green Party. Of course, the disagreement is not about immigration today, given that inflows of asylum seekers this year has been well below past flows (Chart 19A). Rather, the fundamental disagreement is over how the CDU and its leader Angela Merkel handled the 2015 migration crisis and how it will be handled in the future. Chart 19ANo Immigration Crisis Today Chart 19BGermans Love Europe For investors, what matters is that there is no substantive disagreement over the EU, European integration, or Germany's role in it. The mildly euroskeptic FDP did not draw any red lines. The reason is obvious: the German euroskeptic constituency is small, shrinking, and largely already captured by the Alternative for Germany (AfD) anti-establishment party (Chart 19B). Germans are objectively the most europhile people in Europe. Going forward, a new election would cause further political uncertainty. On the margin, it could cause business confidence to stall. However, Germany runs a 14 billion euro budget surplus and is not expected to launch any structural reforms or fundamental economic changes. As such, if the formation of a government is delayed by three-to-six months, the economic implications will be fleeting. In fact, the result of a new election could be a Grand Coalition between the CDU and Socialists, which would be positive for European integration. However, as we have argued before, hopes for a significant restart of integration have probably run ahead of reality.26 For us, Italy is the immediate concern. Italy passed a new electoral law in late October, setting the stage for the election due by May 2018. The consensus in the news media is that the president will call elections in January, with the vote taking place sometime in March.27 The consensus is that the new law will make it more difficult for the populist Five Star Movement (M5S) to win a majority of seats in the Italian Parliament. In addition, it will give a lift to the parties with strong regional ties - such as the governing Democratic Party (PD) and Lega Nord. Chart 20Italy Set For A Hung Parliament The nuances of the new law are largely irrelevant, however, given the close polling of the three electoral blocs. The most likely outcome will be a hung parliament (Chart 20). Nonetheless, we can still learn something from the law: the Italian establishment parties are cooperating to subvert the electoral chances of M5S. The ruling PD and the center-right Forza Italia of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi are working together to design an electoral system that favors the pre-election norm of coalition-building and parties with strong regional representation. Neither of these factors fits M5S's profile. This suggests that the two centrist blocs will be able to put together an establishment coalition following the election. On one hand, this will give stability to the Euro Area for at least the duration of that government. On the other hand, the underlying data continues to point to structural euroskepticism in Italy. Unlike their European peers, Italians seem to be flirting with overt euroskepticism. When it comes to support for the common currency, Italians are clear outliers, with support levels around 55% (Chart 21). Similarly, over 40% of Italians appears to be confident in the country's future outside the EU (Chart 22). These are ominous signs for the future. Still, both M5S and the mildly euroskeptic Lega Nord have tempered their demands for an exit from the common currency union. The official stance of the M5S is that the exit from the Euro Area is only "option B," that is, an option if the bloc is not reformed. Meanwhile, Lega Nord is on record opposing a referendum on membership in the currency union because it is illegal.28 Chart 21Italians Stand Out For Distrust Of Euro Chart 22Italians Not Enthusiastic About EU The stance of Italy's euroskeptics will change as soon as it is convenient. The country's establishment is likely making a mistake by contemplating a grand coalition alliance. Unless such a government develops a serious plan for painful structural reforms - it will not - it will likely waste its mandate and fall at the first sign of recession or crisis. At that point, the only alternative will be the M5S, which will stand alone in opposition to such an ineffective government. Investors can therefore breathe a sigh of relief in the medium term. Italy will likely not be a source of risk-off in 2018 or even 2019, although it is still the main risk in Europe for next year and bears monitoring. However, in the long term, we maintain that Italy will be a catalyst for a serious global risk-off episode within the next five years. We remain optimistic that such a crisis will ultimately strengthen Italy's commitment to the Euro Area, as we outlined in a recent Special Report.29 But that is a low conviction view that will require constant monitoring. Could there be another scenario? Several clients have asked us if an Emmanuel Macron could emerge in Italy? Our answer is that there already was an Emmanuel Macron: Matteo Renzi, the former prime minister and current PD leader, was Macron before Macron. And yet he failed to enact significant structural and constitutional reforms. Yet two potential candidates may be ready to swoop in from the "radical center" position that Renzi and Macron characterize. The first is ECB President Mario Draghi. He is widely respected in Italy and is seen as someone who not only allayed the Euro Area sovereign debt crisis, but also stood up to German monetarist demands in doing so. The second is Fiat-Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne, one of the world's most recognizable business leaders and a media star inside and outside Italy. If the centrist coalition begins to fray by the end of 2019, both of these individuals may be available to launch a star-studded campaign to "save Italy." Bottom Line: We remain cautiously optimistic about the upcoming Italian elections. While our baseline case is that Italian elections will produce a weak and ineffective government, though crucially not a euroskeptic one, nevertheless risks abound and require monitoring. Investment Implications There are a lot of unknowns heading into 2018. What will become of U.S. tax cuts? How deep will the policy-induced slowdown become in China? What will President Trump do if he becomes the earliest "Lame Duck" president in recent U.S. history? Will he embark on military or protectionist adventures abroad? Asset implications are unclear, but we offer several broad takeaways. First, the VIX will not stay low in 2018. Second, the USD should rally. Both should happen because investors are far too complacent about the Fed's pace of hikes and because of potential global growth disappointments as Beijing tinkers with the financial and industrial sectors. Chart 23AEuro Area Versus U.S. Growth: Don't Ignore China (I) Chart 23BEuro Area Versus U.S. Growth: Don't Ignore China (II) Third, it is time to close our recommendation to be overweight European risk assets. European equities have a higher beta to global growth due to the continent's link to Chinese demand. As our colleague Mathieu Savary has pointed out, when Chinese investment slows, Europe feels it more acutely than the U.S. (Chart 23). Chart 24U.S. Dollar Rebound = EM Pullback We are also closing our tactical long position on China's big banks versus its small-to-medium-sized banks. This position has been stopped out at a loss of 5%, despite the riskier profile of the latter banks and the fact that their non-performing loans are rising. Faced with these challenges, Beijing decided to open the door to foreign investment and too ease regulations on these banks so that they can lend to small cap companies as part of the reform drive. These actions inspired a rally relative to the Big Banks that worked against our trade. As financial tightening will continue, however, we expect this rally to be short-lived, and for big banks to benefit from state backing. Our highest conviction view is that it is time to short emerging markets. Our two core views - that politics will become a tailwind to growth in the U.S. and a headwind to growth in China - should create a policy mix that will act as a headwind to EM (Chart 24). The year 2017 may therefore turn out to have been an anomaly. Emerging markets outperformed as China aggressively stimulated in 2016 and as both the U.S. dollar and bond yields declined. This mix of global fiscal and liquidity conditions proved to be a boon for EM, giving it a liquidity-driven year to remember. That year is now coming to an end. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President 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 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day," dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 China's official broad money (M2) measure has also sharply decelerated, as have all measures of China's money. We prefer BCA's Emerging Market Strategy's broader M3 measure. The official M2 has underestimated the amount of new money in China because banks and shadow banks have done extensive off balance sheet lending. The M3 measure includes bank liabilities excluded from M2, it is calculated by taking the total of non-financial institution and household deposits, plus other financial corporation deposits, and other liabilities. Please see BCA Emerging Market Strategy, "Ms. Mea Challenges The EMS View," dated October 19, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Temporary Short-Term Risks," dated November 10, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com and BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: Cracks Are Appearing," dated November 15, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Messages From The Market, Post-Party Congress," dated November 16, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China's 'De-Capacity' Reforms: Where Steel & Coal Prices Are Headed," dated November 22, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 8 Zhou's comments should not be interpreted merely as a farewell speech of a retiring central bank governor, since they echo the general policy shift in the administration since December 2016's Central Economic Work Conference, and April 2016's Politburo meeting, toward tackling financial risk. For Zhou's comments, please see "China's central bank chief lays out plans to avert future financial crisis," South China Morning Post, November 4, 2017, available at www.scmp.com. 9 Xianyang in Shaanxi, and Wuhan in Hubei. Please see Wu Hongyuran and Han Wei, "Another City Halts Subway Projects Amid Financing Concerns," Caixin, November 13, 2017, available at www.caixinglobal.com. 10 Please see Kevin Yao, "China central bank adviser expects less forceful deleveraging in 2018," Reuters, November 15, 2017, available at www.reuters.com. 11 The latest official announcement claims that an additional 31 SOEs will be listed for restructuring. Please see "More SOEs to be included in reform plan," People's Daily, November 16, 2017, available at en.people.cn. 12 We fully expect SOEs to be subjected to rigorous treatment from the National Supervision Commission. Note that the crackdown on overseas investment earlier this year merely touches the tip of the iceberg in terms of the SOE corruption that could be revealed by probes. See, for example, the following report on the National Audit Office's public notice on SOE fraud and irregularities, "20 Central Enterprises Overseas Investment Audit Revealed A Lot Of Problems," Pengpai News (Shanghai), June 26, 2017, available at news.163.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "How To Read Xi Jinping's Party Congress Speech," dated October 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Policy Mistakes And Silver Linings," dated October 7, 2015, and "Legacies Of 2014," dated December 17, 2014, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Xi Jinping has called financial security an important part of national security and declared that "safeguarding financial security is a strategic and fundamental task in the economic and social development of our country." Please see Wang Yanfei, "Leaders aim to fend off financial risks," China Daily, April 26, 2017, available at www.chinadailyasia.com. For Zhao Leji's post-congress comments on this topic in the People's Daily, please see "China faces historic corruption battle, new graft buster says," The Guardian, November 11, 2017, available at www.theguardian.com. 17 See footnote 6. 18 More anecdotally, a clear majority of our clients disagrees with our bullish prospects of tax cuts. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see Chad P. Bown, "Donald Trump Now Has The Excuse He Needs To Open The Floodgates Of Protectionism," Peterson Institute of International Economics, October 9, 2017, available at piie.com. 22 Other measures could follow thereafter. For instance, the Commerce Department will issue its final report on steel and aluminum in January and Trump could decide to take punitive actions on these goods under Section 232 of the 1962 Trade Expansion Act. Please see Ana Swanson, "Democrats Pressure Trump to Fulfill Promise to Impose Steel Tariffs," New York Times, October 26, 2017, available at www.nytimes.com. 23 The review itself began in June, around the time when Trump's and Xi's initial "100-day plan" to improve trade relations expired. The report that the review is completed is from Lingling Wei et al, "Beyond Trump-Xi Bond, White House Looks to Toughen China Policy," Fox Business News, November 19, 2017, available at www.foxbusiness.com. See also Adam Behsudi et al, "White House conducting wide-ranging review of China policy," Politico, September 28, 2017, available at www.politico.com. 24 The U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer is supposed to finish his investigation into intellectual property under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act within a year of August 18, 2017. Please see Gary M. Hnath and Jing Zhang, "Trump Administration Initiates Section 301 Investigation of China's Acts, Policies and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property and Innovation," dated August 25, 2017, available at www.lexology.com. 25 Please see "Chinese vice premier pledges fair treatment of foreign firms as China opens up," Reuters, November 10, 2017, available at www.reuters.com. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Stick To The Macro(n) Picture," dated May 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Just in time to get a new government in place ahead of the World Cup! Oh wait... Too soon? 28 Which is an odd position to take given their supposed anti-establishment orientation. For example, the U.K. referendum on EU membership was non-binding, and yet it took place and had relatively binding political consequences. 29 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

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