France

Highlights Global political risks are overstated, at least in 2017; Global rally in risk assets hinges on hard data, not politics; But Trump and the GOP can still pass tax reforms or cuts this year; The EU's guidelines on Brexit are benign, risks have peaked; The French presidential election remains harmless to markets. Feature Investors have a love/hate relationship with populism. On one hand, we fear what anti-establishment movements will mean for the twentieth-century institutions that have underpinned post-Cold War stability.1 On the other, markets have cheered populism and its ability to jolt policymakers out of their torpor, particularly on fiscal policy.2 This dichotomy of outcomes informs our investment theme for 2017, which holds that markets are navigating a "Fat-Tails World."3 The failure to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA, "Obamacare") - which took us by surprise - reminded investors that President Trump will not have smooth sailing through the murky waters of congressional politics. Opposition to him has put into doubt the consensus view that populism is a political defibrillator that will shock policymakers into action. Instead of right-tail outcomes, markets are again fretting about left-tail risks: namely gridlock and obstructionism, but also protectionism, trade war, and competing nationalisms. In the long term, we are pessimists. We do not see how China and the U.S. will escape the dreaded "Thucydides Trap." We remain concerned that President Trump will grow frustrated with America's trade imbalances and strike out at friends and foes alike. But these are concerns for 2018 and beyond. In 2017, we believe that political risks remain overstated. In this weekly, we explain why. It's The Economy, Stupid! The global macro backdrop remains positive for the time being. Despite a very high global policy uncertainty index print, the market is responding to strong economic data (Chart 1), with the sum of the Citibank global economic- and inflation-surprise indexes rising to the highest level in the 14-year history of the survey.4 Chart 1Is Political Risk Overstated? Chart 2The Apex Of Globalization... Delayed? The global economic improvements are real. Chart 2 shows that PMI indexes in the developed world have reached their highest level since 2011, with global export volumes recovering from their multi-year doldrums. The Baltic dry index has gone vertical. Several other positive developments have caught our eye: Global Earnings: The global growth story has started to funnel down to company earnings, with a recovery in the net earnings-revisions ratio (Chart 3), which had been negative since 2011. Chart 3Strong Global Earnings Chart 4Godot Is Here! Return Of Capex U.S. Capex: The long-awaited capex recovery may finally be coming to the U.S., with real non-residential investment bottoming in 2016 (Chart 4). Manufacturing Renaissance: Global industrial production should have a solid year, at least judging by the strong leading economic-indicator print (Chart 5). Chart 5Industrial Renaissance Chart 6Consumers Are Elated Consumer Confidence: U.S. consumer confidence is at its highest level in 16 years (Chart 6), and should firm up from here, according to the BCA disposable-income indicator (Chart 7), and our expectation that Trump and the Republicans pass tax cuts.5 Chart 7Income Growth To Follow Chart 8Euro Area Is Doing Great European Renaissance: Data from the Euro Area remains bullish, despite the focus on political risk (Chart 8). BCA's real GDP growth models, introduced by The Bank Credit Analyst in their March report, corroborate the bullish view (Chart 9).6 Chart 9BCA's GDP Models Are Bullish The broad-based recovery in the data strongly suggest that the market's performance since the U.S. election is based on more than just a bet on Trump and his policies. Markets are responding to genuine improvements in the global economic outlook. Certainly there is something of a bet on the populists "getting it right," but hard data should continue to back up the optimism. How long can the party last? Our colleagues Martin Barnes and Peter Berezin have both recently warned of heightened recession risks in 2019.7 We are perhaps even less sanguine, observing dark clouds gathering for 2018. However, we will save that story for next week's missive. This week, we will provide our reasons for optimism about the remainder of this year. U.S.: Fade The Trumpocalypse S&P 500 fell 1.2% on March 21, the day that apparently sealed the fate of the Republicans' seven-year pledge to repeal and replace Obamacare. In our view, investors are overstating the conditional relationship between "repeal and replace" and the GOP's forthcoming tax bill. The most important political question for investors this year is simple: will the GOP blow out the budget deficit or focus on austerity? Getting the answer to this question right will go a long way in determining whether the impact on nominal GDP growth, inflation expectations, and thus the Fed's reaction-function is bullish for the S&P 500 and the U.S. dollar. This is the Trump trade: the idea that overarching reflation policy is swinging from monetary to fiscal. We still believe in Trump! That said, we acknowledge that comprehensive tax reform is tough - otherwise it would have occurred more recently than 1986.8 It is also true that the failure to repeal Obamacare will leave a few hundred billion dollars in the federal deficit that would have otherwise been available for tax cuts. Table 1 shows that the average time it takes to pass tax reform - from introduction of the bill to its signing by the president - is around five months. It is therefore not impossible, though assuredly difficult, for Congress to return from August recess this year and squeeze through a bill by Christmas Eve. TableMajor Tax Legislation And The Congressional Balance Of Power Chart 10Intra-Party GOP Polarization Falls##br## In Line With Last 80 Years Plus, Trump could always pivot away from tax reform and go after tax cuts, which are what Presidents Reagan and Bush did in 1981 and 2001. Both of these efforts took only one month to pass.9 From an economic perspective, the less ambitious option of tax cuts would be more flammable than tax reform, as it would merely increase the deficit and thus act as a more significant short-term stimulus. We see five reasons why the GOP will pass some form of tax legislation this year that will (1) add to the budget deficit, (2) lower household and probably corporate tax rates, and (3) likely include some provisions for infrastructure spending: Polarization is overstated: Intraparty ideological polarization is rising within the Republican Party, whereas it appears to be significantly declining in the Democratic Party (Chart 10).10 However, the move is not as significant as the media suggests. The average level of polarization within the GOP is well within the range of the past century. In fact, the GOP remains considerably less polarized than the Democrats were for most of the post-Second World War era. The data therefore suggests that while the GOP is indeed becoming more conservative (Chart 11), it is doing so uniformly. The measurable differences between the "Tea Party," represented in the House of Representatives by the Freedom Caucus, and the rest of the party are overstated. Chart 11Polarization Increasing Between, Not Within, The Two Parties Trump still has political capital: Despite a slump in national opinion polls, the president retains support among Republican voters (Chart 12). This means that he can threaten to campaign against Freedom Caucus representatives in the 2018 mid-term elections, as he did recently in an ominous tweet.11 Data suggest that voters would indeed follow Trump and dump the Freedom Caucus. Trump is very popular among Tea Party voters, even in Texas when put up against the state's Tea Party champion Senator Ted Cruz (Chart 13). Given that voter turnout in primary races in a mid-term election is below 10% for Republicans, a series of Trump rallies in Freedom Caucus districts could be sufficient to change the course of the election. Chart 12Republican Voters Support Trump Chart 13Trump Is A Threat To The Tea Party Chart 14Budget Deficits: Not As Hot Of A Priority Budget deficits are less relevant: Given the first two points, why did the Freedom Caucus oppose President Trump on health care? Because Obamacare and its replacement were both "big government programs," whereas these are "small government" Republicans. It was not because Freedom Caucus constituencies are laser-focused on lowering budget deficits! In fact, 22% fewer Republicans see reducing the budget deficit as the top policy priority as did in 2012, when the Tea Party was in full stride (Chart 14). Tax cuts are popular among Republican voters. Expanded budget deficits can be sold to them as a way to "starve the beast" of government.12 Institutional constraints to reform are overstated: "God put the Republican Party on earth to cut taxes." The famous quip from Washington Post columnist Robert Novak is a good guide for investors on tax reform. Many of our colleagues and clients tend to over-complicate their political analysis. Opposing tax reform and/or cuts will be political suicide for Republican legislators. And if budget deficits grow too much, the GOP can rely on two time-tested strategies to find "offsets" for tax cuts: Revenue Offsets: Republicans still have a handful of possibilities to raise revenues to offset the loss from cuts in tax rates even if they abandon the border adjustment tax (which they have not yet done). First, they can require companies to repatriate their offshore earnings, whose taxes are deferred. Second, they could engage in limited reform by closing some loopholes in the tax code. Third, they could let certain "tax extenders" expire at the end of the year as they are technically scheduled to do. Fourth, they could reduce the size of the tax cuts from the very ambitious plans outlined in their now outdated 2016 proposals. These decisions would be politically difficult, but that does not mean that all of them will fail. Crucially, the leader of the Freedom Caucus, Representative Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), now claims he would support tax cuts that are not fully offset by revenues. The Freedom Caucus appears to have expended most of its political capital on opposing the Obamacare replacement and is now tucking its tail between its legs! Dynamic Scoring: Republicans have emphasized macroeconomic feedback, i.e. the fact that tax cuts generate growth, which in turn generates tax revenues, defraying the initial revenue losses of the cuts. The Republicans will argue that static accounting methods make tax cuts seem more costly than they will be in reality. For instance, while it is true that President Bush's White House vastly overestimated the U.S.'s long-term revenue when it oversaw major cuts in 2001-3, nevertheless revenues did ultimately go up over the ten-year period - contrary to the Congressional Budget Office's estimates at the time (Chart 15). Various studies suggest that Republicans could use a variety of growth models to write off about 10% of the cost of their tax cuts (Chart 16). Chart 15Bush Was Right, ##br##CBO Was Wrong! Chart 16Dynamic Scoring Will Offset About##br## 10% Of Revenues Lost To Tax Cuts Timing is flexible: The GOP have the option of making tax cuts retroactive and thus avoiding a huge market disappointment if tax cuts come later in the year. It is even legally possible for tax laws passed in 2018 to take effect on January 1, 2017 - though it is admittedly more of a stretch than doing it this year.13 Chart 17Republicans Are Not Deficit-Neutral Our high-conviction view remains that tax reform - or less ambitious tax cuts - is still coming this year. It is empirically false that Republicans care more about balancing the budget than about reducing the tax burden on individuals and corporates (Chart 17). Arguments to the contrary rely on the time-tested (and failed) analytical strategy of "this time is different." Of course, the timing and legislative process lack clarity (Diagram 1). Republicans still plan to use "budget reconciliation" to sneak through tax reform or cuts. This allows them to approve tax policy with a simple majority, i.e. to bypass any "points of order" or filibusters in the Senate that would raise the bar to a 60-vote supermajority. The rules of reconciliation require a bill to be deficit-neutral beyond the five- or ten-year window mapped out in Congress's preceding budget resolution (the latter, for FY2018, has not yet passed). But this means that a bill that blows out the budget deficit can still be passed as long as it has a "sunset clause" at the end of the 10-year period, as was the case with President Bush's tax cuts.14 We are also sanguine on the more immediate question of government funding. Congress has to agree to fund the government by April 28 - the expiration date of December's continuing resolution - in order to avoid a government shutdown. Democrats are threatening to sink the appropriations bills (or omnibus bill) if Republicans attach noxious "riders" to it, such as defunding Planned Parenthood or building Trump's border wall. We think the Democrats are bluffing. Furthermore, leading Republicans are already signaling that they will postpone their moves on the most toxic issues to avoid a shutdown that would make them look incompetent. Diagram 1U.S. Congressional Budget Timeline 2017 What about the upcoming vote to confirm President Trump's pick for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil M. Gorsuch? Is there any investment relevance of the pick? We do not think so. Judge Gorsuch will replace Judge Antonin Scalia and thereby protect the slightly conservative tilt of the court. Investors should watch to see if enough Democrats in fact filibuster the nomination and if Republicans change Senate rules to override filibusters for Supreme Court nominations (the so-called "nuclear option"). If Democrats insist on goading Republicans into this rule change, then the odds of bipartisan compromise on legislative initiatives (such as an infrastructure package) will fall, relative to a situation where some Democrats endorse Gorsuch and Republicans uphold Senate norms. Bottom Line: The market no longer believes that corporate tax reform will happen. High tax-rate companies have given back all of their post-election equity gains (Chart 18). We think this selloff is a mistake. As our report this week attests, we base our view on a study of political, legislative, and constitutional constraints to tax reforms and cuts. We are highly skeptical of "this time is different" narratives that overstate the power of the Freedom Caucus. As a direct bet on our high conviction view, we recommend that investors go long the high tax-rate basket relative to the S&P 500. Chart 18How To Profit From Tax Reform Chart 19Brexit Political Risk Bottomed In January Brexit: Much Ado About Nothing? The market has ignored both the invocation of Article 50 by London on March 29 and the publication of the EU's negotiation "guidelines" on March 31.15 As we discussed in January, political tensions between the EU and the U.K. likely peaked before January 16. This was the day when the market fully priced in the rumors that the U.K. would seek to withdraw from the EU Common Market. Prime Minister Theresa May confirmed the rumors on January 17 with a key speech. We have been long the GBP since.16 Investors continue to fret that there are more risks to come, but the market agrees with our assessment. The GBP bottomed against the EUR on October 11 (just after the Conservative Party conference where PM May affirmed the government's commitment to the referendum result) and bottomed against the USD on January 16. It has rallied against both currencies since the latter date (Chart 19). Why? First, the EU guidelines on the Brexit negotiations do not appear to be aggressive. The EU has offered the U.K. a "transition period," for an indefinite time between the U.K.'s technical withdrawal (March 29, 2019) and the new cross-channel status quo (for example, a free trade agreement, FTA). This is significant given that financial media doubted whether any transitional deal would be on offer as recently as a week ago. Second, the EU has implied that it will at least begin talks on an FTA with the U.K. while the negotiations on withdrawal are still ongoing. This is not exactly what London asked for but it is close.17 This means that the EU will hold the U.K.'s liabilities to the bloc for ransom before it begins negotiating a post-membership deal, but it also means that the EU does not want to threaten a "status cliff" where the U.K. and EU fail to forge any deal and hence revert back to basic WTO tariffs. Third, a leaked copy of an EU parliamentary resolution on Brexit also suggests that a "transition period," in this case limited to three years, is in the offing.18 It also hints at what we have long argued, that the EU would treat the U.K.'s notice of withdrawal (triggering Article 50) as revocable, i.e. reversible. That said, some negatives are obvious from both documents: The EU parliamentary resolution insists that the City of London does not get special access to the EU's common market; Spain will get a veto on whether the final agreement applies to the territory of Gibraltar; The U.K. will have to settle its financial commitments to the EU; No "cherry picking" of common-market benefits will be allowed. These points do not surprise us. We have been pessimists on London's ability to retain access to the EU common market well before Brexit. And May's own speech on January 17 cited that London would not seek to "cherry pick" benefits from the common market. Our assessment remains that the EU is not out for blood. Or, as we put it in our January 25 note: Now that the U.K. has chosen to depart from the common market, the EU no longer needs to take as hostile of a negotiating position as before. The EU member states were not going to let the U.K. dictate its own terms of membership. That would have set a precedent for future Euroskeptic governments looking for an alternative relationship with the bloc, i.e. the so-called "Europe à la carte" that European policymakers dread. But now that the U.K. is asking for a clean exit, with a free trade agreement to be negotiated in lieu of common market membership, the EU has less reason to punish London. May's January 17 speech was therefore a classic "sell the rumor, buy the news" moment. Of course, we expect further risks and crises, especially with the British press laser-focused on the issue. But much of the hysterics will be irrelevant. Take the issue of the dreaded "exit fee." The media has focused on the fee as if the EU is seeking to impose a blood tax on the U.K. Instead, the roughly €60 billion "fee" is merely the remaining portion of U.K.'s contribution to the 2014-2020 EU budget, plus other liabilities. The EU sets its budgets on a seven-year horizon and the U.K. is going to remain a member state until March 2019. Some British newspapers think that the U.K. can continue to live in an EU apartment for the remainder of its lease without paying rent! The fact of the matter is that the EU is a trading power focused on expanding its markets. It is not in the interest of core member states, especially the export-oriented powerhouses such as Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands, to lose the U.K. as a trading partner. And it is certainly not in their interest to impose such painful retribution as to risk harming their own economies. What about the message that the EU would want to send to other member states? This is only important if the likelihood of exit by another EU member state is high. As we discussed immediately after the referendum, the risks of EU dissolution are grossly overstated.19 Recent elections in Austria and the Netherlands confirm our analysis, and we expect that French elections will as well. Yes, Italy is a risk to the EU, given that Euroskepticism is on the rise there. However, the EU has ample tools with which to dissuade the Italians from exiting - starting with a market riot that the ECB can induce at any time by reversing its offer to buy Italian debt. And it is doubtful that the EU can change Italian sentiment through punitive Brexit negotiations. What kind of a post-Brexit relationship should investors expect between the U.K. and the EU? There are three options: Customs union: The U.K. is not likely to accept a Turkish arrangement in which it belongs to the customs union but not the common market. That is because the customs union forces Turkey to apply the common EU tariff on all imports, while its exports do not benefit from other countries' trade deals with the EU. The U.K. wants more autonomy over trade, so this is unlikely to be the solution. The Turkish deal also excludes trade in services, which the U.K. will want to promote. Common market lite: The U.K. has a low-probability option of accepting the Norwegian or Swiss options of membership in the common market despite non-membership in the customs union. These options would allow only a few limits to the EU's demand of free movement of goods, services, people, and capital; they are currently non-starters because the U.K. is prioritizing curbs on immigration. It is possible that the U.K. could come around to something similar later, but it would require a shift in domestic politics, of which there is little evidence yet. Chart 20British Public Remains Divided On Brexit FTA: The U.K. is more likely to have an FTA arrangement, comparable to the just-signed EU deal with Canada. This would give the U.K. more autonomy on trade deals with third parties, while keeping tariffs to a minimum and incurring no obligation of free movement of people. It would also likely be more robust than the Canadian deal because of the much higher level of existing integration. Still, the U.K.'s prized service sector would suffer, as FTAs rarely cover services adequately. In fact, one of London's long-standing problems with the EU itself was lack of implementation of the 2006 EU Services Directive, which was supposed to harmonize trade in services and reduce non-tariff barriers to trade. We place the probability of the U.K. reverting back to WTO rules on trade with the EU - the most adverse scenario - to zero. Why such a high-conviction view? The EU has a customs agreement with Turkey, a country that threatens Europe with a Biblical exodus of refugees once every fortnight. In comparison, the U.K. and the EU are geopolitical allies that cooperate on national security, foreign policy, climate change, and other issues. There is no way that investors will wake up in 2019 and find that the U.K. has a worse trade agreement with the EU than Turkey.20 It is not all smooth sailing for the U.K., however. Brexit is not an optimal outcome for the U.K. economy.21 Leaving the EU means a deep cut in its labor-force growth rate, service exports, and inward FDI flows, reducing the U.K.'s growth potential. That said, given that the transitional deal will likely extend the horizon of "final Brexit" to around 2022 - or even beyond - and that there is still a small chance of a total reversal of Brexit, it is very difficult to predict the final impact on the U.K. economy now. There is another option that investors should consider. With Scottish independence gaining steam,22 and political risks rising in Northern Ireland, perhaps the EU is trying to kill Brexit with kindness. Polls on the Brexit referendum remain tight (Chart 20), which suggests that the "Remain" camp could eventually regain the upper hand - particularly if the shock to household income from inflation persists (Chart 21). With the U.K.'s own union at risk, perhaps the Tory leadership will alter its exit strategy over the course of negotiations. Meanwhile, investors should remember that: Chart 21Bremain May Regain Popularity ##br##When Brexit Bites Chart 22British Public Not Divided On ##br##Current Leadership Article 50 is almost certainly revocable. This is a political issue, not a legal one, as we have long stressed, and as the EU parliament leak suggests. Theresa May has promised that the final deal with the EU will be put to a vote in parliament. The bearish view has assumed that a failure of the vote would cast the U.K. into the abyss of no trade relationship other than the WTO's general agreement on tariffs. But failure could also follow from a shift in politics in the U.K. that seeks to act on the revocability of Article 50 and rejoin the EU. We see no sign of such a shift at the moment (Chart 22), but two to five years is time enough for one to develop. The next U.K. election will take place by May 2020, unless the government engineers a special early election. That is only a year after Article 50's two-year withdrawal period ends. If political winds are changing direction, the EU's allowance of a transition period could widen the window for a relatively smooth reverse-Brexit. In other words, "Brexit still means Brexit," but there are various escape hatches if the public demurs. The Scottish referendum has put a new constraint on the Tories and the EU may have figured out that the best way to encourage the Brits to change their mind is to smother them with kindness. What indications would suggest that the U.K. is changing strategies or the EU turning aggressive? In the U.K., a move to hold early elections could suggest that Prime Minister May wants a mandate of her own. This could enable her to pursue her current strategy more resolutely, but it could also give her the flexibility to reverse it. A sudden loss of support for the Tories, or a surge in the polling in favor of "Bremain," could also trigger a change in the government's approach. A significant public concession by the government in the negotiations could also mark a pivot point. In the EU, the following actions would suggest that the Brexit strategy will become less benign (and that our sanguine view is wrong): stonewalling in the exit negotiations, a reversal of the "Barroso doctrine" in order to encourage Scottish independence, a decision to shorten or deny the transition period, a lack of seriousness in trade negotiations, a downgrading of security and defense relations, or a move to pry away Gibraltar, among others. Bottom Line: We maintain our view that the pound bottomed along with the political risk on January 16. Yes, Brexit is not an optimal outcome, but the EU appears to be willing to push off the final date of the break with the U.K. into the future. At some point, we expect the U.K.'s inward FDI to suffer as companies - especially banks - grapple with the reality of Brexit. However, given the negotiations and potential transitional deal of up to three years, that date could be anywhere from two to five years into the future. Update On France: Can We Worry Now? We have spent much ink this year explaining why populist Marine Le Pen is not going to win the two-round French election on April 23 and May 7.23 Polls continue to support our view, with Le Pen trailing Emmanuel Macron by 26% with 33 days to go to their likely second-round matchup (Chart 23). At this point in the U.S. election, candidate Trump trailed Secretary Hillary Clinton by only 5%. Even Francois Fillon appears to be rallying against Le Pen. Despite ongoing corruption allegations against him, Fillon is leading Le Pen in a hypothetical second-round matchup by 16%. Chart 23Le Pen Lags Both Her Rivals##br## In Key Second Round Chart 24Is American Midwest A Path To##br## Le Pen Presidency? Chart 25No Comparison Between ##br##Le Pen And Trump A sophisticated New York client challenged our comparison of Trump's national polling against Clinton to that of Le Pen and her rivals. Instead, the client asked us to focus on the massive underperformance of the polls in the Midwest, where Trump surprised to the upside and beat long odds to win in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin (Chart 24). We agree that it is all about voter turnout, but again the numbers bear out Le Pen's weakness. She would have to perform six times better than Trump did in the Midwest to win the election (Chart 25). Chart 26Italy's Euroskeptics Much ##br##Stronger Than France's Chart 27The Market Is Missing ##br##The Italian Risks Chart 28Long French Bonds, Short Italian We are not dogmatic on the subject, we just refuse to agree with the lazy conventional wisdom that "polls are wrong." They are not. National polls got the U.S. election almost perfectly (the polls predicted a 3.2% Clinton victory and she won the popular vote by 2.1%). It is not our problem that pundits overestimated Clinton's strength, especially in the rustbelt states. Our own quantitative model gave Trump a 40% chance of winning the election on the night of the vote, roughly double the consensus view.24 We will therefore upgrade Le Pen's chances of winning when she starts making serious improvement in her second-round, head-to-head polling. Meanwhile, in Italy, the establishment continues to lose support to Euroskeptic parties (Chart 26). The media have not caught on to this risk, perhaps because they are feasting on negative news from France (Chart 27). The bond market has begun to price higher risks in Italy, with spreads between French and Italian bonds having risen 76 bps since January 2016 (Chart 28). However, they remain 296 bps away from their highs in 2012. We suspect that Italian bonds will see further underperformance relative to French bonds. Bottom Line: We continue to monitor risks in France due to the presidential elections. However, Le Pen remains behind both of her likely opponents by double digits in the second round. We remain long French industrial equities relative to their German counterparts as a play on expected structural reforms post-election. In addition, we are initiating a long French bonds / short Italian bonds recommendation due to our fear that Italy is the one and only risk to European integration in the short and medium term. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Jim Mylonas, Vice President Client Advisory & BCA Academy jim@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Upside To Populism," dated August 19, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "A Fat-Tails World," dated February 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Second Quarter 2017: A Three-Act Play," dated March 31, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "U.S. Households Remain In The Driver's Seat," dated March 31, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "March 2017," dated February 23, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Special Report, "Beware The 2019 Trump Recession," dated March 7, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Congress Pass The Border Adjustment Tax," dated February 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Data for polarization analysis uses "nominate" (nominal three-step estimation), a multidimensional scaling method developed to analyze preference and choice. Researchers use the bulk of roll call voting in the U.S. Congress over its entire history. Our Chart 10 measures intra-party polarization along the "primary dimension," which is the liberal-conservative spectrum on the basic role of the government in the economy. 11 "The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don't get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!" @realDonaldTrump 12 The quote "starve the beast" is a proverbial phrase that has applied to taxes at least since the 1970s. Nowadays it refers to cutting taxes and revenue in an effort to force cuts in expenditures. While the quote is attributed to President Ronald Reagan, he never used it. Instead, he used the analogy of a child's allowance during his campaign in 1980: "If you've got a kid that's extravagant, you can lecture him all you want to about his extravagance. Or you can cut his allowance and achieve the same end much quicker." Subsequent Republican administrations have used similar rhetoric to justify tax cuts, including that of George W. Bush. 13 Congress, after the sweeping 1986 tax reforms, corrected certain oversights in that law by passing subsequent measures in 1987. These were made to be retroactive back to the previous calendar year, i.e. January 1, 1986, and courts upheld the legislation. Hence there is precedent for Republicans to pass tax reform in 2018 that takes effect January 1, 2017, though admittedly the circumstances would matter. Courts have even upheld retroactive tax legislation back to two calendar years. Please see Erika K. Lunder, Robert Meltz, and Kenneth R. Thomas, "Constitutionality of Retroactive Tax Legislation," Congressional Research Service, October 25, 2012, available at fas.org. 14 Please see Megan S. Lynch, "The Budget Reconciliation Process: Timing Of Legislative Action," Congressional Research Service, October 24, 2013, available at digital.library.unt.edu, and Tax Policy Center, "What Is Reconciliation," Briefing Book, available at www.taxpolicycenter.org. See also David Reich and Richard Kogan, "Introduction to Budget 'Reconciliation,'" Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, November 9, 2016, available at www.cbpp.org. 15 Please see Council of the European Union, "Draft guidelines following the United Kingdom's notification under Article 50 TEU," dated March 31, 2017, available at bbc.co.uk. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 The exact wording from the EU guidelines: "While an agreement on a future relationship between the Union and the United Kingdom as such can only be concluded once the United Kingdom has become a third country, Article 50 TEU requires to take account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union in the arrangements for withdrawal. To this end, an overall understanding on the framework for the future relationship could be identified during a second phase of the negotiations under Article 50. The Union and its Member States stand ready to engage in preliminary and preparatory discussions to this end in the context of negotiations under Article 50 TEU, as soon as sufficient progress has been made in the first phase towards reaching a satisfactory agreement on the arrangements for an orderly withdrawal." 18 Please see Daniel Boffey, "First EU response to article 50 takes tough line on transitional deal," The Guardian, March 29, 2017, available at www.theguardian.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 No way. 21 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. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Scotland Scotch Brexit?" dated March 29, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" dated November 16, 2016, Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017, Special Report, "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 24 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Trump's Arrested Development," dated November 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

特別レポート

Highlights Dusting Off The BCA Bond Model: As central bankers moving away from the hyper-easy monetary policies of the post-crisis era, reverting back to more traditional bond investing tools, like our BCA Bond Model - which focuses on cyclical economic pressures, valuation and momentum - can be useful. GFIS Composite Bond Indicators: After adding a new element to our classic Bond Model, carry, we come up with a new measure to assess government bond markets - the GFIS Composite Bond Indicators. Current Signals: Our new indicators point to Australia, Canada and the U.K. as looking more attractive on a relative basis than Germany or France. Feature For global fixed income investors, four key questions matter most in selecting which government bond markets to prioritize at the country level: Where each country stands in its economic cycle? Which bonds offer the best value? Which bonds exhibit the strongest price momentum? Which bonds benefit from the best carry? To answer those questions, BCA has built specific macro indicators over the years. The ones related to the cycle, value and momentum form the building blocks of the BCA Bond Model. We have not spent as much time discussing these indicators in recent years. This is because the performance of bond markets has been dominated by extraordinarily easy monetary policies (quantitative easing, negative interest rates) in the major economies since the Great Recession. As more central banks start to question the need for maintaining those crisis-era policy settings, however, the utility of referring back to our classic bond indicators is growing. In this Special Report, we re-examine our bond indicators, explain briefly how they were built, evaluate quantitatively if they still provide a consistent signal and elaborate on the best way to utilize them. To enhance the existing model, we add a "carry" component to it, which is a vital part of bond investing. Since the cyclical, value, momentum and carry indicators often give different asset allocation signals at any given point in time, we propose a way to aggregate the information into one single indicator for each country, i.e. the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy (GFIS) Bond Composite Indicators. We then test these indicators to see if they help bond portfolio managers outperform. The report concludes by comparing the latest message from the GFIS Bond Composite Indicators versus our current recommended portfolio positioning. Specifically, we explain why we are choosing to deviate from our indicators and assess how we could shift our tilts in the future. Evaluating The BCA Cyclical Bond Indicators The most important aspect of bond investing is to understand where each country stands in its current economic cycle. As a way to quickly assess this, we developed our Cyclical Bond Indicators many years ago. Tailored for each country, the Indicators are composed of economic data such as: the unemployment rate private sector credit growth the slope of the government bond yield curve commodity prices denominated in local currency terms realized inflation rates Since economies do not always exhibit the same sensitivity to common macro drivers, we created country-specific Cyclical Bond Indicators that each use a different set of variables. After transforming the data, using de-trending and standardizing techniques, the variables are aggregated to form a single indicator for each country.1 Although Developed Market (DM) countries typically appear to be in the same phase of their economic cycle simultaneously, there are always some slight differences between them. These are crucial to identify and can make a huge difference in the government bond asset allocation process. First and foremost, knowing where a country is in its business cycle should impact expected returns on fixed income. Theoretically, bonds should underperform as the economic cycle becomes more advanced and outperform as the economic cycle deteriorates. Statistical Observations To verify that last statement, we separated the cycle for each country in our DM bond universe into seven distinct phases for the economic cycle: Euphoria End of upturn Upturn Downturn End of downturn Crisis Mega Crisis The phases of the cycle are defined by how much the Cyclical Bond Indicator diverges from its mean, which is always zero since the Indicators are standardized (i.e. removing the mean and dividing by the standard deviation). Chart 1 illustrates how our four core countries (U.S., Germany, Japan, U.K.) have gone through those cycles since 1967. At the positive end of the spectrum, the Euphoria state represents instances where economic variables have been especially upbeat (i.e. the Cyclical Bond Indicator is more than two standard deviations above the mean). At the negative end, the Crisis and Mega Crisis periods are when the Cyclical Bond Indicator is more than two and three standard deviations below the mean, respectively. Chart 1The BCA Cyclical Bond Indicators For The 'Core Four' Markets To evaluate the usefulness of the Cyclical Bond Indicator as an investment tool, we have calculated the average monthly return during each phase of the cycle for the major DM countries with a one-month lag (i.e. the March 2017 returns are based on the signals given by the February 2017 readings of the Indicators - this is done throughout the rest of this report when testing other bond indicators). The results are shown in Table 1. Table 1Bond Market Performance, Seen Through Our Cyclical Bond Indicator As expected, the average monthly performance tends to increase as an economy enters a downturn. Conversely, as an economic upturn gathers momentum, the performance of the bond market tends to decline.2 In Table 1, we highlighted the current phase for each country. Australia and U.K. are the only countries in Downturn territory right now; compared to their peers, those two countries would have the largest expected return3 of this group. On the other hand, the U.S. economy might be at the End of Upturn phase, when Treasuries should be expected to post the worst return, if history is any guide. In Table 2, we broke out the monthly results into 10-year periods to test the consistency of the indicator performance over time. Unsurprisingly, the End of Upturn phase has been quite detrimental for the DM bond markets during all eras, while the End of Downturn episodes have been good for bond investors in every decade. Table 2Bond Market Returns During ##br##The Various Stages Of Our Cyclical Bond Indicator Are Consistent Across Time Chart 2The Gains From Bond Investing##br## According To The Economic Cycle Finally, we looked into the usefulness of the Cyclical Bond Indicators in helping construct simple bond portfolios by using them as a ranking tool using the steps described in Box 1. The big picture takeaway is this: the countries with the three highest ranking Cyclical Bond Indicators (i.e. those with the slowest economic growth) outperform by roughly +6 basis points (bps) per month, on average. Similarly, the countries with the lowest-ranked cyclical indicators would underperform by -6bps, on average (Chart 2). Box 1 Ranking Bond Returns Using The BCA Cyclical Bond Indicators We calculated the average monthly excess return by buckets using the following steps: We ranked the ten countries in our bond universe by the level of their Cyclical Bond Indicators, from lowest (ranked #1) to highest (ranked #10). We then calculated the monthly currency-hedged excess return of each country versus the average of all the countries in our DM bond universe We then aggregated all the monthly results to have an average excess return for all ten of our ranking buckets We then separated them further into three buckets (the top three, middle four and bottom three ranks) and averaged the monthly excess returns for those groupings. Comments There is nothing particularly out of the ordinary with those findings - the countries with the weakest economies have the best performing government bond markets. However, the results of these statistical exercises confirm that the BCA Cyclical Bond Indicators are reliable and can confidently be used to support our qualitative analysis for each country. Importantly, following those indicators brings a dose of discipline to our bond allocation framework. For example, if our initial qualitative macro analysis diverges markedly from what the Cyclical Bond Indicator is telling us, this would represent a red flag that prompts us to question our initial conclusions. We will highlight situations like this later in this report. Evaluating The BCA Bond Value Indicators To assess the richness or cheapness of DM government bonds, BCA developed a Bond Value Indicator for each country. It is composed of several measures that have a fundamental macroeconomic relationship to bond yields, such as: Central bank policy rate expectations Trend inflation The deviation of the exchange rate from Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield (as a proxy for the global bond yield) The variables are transformed using regressions, then combined to form a single measure of how far bond yields are from a theoretical fair value. Similar to other components of the BCA Bond Model, the power of these country indicators arises when comparing them amongst each other. Bond markets with yields below fair value should outperform those with yields above fair value. Just like all other asset classes, valuation is a poor tactical timing tool for fixed income. Our Bond Value Indicator is more useful in the long term; value can remain cheap/expensive for an extended period of time. For example, Germany has been the most, or second-most, expensive bond market in our bond universe since June 2013. Due to this shortcoming, the Bond Value Indicator will be given a smaller weighting in our composite indicator laid out later in this report. Statistical Observations To test this indicator, we looked at the hedged excess monthly returns generated using the same ranking procedure laid out in Box 1. The results show that investors can expect to earn about +12bps per month in excess hedged return from countries with the three cheapest valuations according to the Bond Value Indicators, and can expect to lose -6bps/month in countries that are ranked most expensive (Chart 3). Moreover, betting on countries with the cheapest ranked valuations skews favorably the odds of outperforming, from about 46% to 53% (Chart 4). Chart 3The Gains From Bond Investing ##br##According To Value Chart 4Favor The Cheaper Bond Markets Comments Currently, the U.S. bond market offers the best value (Chart 5). This contrasts unfavorably with our recommended underweight exposure to U.S. Treasuries. Nonetheless, we remain comfortable with this exposure since the U.S. economy is currently in the strongest economic cycle, and its bond market is technically less oversold than its peers (see the next section). Chart 5Bunds Look Rich, Treasuries Look A Bit Cheap Also, note that German and Japanese yields look quite expensive, although this is no surprise given the extremely easy monetary policy settings (negative rates, central bank asset purchases) in place from the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ). As we have discussed in recent Weekly Reports, we see far greater risks for the ECB moving to a less accommodative monetary bias in the months ahead than the BoJ, and we shifted our country allocations to reflect that view (moving to overweight Japan and cutting Germany to neutral).4 In other words, Japanese bonds will likely stay expensive for longer, unlike German debt. As we mentioned earlier, the value component warrants lesser importance in our tactical and strategic bond allocation framework since it is more long term in nature. In a nutshell, value is something good to have on your side when the macro backdrop shifts, but is not absolutely crucial to generate returns on a month-to-month basis. Evaluating The BCA Bond Momentum Indicator So far, the BCA Bond Cyclical Indicator informed us where the macroeconomic forces were the strongest and the BCA Bond Value Indicator helped us find bargains. This is all great, but bond investors could still underperform if their timing is off. The BCA Bond Momentum Indicator helps in finding the appropriate short-term timing. It has been built simply by looking at how far bond yields are relative to their primary medium-term trend. In theory, bond markets where yields are too stretched to the upside (oversold) should outperform versus countries where yields are too stretched to the downside (overbought). Statistical Observations Using the same ranking methodology explained in Box 1, investors can expect to earn roughly +11bps/month in excess return versus DM peers where conditions are the most oversold and should expect to lose -6bps/month from bond markets with the most overbought conditions (Chart 6). Comments While we do consider technical analysis as part of the tactical component in our bond allocation framework, we put less emphasis on it relative to other more fundamental factors that sustainably drive bond returns over time. Nonetheless, our ranked findings show that choosing markets based on price/yield momentum does generate fairly reliable outperformance. What About Carry? As seen so far, our traditional bond indicators encompass typical variables that would be expected to influence bond returns. Our framework would be incomplete, however, without incorporating the notion of "carry" - the investment return generated by the interest income on bonds. Having instruments that earn too little carry can be very harmful to the returns of a bond portfolio over prolonged periods. A simple observation of the long-term performance of higher-yielding credit markets (i.e. corporate debt or Emerging Market sovereigns) proves that point (Chart 7), especially in the current era where investors continue to stretch for yield given puny risk-free interest rates in so many countries. Chart 6The Gains From Bond Investing ##br##According To Momentum Chart 7Carry Plays A Huge Role ##br##For Long-Run Bond Returns Of course, most of the major carry gaps between DM sovereign bond yields disappear after currency hedging. However, even on a hedged basis, the carry differentials remain important. Currently, Italian debt carries the highest hedged yield in our DM bond universe, at 3.95%, versus 1.54% for Japan. The 241bp differential between the two is significant, especially in the current global low yield environment. However, some of that additional yield is compensation for the greater riskiness of Italian debt, given the many structural problems in that country (high debt levels, low productivity, political instability, fragile banks). In other words, a better way to evaluate carry is on a risk-adjusted basis. In Chart 8, we show the hedged 10-year government bond yields of the ten DM countries shown throughout this report, both in absolute terms (top panel) and adjusted for volatility (bottom panel). Note that Italy's ranking moves down two notches after accounting for the greater return volatility of Italian debt, while Spain offers the most attractive yield on a risk-adjusted basis. At the other end of the spectrum, Australia and Canada have less attractive yields relative to their volatilities than Japan - home of the 0% bond yield. Of course, as the old investment saying goes, "you can't eat risk-adjusted returns." As a general rule, bond markets with higher yields should be expected to outperform markets with lower yields over time. Statistical Observations An historical analysis of our DM universe using the methodology laid out in Box 1 confirms that observation. The bond markets with better ranked carry have a tendency to generate positive excess returns (on a currency-hedged basis) and, on average, produce more winning months than losing ones (Chart 9). This is true even though the higher-yielding markets are often those with higher inflation, or greater government debt levels, or more active central banks that create interest rate volatility. Chart 8Peripheral European Carry##br## Is Still The Most Attractive Chart 9The Gains From Bond Investing##br## According To Carry Comments Currently, the carry factor would favor overweighting Italy, Spain and France, while underweighting Japan, Australia and the U.K. Those relative rankings still generally hold up even after adjusting for volatility. Pulling It All Together: Introducing The GFIS Bond Composite Indicators Now that we have outlined the four elements of our proposed composite bond indicator, the question becomes: how do we aggregate those pieces? The components of our original BCA Bond Model rarely give the same message simultaneously, even after adding a new factor (carry) to the mix. Moreover, as discussed above, some elements (Cyclical and Carry) are more important than others (Value and Momentum) in delivering consistent outperformance of bond returns. Hence, to build a new composite indicator, we need to make a judgment call as to which component should be given more weight. Cyclical (50%). Here at BCA, we spend a fair amount of time trying to deeply understand economic cycles, which are a major driver of financial markets. Bonds are no exception, with changes in growth and inflation expectations forming the fundamental building blocks of yields. As such, we allocate a substantial 50% weight to the cyclical component of our GFIS Bond Composite Indicators. Value (15%). Value moves much more slowly than the other indicators and yields often diverge from fair value for long periods of time. As such, we are giving a smaller weighting of 15% to the value piece of the GFIS Bond Composite Indicators that we are designing to provide a timely signal for country allocation. Momentum (15%). Although technical analysis should be a meaningful part of any investment process, markets can often trend for extended periods before any consolidation, or even reversal, takes place. To reflect that, our momentum indicator will also carry only a 15% weighting in our composite indicator, the same as the weight given to value. Carry (20%). Carry should play an important part in a bond allocation framework. To use a sporting analogy - favoring higher-yielding bonds means starting the game with the score already in your favor. For that reason, we will give carry a 20% weight in our overall bond indicators. After combining our individual bond indicator rankings (from 1 to 10) using the weightings described above, we come up with an overall score for each country which becomes the GFIS Composite Bond Indicator (Table 3). Ranking the countries according to their respective scores gives a new indication as to which bond markets we might want to overweight or underweight. Table 3Combining The BCA Bond Indicators Statistical Observations Chart 10Our Composite Bond Indicator ##br##Adds Value At The Extremes To test the investment performance of our new GFIS Composite Bond Indicators, we created an equally-weighted index using the monthly hedged returns of the ten countries in our DM bond universe. We then created two portfolios: One composed of the countries with the three best composite scores; The other composed of the countries with the three worst composite scores. In both cases, those sample portfolios out-/under-performed the equally-weighted index as expected, proving that value can be extracted by following the recommendations of the GFIS Composite Indicators (Chart 10). Comments This automatic/quantitative ranking of the countries is designed as a guideline only. The goal here is to quickly find what could be the most appealing bond markets on a relative basis. Judgment on whether to apply the findings should and will always take precedence when we make our investment recommendations. Also note, in attributing weightings across the components, we have not used any optimization techniques to find the perfect balance. We simply relied on our judgment for a simple reason: optimization gives the best fit according to a set of historical market volatilities and correlations. During periods when volatilities change, or correlations become less stable, the historically-optimal weightings may produce sub-optimal investment results. We prefer to use a constant set of weights across our individual indicators, derived from our own investment intuition and preferences. What Could Be Our Next Portfolio Tweaks? We compare the latest rankings from our GFIS Composite Bond Indicators to our current fixed income country allocations in Table 4. Deviations between the two can provide some ideas for possible changes to our recommendations. Table 4The GFIS Composite Bond Indicator##br## Vs. Our Current Recommendations From this table, two observations arise: The three countries that rank the highest, Australia, Canada and U.K. are at neutral in our recommended portfolio (Chart 11). Should we move them to overweight? Among the three countries that rank the worst, we are still only at neutral Germany and France (Chart 12). Should we move to an underweight stance given the signal from our new Composite Bond Indicator? On the first point, we have turned decidedly less negative on Australia and U.K. bonds of late.5 In the next few months, if more signs of cyclical deterioration emerge, we will be tempted to align ourselves with our composite indicators and overweight those markets. Although as we discussed in a recent Special Report, another set of our in-house indicators, the Central Bank Monitors, are pointing to pressures to tighten monetary policy in Australia, Canada and the U.K., perhaps providing some justification for only being neutral on those markets.6 On the second point, we recently downgraded core Europe to neutral from overweight, given our growing concern that the ECB will be forced to announce a tapering of its asset purchases, likely starting in early 2018.7 We anticipate that our next move will be to a full-blown underweight position on both Germany and France, although we prefer to wait until after the upcoming French elections before making that shift. Given our view that the populist Marine Le Pen will not win the presidency, we expect to be cutting Germany before France, as there is still a wide political uncertainty premium built into French-German bond spreads.8 Chart 11Bond Upgrade Candidates Chart 12Bond Downgrade Candidates Going forward, we will continue to monitor our GFIS's Composite Bond Indicators to supplement/confirm our macro analyses and to discover some potential portfolio moves/trades. Additionally, we will look to further test and refine the Composite Bond Indicators by looking at different weighting schemes among the component indicators, how the correlations between the components shift over time (and if there is any information from those changes), and other considerations. Now that we've "dusted off" our classic bond indicators, there is plenty of additional research that can be done to build on the initial results shown in this report. Jean-Laurent Gagnon, Editor/Strategist jeang@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 We have built the Cyclical Bond Indicators using data going back to 1967 for most DM countries, allowing for a robust historical analysis across the different bond markets. 2 Since global bonds have experienced a powerful secular bull market over the past 35 years, the majority of monthly returns in the history of the Cyclical Bond Indicator have been positive. As such, shorting bonds in absolute terms has seldom proved to be a value-added proposition. The only exceptions are when the macro landscape has entered the Euphoria state, which has been quite rare. 3 In local currency terms 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Staying Behind The Curve, For Now", dated March 21, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Reports, "Will The Hawks Walk The Talk?", dated March 7, 2017 (on the U.K.), and "It's Real Growth, Not Fake News", dated February 21, 2017 (on Australia), both available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "BCA Central Bank Monitor Chartbook", dated March 28, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "March Madness", dated March 14, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report "Our Views On French Government Bonds", dated February 7, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com

Highlights Either go long Eurodollar / short Euribor June 2019 interest rate futures. Or long the U.S. 5-year T-bond / short German 5-year bund. Or long euro/dollar (though our preferred long euro expression is long euro/pound near term and long euro/yuan structurally). All three of the above are just one big correlated trade. Long-term equity investors should consider a 50:50 combination of Germany (DAX) and Sweden (OMX) as a superior alternative to the Eurostoxx50 or Eurostoxx600. But near term, remain cautious on risk-assets. Feature On the face of it, the ECB has committed to leave interest rates where they are for a very long time. "The Governing Council continues to expect the key ECB interest rates to remain at present or lower levels for an extended period of time, and well past the horizon of the net asset purchases"1 But take a closer look at this commitment, and an extended period of time could mean as little as a year. As things stand, "the horizon of the net asset purchases" has only nine more months to run, and "well past" could justifiably mean just six months or less beyond that. Furthermore, at the last press conference Draghi emphasized that forward guidance "is an expectation" and that the probabilities of the ECB's expectations are constantly changing. Remember also that the ECB has three policy interest rates:2 the deposit rate (-0.4%), the repo rate (0%) and the marginal lending rate (0.25%) - and the ECB doesn't have to move all three in tandem. Indeed in 2015, the ECB cut the deposit rate before the other two rates (Chart I-2). So it is quite conceivable that the ECB could hike the deposit rate before the other two rates and as soon as a year or so from now. Chart of the WeekGermany/Sweden Combination Has Run A Good Race With The U.S. Chart I-2The ECB Could Hike Its Deposit Rate Early ECB council member Ewald Nowotny hinted as much in a Handelsblatt interview last week, saying that all interest rates wouldn't have to be increased simultaneously nor to the same extent. "The ECB could raise the deposit rate earlier than the prime rate." A Major Mispricing: ECB Versus Fed This neatly brings us to one of the most extreme pricings in financial markets at the moment. The expected difference between ECB looseness and Fed tightness two years ahead stands at a 20-year extreme (Chart I-3). Chart I-3An Extreme Pricing: ECB Versus Fed Yet the percentage of the euro area population in employment is at an all-time high (Chart I-4), while on an apples for apples comparison, there is no difference between economic growth, inflation, or inflation expectations in the euro area and the U.S.3 Moreover, Draghi points out that "the risks surrounding euro area growth relate predominantly to global factors." If these global risks do materialise, it would prevent both the ECB and the Fed hiking rates through 2018. But if these global risks do not materialise, allowing the Fed to continue hiking through 2018, is it really conceivable that the ECB just sits pat? We think not. On this basis, investors should either go long Eurodollar / short Euribor June 2019 interest rate futures. Or long the U.S. 5-year T-bond / short German 5-year bund. Or long euro/dollar (though we prefer long euro/pound near term and long euro/yuan structurally). We say "either or" because all three positions are just one big correlated trade (Chart I-5). Chart I-4Percentage Of Euro Area Population In##br## Employment Near An All-Time High! Chart I-5Correlated Trade: Interest Rate Futures,##br## Bond Yield Spreads, Ans EUR/USD The French Election: "System 1" And "System 2" The looming risk to this big correlated trade takes the form of the upcoming French Presidential Election. Two data points do not make a trend, but some people are worried that the same dynamic that delivered shock electoral victories for Brexit and Donald Trump in 2016 could propel Marine Le Pen to the Elysée Palace in 2017. This worry is overdone. In explaining the Brexit and Trump shock victories, an important point has been understated. These days many voters care more about politicians' personalities than policies. Emotional appeal arguably matters more than rational appeal. Behavioural psychologist and Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman calls the emotional way of thinking "System 1", and the colder rational way of thinking "System 2". Both the Brexit and Trump campaigns resonated strongly with emotional System 1. A lot of voters warmed to Boris Johnson, a leader of the Brexit campaign, and to Donald Trump. By contrast, the Bremain and Hillary Clinton campaigns tried to appeal mainly to cold rational System 2. But as Kahneman explains, when cold rational System 2 competes with emotional System 1, emotional System 1 almost always wins. In this regard, the dynamic of the French Presidential election is very different to the U.K.'s EU Referendum and the U.S. Presidential Election. Charles Grant, director of the Centre for European Reform, points out that "Emmanuel Macron's personality, and notably his charm, calm authority and courage may well (emotionally) appeal to more voters than Marine Le Pen's simplistic remedies and bitterness." Therefore, a final run off between Le Pen and Macron - as now seems highly likely - does not give us sleepless nights. But we would be concerned if the final run off were between Le Pen and the much less emotionally appealing François Fillon (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). Chart I-6A Final Run Off Between Le Pen & Macron... Chart I-7...Does Not Give Us Sleepless Nights Incidentally, both Daniel Kahneman and Charles Grant will be speaking at our forthcoming New York Conference on September 25-26, and promise to provide fascinating investment insights from their areas of expertise. So book your places now! A Better Way To Invest In Europe: Germany And Sweden All of this might suggest that the Eurostoxx50 should outperform the S&P500. Not necessarily. Extreme economic and political tail-events aside, there is almost no connection between national or regional economic relative performance and stock market relative performance. As we demonstrated in the Fallacy Of Division,4 by far the biggest driver of Eurostoxx50 versus S&P500 performance is its sector skew. The Eurostoxx50 has a major 15% weighting to banks and a minor 7% weighting to tech. The S&P500 is the mirror image; a minor 7% weighting to banks and a major 22% weighting to tech. Furthermore, this overarching driver is captured in just the three largest euro area banks versus the three largest U.S. tech stocks. So relative performance simply reduces to whether Banco Santander, BNP Paribas and ING outperform Apple, Microsoft and Google,5 or vice-versa. Everything else is largely irrelevant. But this begs the question: can a different combination of European markets neutralise the sector skew and thereby provide a fairer head-to-head contest with the tech-heavy S&P500? At first glance, the answer seems to be no. Europe simply does not have the same type of technology companies that the U.S. has. So no combination of European markets can match the S&P500 tech exposure. On the other hand, Europe is the world-leader in a different type of technology: innovative industrial equipment and materials. It turns out that a 50:50 combination of Germany (DAX) and Sweden (OMX) matches the exposure to European industrial equipment and materials with the exposure to American tech. At the same time, the DAX/OMX combination largely removes Europe's bank overweight. The upshot is that the DAX/OMX combination has run a very good race with the S&P500 through the past 10 years, while the Eurostoxx50 has failed to keep the pace (Chart of the Week). In effect, DAX/OMX versus S&P500 reduces to Siemens, Bayer and Atlas Copco versus Apple, Microsoft and Google (Chart I-8). Compared to the euro area banks, Europe's innovative industrial equipment and materials are a much better long-term match-up against U.S. tech (Chart I-9). Indeed, my colleague, Brian Piccioni, BCA Technology strategist, points out that Bayer is a good play on the revolutionary new genetic modification technology CRISPR-Cas9.6 Chart I-8DAX/OMX Vs. S&P500 = Siemens, Bayer & Atlas Copco ##br##Vs. Apple, Microsoft & Google Chart I-9European Innovative Industrial Equipment & Materials ##br##Is A Good Match-Up Against American Tech Investors who want a long-term equity exposure to Europe should consider a 50:50 combination of Germany (DAX) and Sweden (OMX) as a superior alternative to the Eurostoxx50 or Eurostoxx600. Nevertheless, those who can fine-tune their timing should await a better entry-point for all risk-assets. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 From the ECB introductory statement to the press conference, March 9 2017. 2 The deposit rate (-0.4%) is the rate at which commercial banks park their excess liquidity; the repo rate (0%) is the usually quoted policy rate for the ECB's standard money market operations; and the marginal lending rate (0.25%) is the rate at which commercial banks borrow from the central bank, usually when they cannot access interbank funding. 3 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report 'Fake News In Europe' January 26, 2017 available at eis.bcaresearch.com 4 Published on March 9, 2017 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com 5 Listed as Alphabet. 6 Please see the Technology Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report 'CRISPR-Cas9: Investment Implications' March 17, 2017 available at www.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* There are no new trades this week. We are expressing a tactical short position in equities through a short exposure to the Netherlands AEX. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Trump's agenda has not derailed ... at least not yet; Europe remains a red herring ... as the Dutch showed; Turkey cannot restart Europe's immigration crisis; Supply-side reforms are still likely in France; The ECB will remain dovish for longer than expected; EUR/USD may rise in the short term, but it will relapse. Feature In this Weekly Report, we focus on the key questions regarding continental European politics. To begin, however, we will briefly address the U.S., since investors are starting to worry about whether President Donald Trump can get his legislative agenda through, given the recent testimony of FBI Director James Comey on the alleged interference of Russia in the U.S. election. There are three points to focus on in the U.S.: Chart 1Trump Not Dead To Republicans Yet The GOP base supports Trump: President Trump was always going to be a controversial president. Anyone who is surprised by it today clearly was not paying attention last year. In the long term, Trump's extraordinarily low popularity will be an albatross around his neck, draining his political capital. However, until the mid-term elections, his popularity with Republican voters is all that matters, and it remains strong (Chart 1). House Republicans have to worry that they could face pro-Trump challengers in primary elections in the summer ahead of the 2018 midterms. As such, as long as the Republican voters support Trump, he still has political capital. Republicans in Congress want tax reform: Budget-busting tax reform is not only a Trump policy, it is a Republican policy. We have already received plenty of signals from fiscal hawks in Congress that they intend to use "dynamic scoring," macroeconomic modeling that takes into account revenue-positive effects of tax cuts when assessing the impact on the budget, in order to justify cuts as revenue-neutral. Republicans are also looking at the repatriation of corporate earnings and a border adjustment tax to raise revenue. Obamacare delay may not mean much: We already pointed out before that the GOP intention to focus on Obamacare first, tax reform second, would get them in trouble.1 This is now playing out. Opposing the Obamacare replacement may make sense to small-government Tea Party members. Repeal, alone, is why they are in Congress in the first place, given the 2010 wave election. But opposing tax cuts - once justified by dynamic scoring as revenue neutral - will be much more difficult. The Tea Party is "small government" first, fiscal restraint second. In other words, if tax reform cuts taxes and reduces revenue available to Washington D.C., "temporary" budget deficits will be easy to swallow. This is not to say that the recent events have not hurt the chances of whopping tax cuts and infrastructure spending. In particular, we think that Congressional GOP members may take over the agenda if Trump loses any more political capital. And this will mean less budget-busting than Trump would have done. Also, tax reform was always going to be difficult as special interests and lobbyists were bound to get involved. Chart 2French Spreads Are Overstated In addition, the probability of an eventual Trump impeachment - were Republicans to lose the House, or grassroots Republicans to abandon him in droves - has risen. Investors can no longer ignore this issue, even though it was initially a liberal fantasy. However, all of these risks to the Trump agenda will likely spur the GOP in the House to focus on passing tax reform while they still have a majority in Congress and control of the White House. We still expect tax reform to be done this year - within the fiscal year 2018 reconciliation bill - as time now may truly be running out for Republicans. Europe, meanwhile remains a focal point in client meetings. Our view that Europe will be a geopolitical red herring in 2017 - and thus an investment opportunity - remains controversial. We will address Brexit and the new Scottish independence referendum in our report next week, to coincide with London's formal invocation of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to initiate the exit proceedings. Popular support for independence in Scotland has been one of our measures of "Bregret" since last summer and it has just sprung back to life, which adds a new source of risk for investors. On the continent, investors are particularly concerned that the upcoming French election will follow the populist script from the U.K. and the U.S. last year. This worry has pushed French bond yield spreads over German bonds to the highest level since 2011, bringing French bonds into the same trend as peripheral bonds (Chart 2). Since the outbreak of the euro area's sovereign debt crisis, a tight correlation between French and Italian/Spanish bonds has signified systemic political risk. We disagree that political events represent a systemic risk to the euro area in 2017. This week, we address five critical questions inspired by challenges to our view presented by our clients in meetings and conference calls. Question 1: Is The Dutch Election Result Important? Few clients have asked for a post-mortem on the March 15 Dutch election, but many asked about the vote beforehand. It has come and gone with little fanfare. Financial media have brushed it aside as it does not fit the neat script of rising Euroskepticism on the continent. To recap, the Euroskeptic and populist Party for Freedom (PVV), led by Geert Wilders, gained five seats in the election (13% of the votes cast), bringing its total support to 20 in the 150-seat parliament. Despite the gains, however, the election was an unmitigated disaster for Wilders, as the PVV was polling strong for most of the campaign and was expected to win between 30 and 35 seats (Chart 3). In terms of its share of total votes, the PVV's performance in 2017 trails its performance in the 2010 general election and the 2009 and 2014 European Parliament elections. Not only did the PVV underperform the past year's polls, but also they only managed to eke out their fourth-best performance ever. Chart 3Dutch Euroskeptics Were Always Overrated Chart 4Austria Leans Euroskeptic... Chart 5...Yet Chose A Europhile President It is a mistake to ignore these results. They teach us three valuable lessons: Trend reversal: In April of last year we warned clients that the upcoming Brexit referendum and U.S. elections had a much higher chance of populist outcomes than the European elections in 2017.2 The basis for our controversial claim was the notion that European social-welfare states dampened the pain of globalization for the middle class. We now have two elections that confirm our view that European voters are just not as angry as their Anglo-Saxon counterparts. Aside from the Dutch, there is also the lesson from the similarly ignored Austrian presidential election last December. Despite Austria's baseline as a relatively Euroskeptic country (Chart 4), the right wing, populist candidate lost his solid lead in the last few weeks ahead of the election (Chart 5). Clients should not ignore Austria and the Netherlands, since both countries have a long tradition of Euroskepticism and their populist, anti-immigration parties are well established and highly competitive. If Euroskeptics cannot win here, where can they win? It's immigration, stupid: Investors should make a distinction between anti-immigrant and anti-euro sentiment. In both the Netherlands and Austria, it was anti-immigrant sentiment that propelled populist parties in the polls. However, as the migration crisis abated, their polling collapsed. This was clearest in the Netherlands, where asylum applications to the EU - advanced by six months - tracked closely with PVV polling (Chart 6). The distinction is highly relevant as it means that even if the populists had taken power, they would not necessarily have had enough political support to take their country out of the euro area. This is particularly the case in the Netherlands, where support for the euro remains high (Chart 7). Brexit is not helping: Much ink has been spilt in the media suggesting that Brexit would encourage voters in Europe to hold similar popular referendums. We disagreed with this assertion and now the evidence from Austria and the Netherlands supports our view.3 Chart 3 shows that the decline in the PVV's support sped up around the time of the U.K. referendum, suggesting that Brexit may even have discouraged voters from voting for the populist option. Geert Wilders was temporarily buoyed by the kangaroo court accusing him of racial insensitivity. But the sympathy vote quickly dissipated and PVV polling reverted back to the post-Brexit trend.4 Chart 6Dutch Populists Linked To Immigration Chart 7The Dutch Approve Of The Euro Bottom Line: The election in the Netherlands provides an important data point that should not be ignored. The populist PVV not only failed to meet polling expectations, it failed to repeat its result from seven years ago. Investors are ignoring how important the abating of the migration crisis truly was for European politics. Question 2: Can Turkey Restart The Immigration Crisis? The end of the migration crisis in Europe clearly played a major role in dampening support for the Dutch and Austrian populists. We expected this in September 2015, when we argued with high conviction that the migration crisis would prove ephemeral (Chart 8).5 How did we make the right call at the height of the influx of asylum seekers into Europe? Three insights guided us: Civil wars end: No civil war can last forever. Eventually, battle lines ossify into de facto borders between warring factions and hostilities draw to a close. The Syrian Civil War is still going, but its most vicious phase has ended. Civilians have either moved into safer zones or, tragically, have perished. Enforcement increases: The influx of 220,000 asylum seekers per month - the height of the crisis in October 2015 - was unsustainable. Eventually, enforcement tightens. This happened to the "Balkan route" as countries reinforced their borders and Hungary built a fence. Liberal attitudes wane: European attitudes towards migrants soured quickly as the crisis escalated. After the highly publicized welcoming message from Chancellor Angela Merkel, the tone shifted to one of quiet hostility. This significantly changed the cost-benefit calculus of the economic migrants most likely to be deported. Given that roughly half of asylum seekers in 2015 were not fleeing war, but merely looking for a better life, the change in attitude in Europe was important. Many of our clients are today worried that Turkey might deliberately restart the migration crisis as a way to punish Europe amidst ongoing Euro-Turkish disputes. The rhetoric from Ankara supports this concern: Turkish officials have threatened economic sanctions against the Netherlands, and accused Germany of supporting the July 2016 coup and the U.S. of funding the Islamic State. We call Turkey's bluff on this threat. First, the number of migrants crossing the Mediterranean collapsed well before the EU-Turkey deal was negotiated in March 2016. This puts into doubt Turkey's role in dampening the flow in the first place. Second, unlike in 2015, Turkey is now officially involved in the Syrian conflict, having invaded the country last August. By participating directly, Turkey can no longer tolerate the unfettered flow of migrants through its territory to Europe, a luxury in 2015 when it was a "passive" bystander. Today, migrants flowing through its territory are even more likely to be parties active in the Syrian war looking to strike Turkish targets for strategic reasons. Third, the Turkish economy is reliant on Europe for both FDI and export demand (Chart 9). If Turkey were to lash out by encouraging migration into Europe, the subsequent economic sanctions would devastate the Turkish economy and collapse its currency. Investment and trade with Europe make up the vast majority of its current account deficit. Chart 8Migration Crisis Well Past Its Peak Chart 9Turkey Depends On Europe Bottom Line: Turkey can make Europe's life difficult. However, the migration crisis did not end because of Turkey and therefore will not restart because of Turkey. Furthermore, Ankara has its own security to consider and will continue to keep its border with Syria closed and closely monitored. Question 3: Is A Supply-Side Revolution Still Possible In France? In February, we posited that a supply-side revolution was afoot in France.6 Since then, the Thatcherite candidate for presidency - François Fillon - has suffered an ignominious fall in the polls due to ongoing corruption scandals. This somewhat dampens our enthusiasm, given that Fillon's program was by far the most aggressive in proposing cuts to the size of the French state. Still, the new leading candidate Emmanuel Macron (Chart 10) is quite possibly the most right-wing of left-wing candidates that France has ever fielded. He quit the Socialist Party and has received endorsements across the ideological spectrum. In addition, his governing program is largely pro-market: Public expenditure will go down to 50% of GDP (from 57%) by 2022; Corporate taxes will be reduced from 33.3% to 25%; Regulation will be simplified for small and medium-sized businesses; Productive investment will be exempt from the wealth tax, which will focus solely on real estate; Exceptions to the 35-hour work week will be allowed at the company level. More important than Macron's campaign promises is the evidence that the French "median voter" is shifting. Polls suggest that a "silent majority" in France favors structural reform (Chart 11). Chart 10Macron's Huge Lead Over Le Pen Chart 11France: 'Silent Majority' Wants Reform As such, France may be ready for reforms and Emmanuel Macron could be France's Gerhard Schröder, a centrist reformer capable of pulling the left-wing towards pro-market reforms. What about the fears that Macron will not be able to command a majority in France's National Assembly? Macron's party En Marche! was founded less than a year ago and is unlikely to be competitive in the upcoming June legislative elections (a two-round election to be held on June 10 and 17). This will force Macron, should he win, to "cohabitate" with a prime minister from another party. Most likely, this will mean a prime minister from the center-right Republicans. For investors, this could be very positive. The French constitution gives the National Assembly most power over domestic affairs when the president cannot command a majority. This means that a center-right prime minister who receives his mandate from Macron will be in charge of domestic reforms. We see no reason why Macron would not be able to work with such a prime minister. In fact, the worse En Marche! does in the parliamentary election, the more likely that Macron will be perceived as non-threatening to the center-right Republicans. What if no party wins a majority in parliament? We think that Macron would excel in this situation. He would be able to get support from the right-wing of the Socialist Party and the centrist elements of the Republicans. And if the National Assembly fails to support his program, he could always call for a new parliamentary election in a year's time, given his presidential powers. In other words, investors may be unduly pessimistic about the prospect of reforms under Macron. Several prominent center-right figures - including Alain Juppé and Manuel Valls - have already distanced themselves from Fillon, perhaps opening up the possibility of a premiership under Macron. In addition, Macron himself has refused to accuse Fillon of corruption, a smart strategy given that he will need his endorsement in the second round against Le Pen and that he will likely need to cohabitate with the Republicans to govern. What of Marine Le Pen's probability of winning? At this point, polling does not look good for her. Not only is she trailing Macron by 22% in the second round, but she is even trailing Fillon by 11%. Nonetheless, we suspect that she will close the gap over the next month. Election momentum works in cycles and she should be able to bounce back, giving investors another scare ahead of the election. Bottom Line: Concerns over Emmanuel Macron's ability to pursue structural reforms are overstated. Yes, he is less ideal of a candidate than Fillon from the market's perspective, but no, we do not doubt that he would be able to cohabitate with a center-right parliament. That said, we cannot pass definitive judgment until the parliamentary election takes place in June. Question 4: Will Germans Want A Hawk In 2019? An Austrian member of the ECB Governing Council, Ewald Nowotny, spooked the markets by suggesting that Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann would be one of the two most likely candidates to replace Mario Draghi in 2019. Weidmann is a noted hawk who has opposed the ECB's easy monetary policy and even testified against Angela Merkel's government during the court case assessing the constitutionality of the ECB's Outright Monetary Transactions (OMT). The prospect of a Weidmann ECB presidency fits the narrative that Germans will want a hawk to replace Mario Draghi in 2019. The idea is that by 2019, inflation will be close to the ECB's target of 2% and Germans would be itching to beat it down. We have heard this view from colleagues and clients for some time. And we have disagreed with it for quite some time as well! As we pointed out in 2012, it was a German political decision to shift the ECB towards a dovish outlook.7 This is not to say that the ECB takes its orders from Berlin. Rather, it is that Chancellor Merkel had plenty of opportunities via personnel decisions to ensure that the ECB followed a more monetarist and hawkish line. For example, she could have signed off on former Bundesbank President Axel Weber, who was the leading candidate for the job in 2011. She refused when Weber signaled his opposition to the ECB's initial bond-buying program (the Securities Market Program). Mario Draghi was quickly tapped as the alternative candidate suitable to Berlin. Later in 2011, ECB Executive Board member Jürgen Stark resigned over opposition to the same ECB bond-buying program. Since Stark was the German member of the Executive Board, convention held that Berlin would propose his replacement. In other words, while Merkel had her pick of Germany's foremost economists, she picked her finance minister's deputy, Jörg Asmussen. Neither Draghi nor Asmussen have a strand of monetarist or inflation-hawk DNA between the two of them. ECB policy has not been dovish by accident but by design. While it is true that the ECB will inhabit a different macro environment in 2017-19 from the crisis of 2011-12, nevertheless we suspect that dovishness will continue beyond 2019 for two key reasons: German domestic politics: Germans are not becoming Euroskeptic, they are turning rabidly Europhile! If the polls are to be believed, Germans are now the most pro-euro people in Europe (Chart 12). Martin Schulz, chancellor-candidate of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), is campaigning on an aggressive anti-populist, pro-EU platform. He has accused Merkel of being too reticent and of providing Europe's Euroskeptics with a tailwind due to her policies. The SPD's recent climb in the polls is stunning (Chart 13). But even if Schulz fails to win, Merkel will have to take into account his brand of politics if she intends to reconstitute the Grand Coalition with the SPD. It is highly unlikely that Schulz will sign off on a hawkish ECB president (or on the return of Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble for that matter). Italian risks: While we have been sanguine about this year's political risks, the Italian election slated for February 2018 is set for genuine fireworks. Euroskeptic parties have now taken a lead in the polls (Chart 14). While the election is still too close to call, and a lot of things can happen between now and then, we expect it to be a risk catalyst in Europe. The problem with Italy is that the election is unlikely to provide any clarity. A hung parliament will likely produce a weak, potentially minority government. Given Italy's potential GDP growth rate of about 0%, this means that a weak government will at some point have to deal with a recession, heightening political risks beyond 2018. Chart 12Germans Love The Euro Chart 13Pro-Europe Sentiment Drives SPD Revival Chart 14Italian Elections: The Big Risk Bottom Line: Italy will hang over Europe like a Sword of Damocles for quite some time. The ECB will therefore be forced to remain dovish a lot longer than investors think. We see no evidence that Berlin will seek to reverse this policy. In fact, given the political paradigm shift in Germany itself, we suspect that Berlin will turn more Europhile over the next several years. Question 5: What Is The Big Picture For Europe? What explains the dogged persistence of support for European integration on the continent? Even in the case of Italy - where Euroskepticism is clearly on the rise - we would bet on voters supporting euro area and EU membership in a referendum (albeit with a low conviction). Why? In 2011, at the height of the euro area sovereign debt crisis, we elucidated our view on the long-term trajectory of European integration.8 We highly recommend that our clients re-read this analysis, as it continues to inform our net assessment of Europe. Our assertion in 2011 was that Europe is integrating out of weakness, not out of misplaced hope of strength. Much of the analysis in the financial community and media does not understand this point. It therefore rejects the wisdom of integration on the basis that Europhile policymakers are blinded by ambition. In our view, they are driven by necessity. As Chart 15 suggests, the average "hard power" of the five largest economies in the euro area (the EMU-5) is much lower than the average "hard power" of the BRIC states.9 European integration is therefore an attempt to asymptotically approach the aggregate, rather than the average, "hard power" of the EMU-5. Europe will never achieve the aggregate figure, as that will require a level of integration that is impossible. But the effort lies beneath European policymakers' goal of an "ever closer union." The truth of the matter is that European nation-states - as individual sovereign states - simply do not matter anymore. Their economic weight, demographics, and military strength relative to other nations are a far cry from when Europe dominated the world (Chart 16). Chart 15European Integration Is About Geopolitics... Chart 16...And Global Relevance If European countries seek to shape their geopolitical and macroeconomic environment, they have to act in unison. This is not a normative statement, it is an empirical fact. This means that everything from Russian assertiveness and immigration crises to energy policy and trade negotiations have to be handled as a bloc. But is this not an elitist view? To what extent do European voters think in such grand geopolitical terms? According to polling, they think this way more than most analysts are willing to admit! Chart 17 shows that most Europeans - other than the British and Italians - are "in it" for geopolitical relevance and security, and only secondarily for economic growth. Even in Italy, geopolitical concerns are more important than economic performance, although levels of both suggest that Italy is again the critical risk for Europe. We suspect that it is this commitment to the non-economic goals of European integration that sustains the political commitment of both elites and the general public to the European project. As Chart 18 suggests, European voters continue to doubt that their future will be brighter outside of the bloc. Chart 17Voters Grasp The EU's Purpose ... Chart 18...And Most Want To Stay In It Bottom Line: European integration is not just an economic project. Voters understand this - not in all countries, but in enough to sustain integration beyond the immediate risks. Given this assessment, it is not clear to us that the project would collapse even if Italy left. Investment Implications Given our political assessment, we continue to support the recommendation of our colleague Peter Berezin that investors overweight euro area equities in a global portfolio.10 As Peter recently elucidated, capital goods orders continue to trend higher, which is a positive for investment spending on a cyclical horizon - helping euro area assets (Chart 19). Furthermore, private-sector credit growth remains robust, despite political risks (Chart 20). Chart 19European Economy Looking Up Chart 20Credit Growing Well Despite Election Risk Over the next 6-12 months, we see EUR/USD rising, especially as the ECB contemplates tapering its bond purchases. We recommend a tactical long EUR/USD trade as a result. The euro could rise higher if the Trump administration disappoints the market on tax reform and infrastructure spending, policies that were supposed to supercharge the U.S. economy and prompt further Fed hawkishness. Over the long term, however, we doubt that the ECB will have the luxury of hawkishness. And we highly doubt that Berlin will rebel against dovish monetary policy. In fact, investors may be using the wrong mental map if they are equating Mario Draghi's taper with that of Ben Bernanke. While Bernanke intended to signal eventual tightening, Draghi will likely do everything in his power to dissuade the market from believing that interest rate hikes are inevitably coming soon. Therefore, we suspect that EUR/USD will eventually hit parity, after a potential rally in 2017. While this long-term depreciation may make sense from a political and macroeconomic perspective for Europe, it will likely set the stage for a geopolitical confrontation between the Trump Administration and Europe sometime next year. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 The media has suggested that the PVV merely suffered because of the Turkey-Netherlands spat over Turkish political campaigning in the Netherlands. We see no evidence of this. First, the PVV's collapse in the polls predates the crisis by several weeks. Second, the crisis had all the hallmarks of a trap for the establishment. It is not the fault of incumbent Prime Minister Mark Rutte for adeptly capitalizing on the situation. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Great Migration - Europe, Refugees, And Investment Implications," dated September 23, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see "Draghi And Asmussen, Not The OMT, Are A Game Changer," in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report "Fortuna And Policymakers," dated October 10, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Bank Credit Analyst, "Europe's Geopolitical Gambit: Relevance Through Integration," dated November 2011, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 9 As measured by the BCA Geopolitical Power Index. 10 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Three Battles That Will Determine The Euro Area's Destiny," dated March 10, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights We discuss three "battles" that will shape the investment landscape in the euro area over the remainder of the decade. Battle #1: Reflation Versus Deleveraging - Reflation will triumph over the next 12 months. For the time being, this justifies an overweight position in euro area equities. Beyond then, the outlook is likely to darken. Battle #2: Hawks Versus Doves - The doves will win. Germany will reluctantly accept an overheated economy and higher inflation. Stay short the euro. Battle #3: Globalists Versus Populists - Marine Le Pen will lose this year's election, but Europe's populist parties will finally gain the upper hand by the end of the decade. Buy gold as a long-term hedge. Feature Market Update Global equities are technically overbought in the short term, but the longer-term cyclical (12-month) trend remains to the upside. Chart 1 illustrates the "reflation trade" in a nutshell. The Citigroup global economic and inflation surprise indices have surged and now stand at their highest combined level in the 14-year history of the series. While tracking estimates for Q1 U.S. GDP growth have fallen, this is mainly because of negative contributions from government spending, net exports, and inventories. Taken together, these three factors have shaved about 1.4 percentage points off of Q1 growth according to the Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model (Chart 2). Private final domestic demand is still growing at a reasonably robust 2.6% pace, and forward-looking indicators such as the ISM indices suggest that this number could rise over the next few quarters. Chart 1The Reflation Trade In One Chart Chart 2Underlying U.S. Growth Is Still Healthy As such, it is not too surprising that U.S. equities have had little trouble digesting the prospect of a March Fed rate hike. The market is still pricing in less than three rate increases this calendar year. Four hikes would not be out of the question. Investors should remain positioned for a stronger dollar and higher Treasury yields. We continue to favor higher beta developed markets such as the euro area and Japan over the U.S. on a currency-hedged basis. The Battle For Europe History is often shaped by great battles. Sometimes these are of the military variety. But often they transcend physical conflict, pitting competing ideas, interests, and trends against one another. In the remainder of this week's report, we discuss three economic and political battles that will determine Europe's fortunes over the next 12 months and beyond. Battle #1: Reflation Versus Deleveraging The euro area grew faster than the U.S. in 2016, the first time this has happened since 2008. While the U.S. is likely to resume pole position in 2017, we still expect the euro area economy to expand at an above-trend pace. That should be enough to keep unemployment on a downward trajectory. The euro area economic surprise index remains in positive territory. The composite PMI rose to 56 in February - the highest level since April 2011 - with the forward-looking "new orders" component hitting new cyclical highs. Capital goods orders continue to trend higher, which bodes well for investment spending over the coming months (Chart 3). In addition, private-sector credit growth has sped up to the fastest pace since the 2008-09 financial crisis (Chart 4). All this is good news for the region. Investors should overweight euro area equities on a currency-hedged basis over the next 12 months. Chart 3Euro Area Growth Holding Up Well Chart 4Euro Area: Accelerating Private-Sector ##br##Credit Growth Beyond then, things look murkier. The ECB's Bank Lending Standards survey showed a modest tightening in lending standards for business loans in Q4 of 2016 (Chart 5). Private-sector debt levels also remain elevated across the region, which is likely to dampen credit demand (Chart 6). Both of these factors suggest that loan growth could begin to moderate later this year. Chart 5Slight Tightening In Lending Standards ##br##For Business Loans And Mortgages In Q4 Of 2016 Chart 6Still A Lot Of Debt If the positive impulse from rising credit growth does begin to fade, GDP growth will fall off. Whether that proves to be just another run-of-the-mill "mid-cycle slowdown" or something more nefarious will depend on the policy response. On the fiscal side, the period of extended austerity has ended. The fiscal thrust in the euro area turned positive last year, the first time this has happened since 2010. The European Commission is advising member states to loosen fiscal policy further this year, but the governments themselves are targeting a modest tightening (Chart 7). With a slew of elections slated for this year, budget overruns will be hard to avoid. Nevertheless, barring a significant economic slowdown, no major European economy is likely to launch a large fiscal stimulus program anytime soon. Thus, while fiscal policy will not be a drag on growth, it will not provide much of a tailwind either. Chart 7European Commission Recommending Greater Fiscal Expansion This puts the ball back in the ECB's court. As we discuss next, monetary policy is likely to stay highly accommodative. That should help extend the cyclical recovery into 2018. Battle #2: Hawks Versus Doves Jean Claude Trichet's decision to raise rates in 2011 would have gone down as the most disastrous blunder the ECB ever made, were it not for his even more disastrous decision to raise rates in 2008. Mario Draghi has gone out of his way to avoid repeating the mistakes of his predecessor. Nevertheless, the risk is that the improving growth backdrop instills a false sense of complacency. There is no doubt that Draghi has become more confident about the economic outlook. The ECB revised up its growth and inflation projections for 2017-18 at this week's meeting and signaled that it was unlikely to extend its targeted longer-term refinancing operations, or TLTROs. The ECB is also likely to further reduce the value of its monthly asset purchases in 2018 with a view towards phasing them out completely by the end of that year. It is possible that these steps could trigger a "taper tantrum" in European government debt markets of the sort the U.S. experienced in 2013. If that were to happen, we would see it as a buying opportunity. As Draghi stressed during his press conference, wage growth is anemic. Without faster wage growth, inflationary pressures will remain muted. Granted, euro area headline inflation reached 2.0% in February. However, this was mainly the result of base effects stemming from higher food and energy prices. Our expectation is that headline inflation will fall back close to 1% by the end of the year. This is where core inflation currently stands. One should also keep in mind that the trade-weighted euro has depreciated by 8% since mid-2014 (Chart 8). To the extent that a weaker euro has put upward pressure on import prices, this has caused core inflation to be higher than it would otherwise have been. In contrast, the trade-weighted U.S. dollar has appreciated by 24% over this period. Yet, despite the diverging path between the two currencies, core inflation in the euro area remains noticeably lower than in the U.S. This is true even if one excludes housing costs from the U.S. CPI in order to make it more comparable to the European estimate of inflation. Excluding shelter, U.S. core inflation is currently 43 basis points higher than in the euro area (Chart 9). The point is that the Fed is much further along the path to monetary policy normalization than the ECB. Chart 8A Stronger Dollar Has Restrained U.S. Inflation... Chart 9...Yet Core Inflation In The U.S. ##br##Is Still Higher, Even Excluding Housing If that were all to the story, it would be enough to justify the ECB's wait-and-see approach. But there is so much more. Start with the fact that the euro area's poor demographics, high debt levels, and dysfunctional institutions all imply that the neutral rate - the interest rate consistent with full employment - is lower there than in the U.S. How does one ensure that real rates can fall to a low enough level in the event of an economic slowdown? One solution is to target a higher inflation rate. If inflation is running at 1% going into a recession, it might be impossible to bring real rates down much below -1%. But if inflation is running at 3%, real rates can fall to as low as -3%. This implies that the ECB should actually target a higher inflation rate than the Fed. Then there are the internal constraints imposed by the common currency. Countries with flexible exchange rates can adjust to adverse economic shocks by letting their currencies depreciate. That is not possible within the euro area. If one or a few countries in the region are suffering while others are not, the unlucky ones have to engineer an "internal devaluation." This requires that wages and prices in the ill-fated countries decline in relation to those in the better-performing ones. However, if inflation is already low in the latter, outright deflation may be necessary in the former, something that only a deep recession can achieve. The travails experienced by the peripheral countries over the past eight years brought home this lesson in stark and painful terms. Will Germany accept higher inflation? There is little in its recent history to suggest that it won't. Mario Draghi was not the odds-on favorite to become ECB president. That job was supposed to go to Axel Weber, the former president of the Bundesbank. Weber met with Angela Merkel on February 10, 2011. During this meeting with the chancellor, he made it clear that he did not support the ECB's emergency bond buying. Merkel balked and so the next day Weber tendered his resignation. Six months after that, ECB board member and uber-hawk Jürgen Stark quit, leaving the ECB more firmly in the control of the doves.1 Chart 10Germans Turning Radically Europhile Merkel's preference for a less hawkish ECB leadership wasn't solely based on altruistic feelings towards her European compatriots. Politically, Merkel knew full well that Germany would be blamed for the breakup of the euro area. Economically, German taxpayers also stood to lose a lot from a breakup. It is easy to forget now, but Germany spent 8% of GDP during the global financial crisis on bailing out its own banks. All that effort would have been for naught if German banks had been forced to write off billions of euros in loans that they had extended to peripheral Europe. Critically, the demise of the euro would have also saddled German exporters with a much more expensive Deutsche Mark, thus blowing a hole through the country's gargantuan current account surplus. The calculus has not changed much over the last six years. Germany may not welcome higher inflation, but the alternative is much worse. If anything, the polls suggest that German voters have become even more Europhile since the euro crisis ended (Chart 10). This gives Draghi even more free rein. For investors, this implies that the ECB is unlikely to raise rates for the next two years, and perhaps not until the end of the decade. As inflation expectations across the euro area drift higher, real rates will fall. This will push down the value of the euro. We expect EUR/USD to approach parity over the course of this year. Battle #3: Globalists Versus Populists First Brexit, then Trump, and now Le Pen? The spread between French and German 10-year government bond yields briefly touched 68 basis points in February, the highest level since the euro crisis (Chart 11). While the spread has edged down since then, investors remain on edge. Betting markets are currently assigning a one-in-three chance that Le Pen will become president, close to the odds that they were giving Donald Trump before his surprise victory (Chart 12). Chart 11Investors Worried About The Coming ##br##French Election Chart 12Will Le Pen Rule? Wanna Bet? There is little doubt that populism is in a secular "bull market." However, that doesn't mean that every populist politician is going to win every single election. For all their faults, U.S. nationwide presidential election polls were not that far off the mark. The RealClearPolitics average had Clinton up by 3.2% going into the election. She won by 2.1 points. Where the polls fell flat was at the state level. They completely underestimated Trump support in the Rust Belt states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin. That's not an issue in France, where the presidential vote is tallied at the national level. Le Pen currently trails Macron by 26 percentage points in a head-to-head contest (Chart 13). It is highly unlikely that she will be able to close this gap between now and May 7th, the date of the second round of the Presidential contest. The only way that Le Pen could win is if one of the two leftist candidates drops out.2 However, given the animosity between Benoit Hamon and Jean-Luc Mélenchon, that is almost inconceivable. And even if that did occur, the odds would still favor Macron slipping into the final round. As such, investors should downplay risks of a populist uprising this year. Beyond then, things are likely to get messier. At some point, Europe will face another downturn, either of its own doing or the result of an external shock. Many voters have been reluctant to vote for populist leaders out of fear that the ensuing economic turmoil could leave them out of a job. But if they have already lost their jobs, that reason goes away. Chart 14 shows the strong correlation between unemployment in various French départements, and support for Marine Le Pen's National Front. If French unemployment rises, her support is likely to increase as well. The same goes for other European countries. Chart 13Macron Leads Le Pen By A Mile Chart 14Higher Unemployment Would Benefit Le Pen In addition, worries about large-scale immigration from outside Europe will continue to work to the advantage of populist leaders. Recent immigrants and their children have sometimes struggled to integrate into European society. This has manifested itself in the form of low labor participation rates, poor educational achievement, elevated involvement in criminal activity, and high welfare usage. The problem has been especially acute in European countries with very generous welfare states (Chart 15). Chart 15Many Immigrants To Europe Are Lagging Behind The reaction of establishment parties to mounting concerns about immigration has been completely counterproductive. Rather than acknowledging the problems, they have sought to censor uncomfortable "hatefacts" and stage show trials of populist leaders - such as the one Marine Le Pen will likely be subjected to for her alleged crime of tweeting graphic photos of terrorist atrocities. This strategy will backfire and the result will be a wave of populist victories towards the end of the decade. With that in mind, investors should consider buying some gold as a long-term hedge. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, “Europe: Game Was Changed A Long Time Ago,” in a Monthly Report, “Fortuna And Policymakers,” dated October 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, “Europe – Election Update, France,” in a Weekly Report, “Donald Trump Is Who We Thought He Was,” dated March 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Nothing in Trump's congressional address changes our outlook from November; Trump has reaffirmed his commitment to mercantilism; Investors should continue to favor small caps over large caps; We expect Trump to get his way on more spending, and a tax reform plan to pass by the end of the year; The Dutch election is a red herring, Le Pen's chances of winning are falling, but Italy remains a risk, especially in 2018; North Korea has evolved from a red herring into a black swan, stay short KRW/THB. Feature President Donald J. Trump delivered a reassuring speech last week. Sporting a magnanimous tone (and a new tie!) the president shocked the media by invoking a "new surge of optimism." Gone were the diatribes about "American carnage." Instead, President Trump implored Congress to work together to bring forth a major infrastructure program that would rival that of Eisenhower's interstate highway system, adopt a merit-based immigration system akin to Canada, and reform Obamacare in a way that would retain all its popular pillars. Trump concluded the speech by stating that "everything that is broken in our country can be fixed" and warning the polarized Congress that "true love for our people requires us to find common ground." After the speech, a narrative emerged in the media and financial press saying that Trump was a changed man. Should investors believe it? Not at all! There was simply nothing in the Trump speech that changes our outlook in November: that President Trump was elected on a populist platform and that he will be unconstrained on blowing out the U.S. budget and pursuing a mercantilist agenda.1 On everything else - from immigration reform to Obamacare - Trump may pursue a pragmatic set of policies. Or he may not. But what investors really care about is whether the Trump administration and Congress will: Get sweeping tax cut legislation done in 2017; Pass some infrastructure spending in 2017; Pursue protectionist policies. On all three counts, we believe that the answer is yes. Trump will get his way on both his pro-growth - anti-fiscal discipline - and mercantilist agendas. The timing is difficult to gauge, but we believe that we will see all three policy avenues aggressively pursued throughout the year and passed into law by the year's end. Trump's speech has only reinforced this view. Who Is Trump? Tax Cuts As we discussed in a recent report detailing the border adjustment tax (BAT) proposal, newly elected presidents rarely fumble on tax reform.2 Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and Bush all managed to pass major tax legislation in their first years, and Trump has stronger majorities than Bush did (Table 1). The GOP has been planning tax reform throughout the Obama administration, staffers and think tanks have "off the shelf" plans, and lawmakers know that time is short. In recent decades, the average length of time from the introduction of a major tax reform to the president's signature has been five months. Table 1Major Tax Legislation And The Congressional Balance Of Power In addition, the GOP knows that it must move fast if it wants to pass any tax cuts in 2017. President Trump is now the most unpopular president since polling began tracking the question (Chart 1). Chart 1Does President Trump Lack Political Capital? However, Republican voters continue to support him at 88%. This means that the House Republicans are vulnerable both to a Democrat/Independent backlash against Trump in the midterm elections and a Trump supporter backlash in the Republican primaries. They need to pass major legislation that satisfies middle class concerns and ensure that they do not incur the wrath of the Trump voters in primary races. While it is unlikely that the Democrats could significantly eat into Republican majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate, stranger things have happened.3 Adding fire under the GOP are two special Congressional Elections, in Georgia's sixth district and for Montana's "at large" seat, to be held in April and May respectively.4 Both were easily won in November by Republicans. A slippage by the Republicans in either would send shockwaves through Congress. There is therefore little time to waste. The Republicans know that they must strike while the iron is hot. We suspect that most representatives will abandon their demand for revenue-neutral tax reform to get any tax reform. That may mean adjusting House Speaker Paul Ryan's favorite revenue-raising proposal - the border adjustment tax (BAT) - so that it brings less revenue by exempting whole categories of imports from punitive corporate taxes. "Dynamic scoring" - an accounting method that considers the holistic impact of budget measures on revenues and thus deficits - will be used to make the "math" work and satisfy the procedural demand for budget responsibility.5 What about Obamacare? A narrative has emerged in the media that Republicans cannot work on tax reform while the issue of "repealing and replacing" the Affordable Care Act looms over their heads. We disagree. There are plenty of examples of the White House and Congress cooperating on multiple policy agendas at the same time. For example, the Obama White House used its majorities in Congress to push through a major fiscal stimulus, financial reform, and the controversial health care plan. Ronald Reagan also managed to enact comprehensive immigration and tax reform in 1986. Trump's congressional address made only one mention of government debt. But he did emphasize that his tax plan would provide "massive tax relief for the middle class." This implies that the election campaign's individual income tax proposals may have to be altered. Trump's and the GOP's plans from last year agreed that the individual income tax should be reduced from seven to three brackets, with the marginal rates at 12%, 25%, and 33%. This would have cut the top marginal rate from 39.6% to 33%, but would also have left a significant number of Americans with an increase, or no change, to their marginal tax rate.6 It is likely that this will have to change, potentially creating an even greater impact on the deficit. Bottom Line: We expect both corporate and individual tax reform by the end of 2017. We do not have clarity on how legislators will go from here to there, but we suspect that to get both passed, Republicans in Congress will err on the side of greater deficits. As such, investors should expect exemptions on many imports under the final BAT (weakening any USD spike) and likely greater middle class tax cuts than are currently priced in the market. Infrastructure Spending Trump's congressional address ended several weeks of silence from the Trump administration on infrastructure spending. Not only did Trump reference the Eisenhower interstate highway system as a model to emulate, but he also promised a considerable increase in military spending and the completion of the wall on the border with Mexico ahead of schedule. Trump referred back to the original $1 trillion price tag that he announced in the heat of the electoral campaign. This figure was revised down by Trump's transition team to a modest $550 billion, though the difference may only be due to time frame. Whatever the case, Trump is using the bigger number now. We continue to believe that GOP representatives will not obstruct Trump's spending priorities. First, "dynamic scoring" can be applied to both tax cuts and infrastructure spending to make anything look close to revenue neutral. Second, voters want infrastructure spending (Chart 2). It is in fact the only issue other than combating drug addiction that Republicans and Democrats deeply agree on (Chart 3). Chart 2Everyone Loves Infrastructure Spending Chart 3Infrastructure Is Not A Partisan Issue Third, history is not on the side of deficit hawks. True, the national debt is higher today at $20 trillion than it has been for previous Republican administrations. However, it is not only an arithmetic fact that Republican administrations run large deficits (Chart 4), it is also a fact that they tend to get more than they ask from Congress. Chart 5 shows, with astonishing consistency, that Congress is only a check on Democratic presidents when it comes to the final size of appropriation bills, whereas Republican presidents always managed to get Congress to approve more funding than they asked for. Chart 4Fact: Republicans Run##br## Bigger Budget Deficits Chart 5Budgets: Republican Presidents ##br##Get What They Want Bottom Line: It remains difficult to gauge the actual size or economic impact of Trump's government spending proposals. However, we expect that President Trump will get his way on more spending not only for defense, veterans, and the wall, but also for infrastructure. While the impact will be minimal in 2017, investors should see greater fiscal thrust in 2018. Mercantilism While the media focused on the magnanimous tone of Trump's speech last week, we saw little change in his commitment to mercantilism. We continue to believe that Trump is a populist protectionist and that he is serious about enacting mercantilist policies.7 Recent government appointments (Table 2) and statements from the Trump administration (Table 3) suggest that we are correct. Table 2Government Appointments That Certify That Trump Is A Protectionist In his speech, Trump invoked President Abraham Lincoln's words that "abandonment of the protective policy by the American Government [will] produce want and ruin among our people."8 He went on to call for "fair trade," contrasted explicitly with "free trade," and to suggest that he would support changing the U.S. corporate tax system to make U.S. exports more competitive. Trump also said on February 24, in a Reuters interview, that he thought that the border adjustment tax would boost exports and help keep jobs in the U.S.9 This should end the speculation - prompted by an early comment from Trump on the BAT - that the president and congressional GOP are irreconcilably at odds over the BAT. Table 3Protectionist Statements From The Trump Administration While Trump has yet to endorse Ryan's BAT proposal officially, he does not oppose its protectionist aspects. As a reminder, the BAT is protectionist because of two key elements: The BAT would give a "rebate" on exports (implicitly or explicitly) that could be higher than the amount of tax due on foreign profits (Diagram 1). For all intents and purposes, this is a dirigiste government subsidy for export-oriented industries. Diagram 1Explaining The Border-Adjusted Destination-Based Cash-Flow Tax The BAT would allow companies to write off wages and salaries as costs, just like under the current corporate income tax system. But under the value-added tax systems of the rest of the world wages are not deductible. In addition, Trump still retains a bevy of traditional tools like tariffs with which to go after potential trade rivals. As we have pointed out since November, there are few constraints on a U.S. president when imposing protectionist measures.10 Bottom Line: Donald Trump remains committed to a mercantilist agenda. Investors should expect him to live up to the hype at some point in 2017. Investment Implications If markets have been cheering Trump's pro-growth policies, in addition to improving global growth data, we suspect the stock-market party will continue. Investors can take from President Trump's March 1 speech a renewed commitment to a populist agenda that should cause government spending to increase, regulations to be cut, corporate and individual tax rates to fall, and the budget deficit to widen. Won't this pursuit of nominal GDP growth at any cost create conditions for inflation and eventually a recession? Yes, but the timing is difficult to gauge and much will depend on whether Donald Trump replaces the doves on the Fed governing board with hawks, as current conventional wisdom has it. We highly doubt that he would chose hawks, or policymakers committed to rules-based central banking, given his singular focus on reviving economic growth. But even a dovish Fed may move to raise interest rates aggressively given the slate of pro-growth policies being undertaken so late in the economic cycle. In the meantime, on a cyclical horizon, the party will continue and stocks will go higher. As we posited two weeks ago, many of our clients are cautious and tactically bearish, expecting a correction, but we cannot find a single structural bear. In this environment, where everyone expects to "buy on dips" following the correction that never seems to happen, it is hard for a correction to happen. But isn't protectionism and a trade war between the U.S. and China, or even the rest of the world, a risk to the rally? Not necessarily. First, the timing is uncertain. Second, the impact on economic growth is even more uncertain. Third, aside from any knee-jerk selloffs, protectionism will split sectors and stocks into winners and losers. Those with a greater share of revenues abroad will suffer due to potential retaliation from America's trade partners. Furthermore, much of Trump's policies will be dollar bullish - including tax cuts, greater government spending, and likely the BAT. As such, export-oriented sectors and companies will stand to suffer. We continue to believe that an overweight position in small caps will be a way to play the "Trump effect" on a strategic basis. Europe - Election Update Europe's election season is heating up, with the Dutch election just a week away and the first round of the French presidential election in just over a month. Here is a quick update on the key developments: The Netherlands According to the latest polls from the Netherlands, the Euroskeptic Party for Freedom (PVV) appears to be slipping (Chart 6). Just two months ago, the PVV was projected to capture around 35 seats, a number that has now fallen to around 25. Given that the Dutch parliament has 150 seats and that the PVV has no potential allies amongst the other 13 competitive parties, this election is largely a red herring. Should investors be worried about the Netherlands' role in European integration in the future? We don't think so. Support for the euro and the EU has not slipped in the Netherlands, at least not according to the data we have presented in these pages before.11 Instead, the PVV's support has risen due to the recent migration crisis. In fact, the number of asylum seekers has correlated almost perfectly with the PVV's support level since mid-2015 when the influx began (Chart 7). Given that the migration crisis is over (and we do not expect it to restart any time soon), we suspect that the PVV's support will moderate over the next electoral cycle. Chart 6Dutch Euroskeptics Are##br## An Overstated Threat Chart 7Dutch Populists Are A##br## Derivative Of The Immigration Crisis France The French election continues to grab headlines in Europe. However, almost all the news is bad news for Marine Le Pen. First, François Bayrou, a notable centrist who captured 9.3% of the vote in the first round of the 2012 election and 18.6% in 2007, has decided not to contest the election and instead support Emmanuel Macron. Non-French media have not picked up on the significance of the endorsement. It is more important than Bayrou's 3-5% level of support in the polls suggests. While Bayrou is a centrist, he once belonged to the center-right, conservative movement and was a cabinet minister during Jacques Chirac's reign. As such, his endorsement will give Macron, a former Socialist Party minister, even more "cross-over appeal" for center-right voters in the second round against Le Pen. Chart 8Le Pen Is Facing Resistance Second, the rumored alliance between the far-left Jean-Luc Mélenchon and the left-wing candidate of the ruling Socialist Party, Benoît Hamon, has failed to materialize. Their potential alliance was one of the main concerns that many of our clients brought to us in recent meetings. Given current polling, such a marriage could have produced a singular left-wing candidacy that would have propelled either Mélenchon or Hamon into the second round. However, the alliance was always a long shot, as anyone who has followed French politics knows, given Mélenchon's staunch commitment to running on his own platform. And furthermore, arithmetically combining the polling of the two candidates makes no sense given that a singular platform would have forced compromises that would have led to serious defections by voters to other candidates. As such, the combined ticket's support level was always just a theoretical exercise. Third, the latest polls suggest that Le Pen's mini-rally has been arrested (Chart 8). She has failed to consistently break through the 40% percentile mark for the second round. Against Macron, her most likely opponent, she continues to trail by a 25-30% margin. The second-round election is on May 7, just two months away. Two months from November 8, Donald Trump trailed Hillary Clinton by just 5%. Italy Our main political concern in Europe remains Italy. Polls continue to show that Euroskeptics are gaining on the centrist parties (Chart 9). Most worryingly, Italians continue to gain confidence in life outside the EU. According to a poll that asks respondents whether they think "their country could better face the future outside of the EU," Italians are the most optimistic, next to the Brits and the historically Euroskeptic Austrians, about life outside the bloc (Chart 10). Chart 9Italian Establishment##br## Is Collapsing Chart 10AItalians Are Now The Only People In ##br##The EU Who Are Like The Brits Chart 10BItalians Are Now The Only People In##br## The EU Who Are Like The Brits We therefore find the market's sanguine view on Italy to be myopic. Yes, the probability of an election in 2017 is declining. The ruling Democratic Party (PD) has set its leadership race for April 30, which rules out an election this summer, and former Prime Minister Matteo Renzi appears to have agreed to an election in February 2018.12 On a cyclical time horizon of 12 months, Italy is therefore not a major risk. However, once the election does take place, it could be source of considerable market volatility. At that point, investors would have to ask whether the election would take place under a new electoral law. If not, then the probability of a hung parliament would be considerable. Unless, that is, the Euroskeptic parties could form a coalition based solely on holding a referendum to leave the euro area. We doubt that the left-wing Five Star Movement (M5S) would be able to cooperate with the more staunchly Euroskeptic and right-wing Northern League and Brothers of Italy on this matter. Particularly since M5S has already begun to moderate on the issue of Euroskepticism. There is no point in speculating on an outcome of an election a year from now given that we are not even certain what electoral rules the contest would use. However, we do not think that investors should be sanguine because the likeliest outcome is governmental dysfunction. Chart 11SPD Continues Its Incredible Ascent The one thing that may help Italy in 2018 is the outcome of the German election in September. The radically Europhile chancellor-candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), Martin Schulz, has continued to do well in the polls against Angela Merkel (Chart 11). On a recent tour of highly sophisticated clients in New York we were surprised that only a handful were aware of Schulz's platform and background. Even if Schulz does not win, a renewed Grand Coalition between Merkel's Christian Democratic Union and the SPD would have to take into consideration his meteoric rise. The price for a renewed Grand Coalition could be the abandonment of Merkel's reticent leadership of the euro area. Investment Implications For now, our view that the markets will climb the wall of worry in Europe in 2017 is holding up. We suspect that investors will quickly refocus their attention on Italy once the French election is out of the way. One of the best gauges of euro area breakup risk has been the performance of French bonds versus German bonds relative to the performance of Spanish and Italian bonds versus German bonds. In our view, every time French spreads have correlated highly with Spanish and Italian spreads, the euro area faced existential threats. The shaded sections of Chart 12 largely conform to the political context in Europe over the past five years. In particular, it is interesting that French yields have decoupled from their Mediterranean peers ever since the ECB's "whatever it takes" announcement. Chart 12French Spreads Are Overstated Until right now, that is. We think the bond market is making a mistake. France is not a risk and euro area breakup risk over the next 12 months is essentially near zero. However, the probability of a major economy leaving the euro area over the next five years is going up. This is both because of the political situation in Italy and because Euroskeptics like Marine Le Pen could take over the mantle of the "official opposition" to the "centrist consensus" running Europe. If a country like Italy exits the euro area, would the currency union be doomed? It depends, largely on how that economy were to perform post-exit. In the ceteris paribus world of macroeconomics, a massive currency devaluation post-exit would be a clear and definitive positive. However, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy was created specifically to go beyond ceteris paribus analysis. And we doubt that the euro area exit would be undertaken by pragmatic policymakers capable of taking advantage of currency devaluation while reassuring both markets and EU member states that they would pursue orthodox economic policies. As a guide for what we think would happen to Italy, we would suggest our clients read our January 2016 report on the Greek future post euro area.13 In this think piece, we argue that Greece would not become a "land of milk and honey" after exiting, largely because the political context of exit would be turbulent and lead to populist policies that would devastate the economy. As such, we would stress that while the probability of an individual member state leaving the euro area is climbing - even one as important as Italy - it does not necessarily mean that the probability of euro area dissolution is climbing at the same rate. North Korea: No Longer A Red Herring A brief word about the Korean peninsula is in order after the four North Korean missile tests on March 6 and our report last week recommending that clients steer clear of South Korean assets.14 Simply put, the Korean peninsula is a source of real geopolitical risk right now, contrary to the status quo in which North Korea was largely a red herring. We have narrated this transition since last year,15 but it boils down to the following points: North Korea is finally "arriving" at the nuclear club: It is coming upon that horizon foreseen long ago in which it possesses the ability strike the United States with a nuclear missile, however crude. The American and Japanese defense establishments are becoming more concerned, and their public opinion can follow on command.16 Trump's policy looks to be more assertive, though that is not certain. U.S.-China relations have gone sour: The worsening of Sino-American tensions makes these two more suspicious of each other's motives and simultaneously increases economic and political pressure on both Koreas. Ironically, China is currently sanctioning both North and South Korea, the latter because it is hosting the U.S. THAAD missile defense system (Chart 13). The U.S., for its part, has been rushing THAAD, which it is just now rapidly deploying after the latest North Korean launches. North Korean internal stability is overrated: It is hard to argue that Kim Jong Un has not consolidated power impressively. But this consolidation has coincided with some loosening of internal economic control to help compensate for slower Chinese growth and worse Chinese relations. Gradual marketization threatens to undermine the regime from within, yet the standard playbook of belligerence threatens to provoke sanctions with real teeth from without, like China's proposed coal import ban for the rest of this year.17 Chart 13China Hits Seoul Over U.S. THAAD Missiles Adding to the volatile mix, South Korea's right-of-center ruling party is collapsing, which affects the behavior of all the interested parties. The Constitutional Court is set to decide whether to uphold the president's impeachment as early as this week. Where is it all going? In the short term, markets will respond to the court case and elections. A ruling is expected immediately, but could take until June. A ruling ejecting the president would be positive for South Korean risk assets, as it would reduce the current extreme uncertainty. As to the long-term outlook, if everything were to happen according to the region's familiar patterns of rising and falling tensions, China's sanctions would force North Korea to offer de-escalation, a new left-wing government in South Korea would launch a bold new "Sunshine Policy" of engagement with the North, and the alignment of these three in favor of new diplomatic negotiations would drive Japan and the United States to give peace another chance despite their skepticism about the outcome. By 2018, a revival of something like the Six Party Talks, discontinued in 2009, would be on the horizon or even underway. The problem is that the usual cycle is less assured because of the North's improving capabilities and other factors above. Thus, until we see China verifiably enforce sanctions, North Korea step back from its provocations, and the Trump administration take a non-aggressive posture (with Japan following suit), the Korean peninsula will be at a heightened risk of producing geopolitical "black swan" events. Bottom Line: North Korea is shifting from a red herring to a potential black swan, at least until U.S.-China relations improve and lend some stability to the situation. Stay short KRW/THB. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Congress Pass The Border Adjustment Tax?" dated February 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 For example, the 2010 "Tea Party" revolution reversed the Democrat's majority in the House with one of the most sweeping victories merely 24 months following President Obama's 2008 victory, which itself was a lot more convincing than Trump's victory over Clinton. 4 Republican Ryan Zinke won the Montana seat but left it to become Trump's Secretary of Interior; Republican Tom Price won the Georgia seat but left it to become Secretary of Health and Human Services. 5 Dynamic-scoring, also known as macroeconomic modeling, is a favorite tool of Republican legislators when passing tax cut legislation. It allows policymakers to cut taxes and then score the impact on the budget deficit holistically, taking into consideration the supposed pro-growth impact of the legislation. The same method could be used to pass "revenue-neutral" infrastructure spending, given that it too would produce higher economic growth and thus presumably higher government revenues. 6 Several income brackets would see no substantial tax cuts under the original tax cut plan proposed by the Trump campaign. Those making $15,000-$19,000 would see their tax rate increase from 10% to 12%. Those making $52,500-101,500 would see their rate stay the same at 25%, while those making $127,500-$200,500 would see their rate rise substantively, from 28% to 33%. Please see Jim Nunns et al, "An Analysis Of Donald Trump's Revised Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center, October 18, 2016, available at www.taxpolicycenter.org. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, and "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 President Trump failed to mention that the U.S. was - when Lincoln made the statement in 1846 - a developing economy. Nor did he mention that Lincoln made the statements not as a president but a representative. 9 Please see Holland, Steve, Reuters, "Exclusive: Trump says Republican border tax could boost U.S. jobs," dated February 24, 2017, available at reuters.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Renzi said on February 26 that "The elections are envisaged in February 2018. Fullstop." Please see Reuters, "Decision on early Italian elections up to PM Gentiloni: Renzi," dated February 26, 2017, available at reuters.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Greece After The Euro: A Land Of Milk And Honey?," dated January 20, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia," dated March 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2016: Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, and "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see Mark Landler, "North Korea Nuclear Threat Cited by James Clapper, Intelligence Chief," New York Times, February 9, 2016; Siegfried S. Hecker, "The U.S. Must Talk To North Korea," New York Times, January 12, 2017, available at www.nytimes.com. See also Jeff Seldin, "N. Korea Capable of Nuclear Strike at US, Military Leader Says," Voice of America, April 7, 2015, available at www.voanews.com. In 2013, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey said that "in the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary, we have to assume the worst case, and that's ... why we're postured as we are today," quoted in "Hagel: North Korea Near 'Red Line,'" UPI, April 10, 2013, available at www.upi.com. 17 Enforcement is as yet unclear. Please see Leo Byrne, "North Korean cargo ship moves between Chinese, DPRK coal facilities," dated March 6, 2017, available at www.nknews.org.

The Tactical Asset Allocation model can provide investment recommendations which diverge from those outlined in our regular weekly publications. The model has a much shorter investment horizon - namely, one month - and thus attempts to capture very tactical opportunities. Meanwhile, our regular recommendations have a longer expected life, anywhere from 3-months to a year (or longer). This difference explains why the recommendations between the two publications can deviate from each other from time to time. Highlights In February, the model underperformed global equities and the S&P 500 in USD and local-currency terms. For March, the model slightly increased its allocation to stocks and cut its weighting in bonds (Chart 1). Within the equity portfolio, the allocation to Europe was increased. The model boosted its weightings to French and Australian bonds at the expense of Canadian and Swedish paper. The risk index for stocks, as well as the one for bonds, deteriorated in February. Feature Performance In February, the recommended balanced portfolio gained 2.1% in local-currency terms, and 0.2% in U.S. dollar terms (Chart 2). This compares with a gain of 3% for the global equity benchmark and a 3.3% gain for the S&P 500. Given that the underlying model is structured in local-currency terms, we generally recommend that investors hedge their positions, though we provide suggestions on currency risk exposure from time to time. The high allocation to bonds continued to hold back the model's performance. Chart 1Model Weights Chart 2Portfolio Total Returns Weights The model increased its allocation to stocks from 53% to 57%, and cut its bond weighting from 47% to 43% (Table 1). Table 1Model Weights (As Of February 23, 2017) The model increased its equity allocation to Dutch and Swedish equities by 4 points each, Germany and New Zealand by 2 points each, and France and Emerging Asia by 1 point each. Weightings were cut in Italy by 4 points, Latin America by 3 points, Spain by 2 points, and Switzerland by 1 point. In the fixed-income space, the allocation to Australia was boosted by 8 points, France by 6 points, and Germany by 4 points. The model cut its exposure to Swedish bonds by 9 points, Canadian bonds by 6 points, U.S. and U.K. bonds by 3 points each, and Kiwi bonds by 1 point. Currency Allocation Local currency-based indicators drive the construction of our model. As such, the performance of the model's portfolio should be compared with the local-currency global equity benchmark. The decision to hedge currency exposure should be made at the client's discretion, though from time to time, we do provide our recommendations. The most recent bout of dollar depreciation was halted in February. Our Dollar Capitulation Index is below neutral levels. However, it is not extended, meaning that it does not preclude renewed dollar weakness in the near term. That said, assuming no major negative economic surprises, a relatively more hawkish Fed versus its peers should provide support for the dollar (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* And Capitulation Capital Market Indicators The risk index for commodities was little changed in February. The model continues to avoid this asset class (Chart 4). The risk index for global equities rose to its highest level since early 2010, mostly on the back of deteriorating value. Despite this, the model slightly increased its allocation to equities (Chart 5). Chart 4Commodity Index And Risk Chart 5Global Stock Market And Risk The rally in U.S. stocks - driven by optimism about the economic outlook - pushed the value component of the risk index into expensive territory. The model kept a small allocation in U.S. equities. A change in the perception about the ability of the new U.S. administration to boost growth remains a risk for this market (Chart 6). The risk index for euro area equities continues to deteriorate. However, it remains lower than its U.S. counterpart. The continued flow of solid economic data and a weaker currency should bode well for euro area stocks, although political uncertainty is a potential headwind (Chart 7). Chart 6U.S. Stock Market And Risk Chart 7Euro Area Stock Market And Risk All three components of the risk index for Dutch equities are close to neutral levels. As a result, despite the recent deterioration in the overall risk index, it remains one of the lowest among the markets the model covers (Chart 8). The risk index for Swedish stocks worsened. However, the model increased its allocation to this bourse. Swedish equities would be a beneficiary of the continued risk-on environment (Chart 9). Chart 8Netherlands Stock Market And Risk Chart 9Swedish Stock Market And Risk The momentum indicator for global bonds is less stretched in February. Meanwhile, despite its latest decline, the cyclical indicator continues to signal that the positive global economic backdrop is firmly bond-bearish. Taken all together, the risk index for bonds deteriorated in February, although it still remains in the low-risk zone (Chart 10). U.S. Treasury yields moved sideways in February as investors await more guidance from the Fed on the timing of the next hike. A bond-negative cyclical indicator coupled with the unwinding of oversold conditions - as per the momentum measure - led to a deterioration in the risk index for U.S. Treasurys. The latter is almost back to neutral levels. The model trimmed the allocation to this asset class (Chart 11). Chart 10Global Bond Yields And Risk Chart 11U.S. Bond Yields And Risk The momentum indicator remains the main driver of the risk index for Canadian bonds. As a result, the less extreme momentum reading translated into an increase in the risk index for this asset class. (Chart 12). The risk index for Australian bonds moved lower in February, reflecting improvements in all three of its components. The model included the relatively high-yielding Aussie bonds in the portfolio. (Chart 13). Chart 12Canadian Bond Yields And Risk Chart 13Australian Bond Yields And Risk The cyclical indicator for euro area bonds is near expensive levels, and the momentum indicator shows heavily oversold conditions. These two measures are offsetting the cyclical one that is sending a bond-bearish message. While the overall risk index for euro area bonds is in the low-risk zone, the country allocation is concentrated in French paper (Chart 14). The risk level for French bonds is seen as low thanks to oversold momentum. French presidential elections are probably the most important political event in Europe this year. Whether the models' heavy allocation to this asset pans out hinges to a certain extent on the reduction of investor anxiety about this political risk (Chart 15). Chart 14Euro Area Bond Yields And Risk Chart 15French Bond Yields And Risk The 13-week momentum measure for the dollar broke below the zero line, and is currently sitting on its upward-sloping trendline, drawn from the 2010 lows, that has been broken only once before. Meanwhile, the 40-week rate of change measure is still suggesting that the dollar bull market has more legs on a cyclical horizon. Monetary divergences should lend support to the dollar over the cyclical horizon, although the new administration's attempts to talk down the dollar as well as heightened policy uncertainty could translate into more volatility (Chart 16). The weakening trend in the yen hit a snag two months ago, as the 13-week momentum measure reached the lows that previously foreshadowed a consolidation phase after sharp depreciations. This short-term rate-of-change measure has bounced smartly this year reaching a critical level. Meanwhile, the 40-week rate-of-change measure is not warning of a major change in the underlying trend which remains dictated by BoJ's dovish bias (Chart 17). EUR/USD has been gravitating towards 1.05 over the course of February. The short-term rate-of-change measure seems to be holding at the neutral level, while the 40-week rate-of-change measure is in negative territory, but hardly stretched. Political uncertainty has the potential to drive the euro in near term, but the longer-term outlook is mostly a function of the monetary policy divergence between the ECB and the Fed (Chart 18). Chart 16U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* Chart 17Yen Chart 18Euro Miroslav Aradski, Senior Analyst miroslava@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Markets are facing large tail risks - both negative and positive; Donald Trump is a "Fat-Tail" president; European politics offer both a right-tail risk - German Europhile turn ... ... And a left-tail risk - Italian election and a shock in France; Investors should turn to the options market for opportunities. Feature "Stock market hits new high with longest winning streak in decades. Great level of confidence and optimism - even before tax plan rollout!" President Donald Trump "tweet" - February 16, 2017 Global stocks continue their tear as the market shrugs off President Trump's tweets, European Black Swans, saber-rattling in the South China Sea, and fears of de-globalization. Some of the optimism is backed by economic data, but mostly by the "soft data," or survey-based indicators (Chart 1).1 Chart 1Not Much Behind The Optimism Aside From Animal Spirits So, why the party? It's the Animal Spirits. The bears are in retreat ... or facing deportation! We think investors are betting that the combination of the Brexit referendum and election of Donald Trump has forced policymakers to take their heads out of the sand. The market believes that policymakers have heard the angry electorate whose message is that dithering over economic policies must stop. BCA has been in this camp since last summer, when our colleague Peter Berezin penned an optimistic missive titled "The Upside To Populism."2 The hope that urgency will translate to expediency is what we think has propelled the S&P 500 to one of its best post-election performances (Chart 2). Trump's market performance is in the 83rd percentile of post-election outcomes. As promised, Trump has delivered a win. Chart 2Trump Is Winning The S&P 500 Contest The danger is that the market is extrapolating from the Trump presidency all the "right-tail" or super-positive policy outcomes without accounting for any left-tail events. Trump is a "Fat-Tails" president, an unorthodox politician that could break the gridlock and deliver positive change, but whose brand of nationalist populism may also produce paradigm-shifting crises along the way. Several indicators suggest that caution is warranted. Our U.S. Equity Strategy colleagues offer two measures of complacency, the valuation-to-volatility ratio (Chart 3) and "Complacency-Anxiety Index" (Chart 4).3 Both are stretched and suggest that the market has never been as engrossed by the right-tail narrative as today. Given our constraints-based methodology, we are concerned by how certain the market appears. It seems to believe that all the wonderful things that Trump has promised will face no constraints, while his nationalism and mercantilism will be discarded. Chart 3Market Sees Only Right Tails Chart 4Complacency Reigns First, on the domestic front, Trump faces several mounting constraints: Political capital: Trump is an unpopular president (Chart 5), at least by the standards of his peers who enjoyed a post-election "honeymoon." This could affect his relationship with the GOP-controlled Congress that hardly warmed up to him in the first place. Precedent: Congress is struggling to produce Obamacare-replacement legislation, which the GOP had six years to prepare for. This bodes poorly for the timeliness of other legislation, like tax reform. Paying for stimulus: Republicans and the White House appear to be at odds over how to pay for the coming household and corporate tax cuts. The former want to pass the controversial border adjustment tax (BAT),4 while the Trump administration may not care how tax cuts are paid for. The BAT proposal is also facing opposition from major retailers and its legality under the WTO is still in question. Infrastructure: Spending on infrastructure, which is a no-brainer and has broad public support (Chart 6), has not seen a concrete plan despite Trump's emphasis on it during his inaugural address and campaign. Chart 5Trump's Approval Ratings Dismal Chart 6Everyone Loves New Roads In addition to the domestic political agenda, investors must deal with a packed European political calendar that we elucidated in last week's report5 (Table 1) and a potential U.S.-China trade war that could spill over into military tensions in the South China Sea.6 Table 1Busy Calendar For Europe This Year Investors may have been lulled into complacency by the February 10 phone call between presidents Xi and Trump. During the call, Trump committed to uphold the "One China" policy that has formed the bedrock of the Beijing-Washington rapprochement since 1972. A week later, on February 16, China suspended all imports of coal from North Korea - 50% of the country's entire export haul - until the end of the year. The move was a big nod to Donald Trump, a message by Beijing that China can play the role of an indispensable partner - if not outright ally - in the region. These moves have put fears of trade protectionism, our main candidate for a catalyst of a market correction, on the backburner. Investors can certainly be disappointed by smaller-than-expected tax cuts and tepid infrastructure spending, but such policy reversals will only encourage the Fed to stay easy and thus prolong the party. In the context of a synchronized global growth recovery - with both the global (Chart 7) and U.S. (Chart 8) economies looking decent - investors will not be deterred from bullishness merely by congressional intrigue. Chart 7Global Growth Looks Solid ... Chart 8... And So Does U.S. Growth The problem for investors is that the main two risks to global markets in 2017 have no set timeline. Last week, we pointed out that the main political risk in Europe is the Italian election whose date could be in autumn, or even as late as spring 2018. Today we add the French election to the list, where Marine Le Pen is mounting a furious rally on the back of rioting in the banlieue of Aulnay-sous-Bois. Similarly, Trump's mercantilism may remain dormant as he focuses on immigration, the "dishonest media," and cabinet appointees, even though it is very real. His administration is laser-focused on correcting a major perceived ill of the U.S. economy: the current account deficit. Therefore, investors should certainly welcome the Xi-Trump phone call, but the fact that the two leaders spent valuable time reaffirming a policy set 45 years ago should not be encouraging. In fact, the Trump administration has since asked the U.S. Trade Representative's office to consider changing how it calculates the U.S. trade deficit. According to the Wall Street Journal, Trump's White House is looking to exclude "re-exports" - goods imported into the U.S. merely so they can be assembled and then exported - from the calculation of U.S. exports.7 This would naturally balloon the U.S. trade deficit and give the Trump administration greater political ammunition - particularly against Mexico - for retaliation. Given solid global growth data, extremely positive surveys, and a market narrative still focused on the "Upside of Populism," it is tempting for investors to throw caution to the wind. Every time we encounter a bear in a client meeting or conference, we ask if he or she would "buy on dips" in case a correction happened. Their answer is almost universally "yes." It is difficult to see how a correction occurs in such an environment, where nobody actually expects a bear market. Although we are throwing in the towel with our two hedges - both the S&P 500 and Eurostoxx hedges have stopped out, we continue to stress that the market has priced in none of the left-tail risks that remain. We have a Fat-Tail President in the White House and an increasingly binary resolution to the euro area saga in the making in Europe. Fat Tails In Europe Since late 2016, we have suspected that Merkel's rule is unsustainable.8 However, while most investors fretted that Merkel would be replaced by a Euroskeptic, we considered that outcome extremely unlikely (at least in the current electoral cycle). For one, the refugee crisis that befell Europe would be short-lived, and indeed it is now over (Chart 9). For another, Germans are not Euroskeptics. What is astonishing is how quickly the German political establishment has realized and sought to profit from these facts. Instead of opposing Merkel with a cautious choice, the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) has turned to an unabashed Europhile, former President of the European Parliament Martin Schulz. Schulz is a relative unknown in Germany and was perceived by Merkel's coterie as a lightweight. On the surface, this made sense. Schulz has no university education and worked as a bookseller before becoming a politician. However, he knows EU politics extremely well, as he has been a member of the European Parliament since 1994. He has therefore heard every Euroskeptic argument on the continent and has learned to counter it emphatically. And he seems to understand the benefits that euro area membership has bestowed upon Germany, a view he appears to share with 80% of the German public, if the latest polls are to be believed (Chart 10)! Chart 9Migrant Crisis Waning Chart 10Germans See The Euro As A Great Deal Thus far, Schulz's campaign has focused on three main lines of attack: the traditional SPD call for greater economic redistribution, general appeal for European solidarity, and blaming Merkel for the rise of populists. To everyone's surprise - other than folks who understand how Germany works - this has been a successful approach. In just three weeks, the SPD has gone from trailing Merkel's Christian Democratic Union (CDU) by double digits to leading in the polls for the first time since 2001 (Chart 11). What should investors make of Schulz's meteoric rise? For one, nobody should get too excited, as the election is still a long seven months away. However, the SPD's resurrection suggests that the German political marketplace has been demanding a genuinely pro- euro area political alternative to the overly cautious Angela Merkel for some time. In other words, Schulz has realized that the median voter in Germany is far more Europhile than the conventional wisdom and Merkel have thought. Again... Chart 10 says it all! Unfortunately for the euro, Germany's Europhile turn may be too little too late. Italy's election is a major risk. As with the threat of American mercantilism, Italian elections are a risk that we cannot properly time. Furthermore, polls remain extremely close in Italy, suggesting that the election could go either way between the establishment and Euroskeptic parties. At this point, the best outcome may be a hung parliament. Meanwhile, the ongoing unrest in the northeast suburb of Paris, Aulnay-sous-Bois, appears to have given Marine Le Pen some wind in her sails (Chart 12). She has closed her head-to-head polling gap against Francois Fillon and Emmanuel Macron to just 12% and 20% respectively. Our net assessment is that she is not going to win, but our conviction level is declining. Her subjective probability has climbed to well over 20% at this point. Chart 11Pro-Europe Sentiment Drives SPD Revival Chart 12Le Pen Lags By 12-20% In Second Round Similar rioting in 2005 launched the political career of one Nicolas Sarkozy, who, as the country's Minister of Interior, took a hard line approach to the unrest, which launched him into the presidency. The lesson from Sarkozy's rise is important for two reasons. First, unrest in France's banlieues is politically relevant. These frequent bursts of violence support the National Front (FN) narrative that the integration of migrants has failed, that the country needs full control over its borders, and that the elites in Paris are not serious about law and order. The second lesson is that centrist, establishment politicians have no problem with being tough on crime, minorities, or immigrants. Sarkozy's rhetoric in 2007 mirrored much of the FN electoral platform. There is enough time, in other words, for Macron and Fillon to do the same in 2017. This will be particularly easy for Fillon, whose immigration policies already echo those of the FN. Chart 13ECB Policy Will Stimulate Core Europe Macron, however, could be in trouble in the second round. And at the moment, he is more likely to face Le Pen in the second round than Fillon. As we pointed out in last week's missive, Macron could struggle to get right-wing voters to support him in the second round. We still do not have a historical case where right-wing voters were the ones who swung against the FN. In both the 2002 presidential election and the 2015 regional elections, it was mostly left-wing voters who swung to the center-right to keep the FN out of power. Will French conservative voters come out and support a centrist candidate like Macron who may be perceived as "soft" on crime? Time will tell. His polling appears to be holding up well against Le Pen, but her momentum is now rising. Bottom Line: Europe faces its own version of Fat Tails in 2017. On the one hand, we expect the ECB to remain easier than consensus would have it, given the mounting political risks in the periphery. We expect the ECB to ignore the broad euro area economy and focus on the interest rates that the periphery - namely Italy - needs (very low for very long time) (Chart 13). When combined with a Europhile turn in Germany and a positive fiscal thrust as the EU Commission turns against austerity, we see a Goldilocks scenario for euro area assets over the short and medium term. We are betting that this right-tail risk will ultimately prevail. On the other hand, Italian elections could knock the train off the rails at any time. Due to the announced leadership race in the ruling Democratic Party (PD), the election will most likely have to take place after the summer. Or, it may have to be put off until Q1 2018. But whenever it is announced, it will become the risk to European and global assets. For now, we continue to recommend that clients remain overweight euro area equities. However, vigilance will be needed as the market climbs the wall of worry. Investment Implications - Trading Fat Tails In A Low-Vol World What should investors do in a world that is increasingly exemplified by our Fat-Tails thesis? Current levels of the VIX suggest that the market is not pricing in a potentially higher level of volatility, which we would intuitively expect to rise in a Fat-Tail world (Chart 14). On the other hand, current low levels of volatility may merely be the calm before the storm. Investors may be "frozen" by the high probability of both left- and right-tail outcomes and thus choosing to sit on the sidelines instead of committing to any one narrative. Chart 14Volatility Extremely Low One way to think about investing in this world is to turn to the options market. The options market is unique in that it allows investors to take a view on the dispersion of the expected returns of the asset against which the option is written.9 This is because one of the critical components of a call or put option's value is the expected volatility of returns for the asset underlying the option itself. Volatility is trading-market shorthand for the annualized standard deviation of expected returns for the underlying asset. Volatility is a calculated value, whereas the other components of an option's price - i.e. the underlying asset's price, the strike price, time to expiration, and interest rates - are known inputs. Volatility, like the price of the underlying asset, is "discovered" when a trade occurs. After an option trades and its premium is known, an option-pricing model - e.g., the Black-Scholes-Merton model - can be run backwards, so to speak, to see what level of volatility solves the pricing model for the value that cleared the market. This is known as the option's implied volatility, because it is the expected standard deviation of returns implied by the price at which the option clears the market. One reason investors and traders buy and sell options is to express a view on implied volatility. Option buyers who think the market is underestimating the likelihood of sharply higher returns can express this view by buying out-of-the-money options. This can arise for any number of reasons, but they all boil down to one essential point: option buyers think there is a higher probability that returns will be higher or lower during the life of an option than what is being priced in the options market.10 Option sellers, on the other hand, are expressing the opposite view. We believe the geopolitical tail risks we have discussed in this report are not being fully reflected in the options markets most sensitive to this information, among them the gold market. Our own assessment of these risks implies much fatter tails than we currently observe in out-of-the-money gold options. For this reason, we are recommending investors consider buying $1,200/oz gold puts and $1,300/oz gold calls expiring in either June or December of this year. This is a strategic recommendation. We leave it to investors to set their own stop-loss, if they are not comfortable foregoing the full premium paid to hold these options to expiry, possibly expiring worthless. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Robert Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Downside To Full Employment," dated February 3, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Upside To Populism," dated August 19, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Bridging The Gap," dated February 6, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Congress Pass The Border Adjustment Tax?" dated February 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?," dated January 25, 2017, and "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 "Please see William Mauldin and Devlin Barrett, "Trump Administration Considers Change In Calculating U.S. Trade Deficit," Wall Street Journal, February 19, 2017, available at www.wsj.com. 8 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Call options give the buyer the right to go long an underlying asset at the price at which an option contract is struck - i.e. the option's strike price. Puts give option buyers the right to go short the underlying asset at the price at which the contract is struck. While an option buyer is not required to ever exercise an option, option sellers must take the other side of the deal if the buyer chooses to exercise. Option buyers pay a premium for the put or call they purchase. 10 This probability also can be expressed in terms of price levels, which allows investors to take an explicit view of the likelihood of a particular price being realized during the life of the option being purchased. Please see Bob Ryan and Tancred Lidderdale, "Energy Price Volatility and Forecast Uncertainty," published by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (2009), for a discussion of options markets and implied volatility. "Appendix II: Derivation of the Cumulative Normal Density for Futures Prices" beginning on p. 22 shows how to transform the returns distribution into a price distribution. It is available at https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/special/pdf/2009_sp_05.pdf. Geopolitical Calendar

特別レポート

Highlights European populism is a red herring in 2017; France is a buy, Le Pen is overrated; Merkel's demise would be an opportunity, not a risk; Yet Italy poses a real risk - elections will be crucial; Moreover, Euro breakup risk is rising over the long run. Feature Clients are nervous. Nationalist and Euroskeptic French presidential candidate Marine Le Pen continues to lead first-round polling in the elections. Meanwhile, one of her establishment opponents - François Fillon - is facing corruption charges while anti-police riots have flared up in the banlieue of Aulnay-sous-Bois, northeast of Paris. Everything seems to be falling in place for another "black swan" political outcome (Chart 1). With Brexit and President Trump's victory fresh in everyone's consciousness, it is unsurprising that Le Pen's election probability is more than double our own assessment of 15% (Chart 2). Chart 1Another Black Swan In The Making? Chart 2Brexit/Trump Drive Up Bets On Le Pen In this analysis, we take our clients around Europe in under 3,000 words. There is a lot happening on the continent this year. Yet, as we argued in our Strategic Outlook, Europe is setting up to be a massive red herring for investors.1 For example, France is more likely to have a free-market revolution than a populist one! It could be the chief investment opportunity in developed markets over the next several years.2 We are also optimistic about the Netherlands and Germany, despite alarms about populism. As such, we are going to play devil's advocate in this analysis and push our sanguine view to its limit. Where does our bullish logic break down? The Netherlands We begin with the Netherlands, which is the first to hit a busy electoral calendar in 2017. General elections are set for March 15 and the Euroskeptic Party for Freedom (PVV) of Geert Wilders will win a plurality of seats in the House of Representatives. According to the latest polls, Wilders' PVV will capture about 30 out of the 150 seats in the Tweede Kamer, the largest of any party. However, it is not enough to form a majority (Chart 3). Chart 3Dutch Populists A Minority In Parliament The problem for the centrist parties in the Netherlands is that there are too many of them. In Chart 3, we combine the center-left and center-right, pro-EU integration parties together. There are approximately ten such parties fighting over the pro-EU middle ground. None is expected to get to the 30-seat projected average of PVV. Given that the center-right and center-left parties split the establishment vote roughly in half (~60 seats each), it is likely that the Dutch pro-EU parties will need a cross-aisle "Grand Coalition" to produce a government. Coalitions take a long time to form in the Netherlands. In 2012, the process took 54 days, whereas in 2010 it took four months. The 2010 election is a good guide to this year's event, as it also produced a relatively complicated seat breakdown that ultimately forced the center-right to depend on PVV votes to govern. We suspect that the Netherlands will be deep into the coalition talks in the summer months, well after the French election is over. Investors take comfort in the fact that PVV cannot form an anti-EU/euro government on their own. This is true. We would also point out that the Dutch support the euro at a very high level (Chart 4) and that they surprisingly lack confidence in the country's future outside the EU (Chart 5). However, a "Grand Coalition" whose only purpose is to keep PVV out of government would cede the "opposition" ground to Wilders and his Euroskeptic government. And while this seems like a good idea today, while Europe's economic growth is rebounding and the migration crisis has abated (Chart 6), it could be a very bad idea once the next recession hits or the next geopolitical crisis reveals flaws in EU governance. Chart 4The Dutch Highly Approve Of The Euro... Chart 5...And See Little Future Outside The EU Chart 6Waning Migrant Crisis Undermines Populist France Constraints to a Le Pen victory in the upcoming presidential election - April 23 and May 7 - are considerable, and we expanded on them in our February 3rd Special Report "The French Revolution."3 Briefly, they are: Strong French support for the euro: Support appears to be inversely correlated with Le Pen's overall popularity, suggesting that her stance on the euro and EU creates a ceiling to her support level (Chart 7). Le Pen is weak in the polls: Le Pen continues to trail both centrist Emmanuel Macron and center-right François Fillon in the second-round polling, both by around 20% (Chart 8)! Comparing Le Pen's chances to those of Trump is a massive insult to the latter, given that Trump never trailed Clinton by more than 8% with three months to go. Bad omens for Le Pen's party: The December 2015 regional elections pose a troubling precedent for Le Pen and her National Front (FN). Her party was decimated in the two-round format, despite a slew of tailwinds at the time, including the largest terrorist attack in recent French history. Chart 7Le Pen Hobbled By Her Anti-Euro Stance Chart 8Le Pen Lags By ~20% In Key Second-Round Polls So, how does Le Pen win? We can imagine a scenario where a combination of another terrorist attack, banlieue rioting, and perhaps a restart of the migration crisis inspires enough voters to vote for Le Pen. Further, given that relatively liberal Macron is likely to make it to the second round, center-right voters may stay home or even shift to Le Pen in case of such a toxic brew. One problem with recent French electoral history is that it is replete with examples of center-left and left-wing voters strategically voting against Le Pen, yet little evidence exists that French conservative voters are willing to do the same and cast their vote for a left-leaning candidate. As such, despite better polling than Fillon in the second-round head-to-head against Le Pen, Macron remains vulnerable. What happens if Le Pen wins the election? This depends on whether FN wins the legislative elections set for June 11 and 18 - also a two-round election. Polls for the legislative election are sparse and unreliable, but it would be a shock if FN won a majority, especially given its performance in the December 2015 regional elections. As such, President Le Pen would have to co-habitate with an opposition-led parliament. The president of France has a lot of power, but it is checked by the National Assembly, the lower house of the parliament. For example, Le Pen's choice for prime minister would have to command a majority in the National Assembly in order to govern. And a number of constitutional powers - appointing members of the government, calling a referendum, dissolving the National Assembly, or ruling by decree - require the consent of the prime minister and cabinet. She would not even have a veto power over laws passed by parliament, as the French president can only delay legislation. Le Pen would only be unconstrained in matters of defense and foreign policy, where she could pursue several unorthodox policies. However, France's EU membership is written into the constitution (Article 88-1). Modifying the constitution would require an act of parliament (and potentially also a referendum, depending on a majority in parliament). In addition, France's membership in the euro is a legal obligation of its membership in the EU - given that France did not opt-out of the monetary union as Denmark and the U.K. did during the negotiations of the Maastricht Treaty. As such, it is unclear how Le Pen would be able to get the country out of the euro without pursuing the same procedure as the U.K. under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, for which she would need to change the French constitution. All that said, these constraints may not be clear to the market if she is elected. We suspect that global markets would panic. A market riot, in fact, would be necessary to force Le Pen into orthodox policy, as it did with the surprise 1981 victory by socialist-leaning François Mitterrand. However, Mitterrand did not reverse policy until after two currency devaluations in the first year of his presidency, with the possibility of an IMF program openly discussed in Paris. The volte-face came after two years of sustained market pressure. It is not clear that France, or Europe for that matter, has that much time to dither today. Spain A referendum on the independence of Catalonia is expected by September. A referendum has been the main goal of the pro-independence government since Catalan elections in September 2015. The government combines far-left and center-right nationalists in an ungovernable coalition whose only common goal is independence. Chart 9Catalans Want Autonomy, Not Independence News flash to the markets: Catalans do not want independence, but rather a renegotiation of the region's relationship with Spain (Chart 9). And as we argued in our net assessment of the issue in 2014, a surge in internal migration since the Second World War has diluted the Catalan share of the total population.4 In fact, only 31% of the population identifies Catalan as their "first language," compared with 55% who identify with Spanish.5 Another 10% identify non-Iberian languages as their first language, suggesting that migrants will further dilute support for sovereignty, as they have done in other places (most recently: Quebec). According to the Spanish constitution, Catalonia does not have the legal right to call for an independence referendum. We suspect that the center-right government in Madrid will continue to deny the legitimacy of any referendum. Ironically, this will suppress the anti-independence turnout and hand the nationalists a victory in September. What then? A low-turnout vote, combined with no recognition from Madrid, means that the only way for the Catalan referendum to be relevant is if the nationalist government is willing to enforce sovereignty. The globally recognized definition of sovereignty is the "monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a defined territory." To put it bluntly: the Catalan government has to take up arms in order for its referendum to be relevant to markets (beyond the inevitable knee-jerk reactions surrounding the vote). Without recognition from Spain, and with no support from EU and NATO member states, Catalonia cannot win independence with a referendum alone. Germany General elections are set for September 24, with investors concerned that Chancellor Angela Merkel may face a tougher-than-expected challenge from the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD). The new SPD Chancellor candidate, Martin Schulz, is polling very well and has even overtaken Merkel in the head-to-head polls (Chart 10). Schulz's overtly Europhile position - he has been the European Parliament Speaker since 2012 - appears to be winning over voters. The CDU held on to a double-digit lead over the SPD right up until Schulz took over as the primary challenger to Merkel (Chart 11). Chart 10Schulz Now Leads Merkel For Chancellor Chart 11Pro-Europe Sentiment Drives SPD Revival To some extent, CDU's drop in the polls was inevitable. It is correlated with a decline in Merkel's popularity (Chart 12). But we suspect there is more to it. Schulz's confidently pro-European attitude is a breath of fresh air for voters in Germany who have perhaps lost faith in Merkel's cautious approach to the euro crisis. Record-high support for the common currency in Germany suggests that we may be on to something (Chart 13). The German public is simply nowhere close to being as Euroskeptic as the financial media would have investors believe. And that is for good reason: euro area membership has clearly worked for Germany. Can Schulz and the Europhile SPD keep up the pressure on Merkel? Time will tell. But we take two messages from the polls. First, Euroskeptic parties are nowhere close to governing in Germany (Chart 14). Second, Merkel is a shrewd politician who has shamelessly pivoted on policy issues in the past. If Merkel senses that her lukewarm embrace of European integration can cost her the election, and that voters are buying Schulz's claim that she is to blame for the rise of populists in Europe, then she will pivot on Europe. This would be very bullish for markets as it would suggest that Berlin is ready and willing to apply fewer sticks and more carrots to its euro area peers. Chart 12Merkel's Popularity##br## In Decline Chart 13Germans See The Euro##br## As A Great Deal Chart 14There Is A Lot Of Daylight... ##br##Euroskeptic Parties Weak In Germany What if Schulz defeats Merkel and the SPD takes over the leadership of the grand coalition, or perhaps forms a coalition with left-leaning Greens and Die Linke? Is Merkel's demise not a risk to the markets? Most of our clients would see Merkel's retirement as a risk. We disagree. Investors are overstating Merkel's role as the "anchor" of euro area stability. She has, in fact, dithered multiple times throughout the crisis. In 2011, for example, Merkel delayed the decision on whether to set up a permanent euro area fiscal backstop mechanism due to upcoming Lander elections in Rhineland-Palatinate and Baden Württemberg. Her handling of the migration crisis also left much to be desired, to put it kindly. The SPD has picked up on this line of criticism and Schulz has begun to blame Merkel's cautious approach and insistence on austerity for the populism sweeping Europe. Given that polls suggest that Germans are not really in favor of austerity, this is potentially a winning strategy (Chart 15). Chart 15Germans Are Not Obsessed With Austerity We therefore believe that Merkel's demise is not being correctly priced by the markets. First, investors seem to believe that she will easily win another term. Second, those that fret about her future incorrectly price the downside risk. We actually see Merkel's retirement as an opportunity, not a risk. Whether the SPD takes over, or a more Europhile member of the CDU replaces an embarrassed Merkel as the leader of a grand coalition (Box 1), investors should contemplate what the continent will look like with a new Europhile chancellor. BOX 1 Likely Successors To German Chancellor Angela Merkel If Merkel decides to retire, who are her potential successors? Wolfgang Schäuble, Finance Minister (CDU): The bane of the financial community, Schäuble is seen as the least market-friendly option due to his hardline position on bailouts and the euro area. In our view, this is an incorrect interpretation of Schäuble's heavy-handedness. He is by all accounts a genuine Europhile who believes in the integrationist project. At 74 years old, he comes from a generation of policymakers who consider European integration a national security issue for Germany. He has pursued a tough negotiating position in order to ensure that the German population does not sour on European integration. Nonetheless, we doubt that he will choose to take on the chancellorship if Merkel retires. He suffered an assassination attempt in 1990 that left him paralyzed and he has occasionally had to be hospitalized due to health complications from this injury. As such, it is unlikely that he would replace Merkel, but he may stay on as Finance Minister and thus be as close to a "Vice President" role as possible in Germany. Ursula von der Leyen, Defense Minister (CDU): Most often cited as the likely replacement for Merkel, Leyen nonetheless is not seen favorably by most of the population. She is a strong advocate of further European integration and has supported the creation of a "United States of Europe." Leyen has gone so far as to say that the refugee crisis and the debt crisis are similar in that they will ultimately force Europe to integrate further. As a defense minister, she has promoted the creation of a robust EU army. She has also been a hardliner on Brexit, saying that the U.K. will not re-enter the EU in her lifetime. The markets and pro-EU elites in Europe would love Leyen, who has handled U.S. President Trump's statements on Germany, Europe, Russia and NATO with notable tact. Thomas De Maizière, Interior Minister (CDU): Maizière is a former Defense Minister and a close confidant of Chancellor Merkel. He was her chief of staff from 2005 to 2009. Like Schäuble, he is somewhat of a hawk on euro area issues (he drove a hard bargain during negotiations to set up a fiscal backstop, the European Financial Stability Fund, in 2010) and as such could be a compromise candidate between the Europhiles and Eurohawks within the CDU ranks. Though he has been implicated in scandals as defense minister, his popularity as interior minister is surging at the moment as a result of his declared intention to overhaul immigration policy and internal security. Julia Klöckner, Executive Committee Member, Deputy Chair (CDU): A CDU politician from Rhineland-Palatinate, Klöckner is a socially conservative protégé of Merkel. While she has taken a more right-wing stance on the immigration crisis, she has remained loyal to Merkel otherwise. She is a staunch Europhile who has portrayed the Euroskeptic AfD as "dangerous, sometimes racist." We think that she would be a very pro-market choice as she combines a popular, market-irrelevant wariness about immigration with a market-relevant centrism that favors further European integration. Hermann Gröhe, Minister of Health (CDU): Gröhe is a former CDU secretary general and very close to Merkel. He is a staunch supporter of the euro and European integration. Markets would have no problem with Gröhe, although they may take some time to get to know who he is! Volker Bouffier, Minister President of Hesse (CDU): As Minister President of Hesse, home of Germany's financial center Frankfurt, Bouffier's handling of Brexit will attract much scrutiny. He is a heavyweight within the CDU's leadership and a staunch Europhile. Fritz Von Zusammenbruch, Hardline Euroskeptic (CDU): Significantly, no such candidate exists! Greece The financial media have begun to fret about the ongoing negotiations between Greece and its euro area creditors over further aid to the country. Greece faces a €7bn euro repayment in July, by which time the funding must be released or the government will run out of cash. The problem is that the IMF refuses to be involved in any deal that condones Greece's unsustainable debt path. Europeans are willing to turn a blind eye to the reality in Greece and project high growth and primary surpluses. The IMF is not. And yet both Germany and Finland have made their participation in the Greek rescue conditional on the IMF's involvement. Even if a crisis emerges, the likely outcome would be early elections in Greece. Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras is holding on to a three-seat majority in the parliament. This majority is at risk, especially in a repeat of the 2015 crisis. Investors should cheer new elections in Greece, not fret about them. Polling shows that the pro-euro and pro-EU New Democracy Party is polling well above SYRIZA, and would produce a stable, pro-reform government (Chart 16). And there is no longer any Euroskeptic alternative in Greece. Chart 16No More Euroskeptic Option In Greece Given Tsipras's limited choices and the upcoming German elections, we suspect that investors will not see a return of the Greek saga this year, at least not at the same level of intensity as two years ago. And is Greek debt sustainable? Yes, it is sustainable as long as the Europeans decide to pretend that it is sustainable. Italy Last but not least is Italy. Investors have recently received some clarity on the timing of the next election as former Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has called a new leadership race in the ruling Democratic Party (PD). Given that the party must hold an internal election sometime in the spring, it is unlikely that elections will occur by mid-June, as Renzi had hoped. The most likely date is therefore in autumn 2017, given that Italy shuts down in the summer. However, interim Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni, along with a large minority of MPs, opposes Renzi's leadership and could see him defeated in the leadership race. If that happens, investors may be spared an election until closer to the formal due date of May 23, 2018. The election, whenever held, will be the main political risk for European markets in 2017. First, support for the common currency continues to plumb multi-decade lows in Italy (Chart 17), while Italian confidence in life outside the EU is perhaps the greatest on the continent (Chart 18). Second, rising negative sentiment towards the euro and the EU are reflected in very strong polling for Euroskeptic parties. Chart 19 shows that establishment parties are barely fending off the Euroskeptic challenge - and that is only because we include the Forza Italia of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi in the pro-Europe camp. Meanwhile, the ruling PD and Euroskeptic Five Star Movement (M5S) are neck-and-neck in the disaggregated polls (Chart 20). Chart 17Italians Turning Against The Euro Chart 18Italians Confident In Life Outside The EU Chart 19Euroskeptic Parties##br## Strong In Italy Chart 20Five Star Movement Rivals##br## Ruling Democratic Party What happens if M5S wins the election? Given the recent Supreme Court ruling on the electoral law, it is essentially impossible for any party to win the majority in the next election, at least with the current polling numbers. As such, M5S would have to break its electoral pledge not to form coalition governments and either form one or rule with an unstable minority. It is highly possible that M5S would use support from other Euroskeptic parties - such as the nationalist Lega Nord - to pass a law on a non-binding referendum on the euro. While the Italian constitution prohibits referenda on international treaties - and membership in the monetary union is such a treaty - a vote against the euro in a non-binding referendum would give M5S legitimacy in pursuing an Italian exit from the euro area. At such a point, we would expect that a severe market riot would be needed to push Italy away from the brink. Our assessment is that M5S would ultimately back off, as Greece did in 2015. However, Italians in 2017 are more Euroskeptic than Greeks were in 2015. Whereas Greeks saw euro membership as a key link to their membership in the Western club, Italians appear to be a lot more confident in their ability to survive euro exit. That said, M5S is not a single-issue party. Rather, it is a protest movement against government corruption and incompetence that is also moderately Euroskeptic. As such, it is not clear that it would risk an economic crisis and a potential popular revolt over an issue that has split the Italian electorate. Rather, we suspect that M5S would use the threat of euro exit to win concessions on fiscal spending from the rest of Europe. As we explained in our September 2016 net assessment of Italian politics, European integration is vital for Rome both politically and economically.6 While Italy would theoretically benefit from currency devaluation by exiting the euro, it would in practice lose access to the common market as its euro membership is legally tied to its EU membership. Politically, it would also be highly unlikely that the other euro member states would allow such a large economy to devalue against them. Investment Implications European markets remain in a sweet spot in 2017. Global growth is showing signs of improvement, the ECB will remain dovish relative to the Fed, the EU Commission is calling for more expansionary fiscal policy, and valuations continue to favor European plays over other developed market plays. Will politics spoil the party? Of the six risks we reviewed in this report, Italy is the one where the devil's advocate argument is most convincing. Polls in the country have shown no improvement in support for the euro despite the continent-wide resurgence in support (Chart 21). The other five risks will likely remain limited to fodder for the news media, allowing markets to climb the proverbial wall of worry in 2017, especially if Italian elections are pushed off into 2018. But even if the slew of elections returns pro-euro governments, long-term political risks are mounting in Europe. As we pointed out in 2013, there is a danger in relying on "Grand Coalitions" between the center-right and center-left to sustain European integration.7 Such a centrist consensus cedes the opposition ground to the Euroskeptics. If - or rather, when - a major recession or geopolitical crisis occurs, voters will no longer have a pro-establishment political alternative to turn to. As such, we agree with our market gauge of euro area breakup probability - which measures the probability of a common currency breakup over the next five years. It currently stands at 30.2% (Chart 22). Chart 21Italy Poses Chief Risk ##br##To European Integration Chart 22Euro Breakup##br## Risk Is Rising Thankfully for investors, neither a recession nor a geopolitical crisis is on the horizon in 2017. The migration crisis has ended, as we expected (Chart 23).8 Given the geographical proximity of the Middle East and North Africa to Europe, another refugee deluge is possible. We suspect it would require the collapse of new states, such as Algeria or Egypt, not merely the ongoing crises in Libya and Syria. However, with the Middle East still in flux, a recession on the five-year horizon, and the first anti-EU president in the White House, risks are beginning to stack up against European integration. Chart 23Migrant Crisis Waning The key question for 2017 is the same as it has been since 2010: what will Germany do? If the Europhile turn in German politics is real, then the assumptions that investors have taken for granted may be shifting. A Germany more willing to shoulder the cost of economic rebalancing via higher inflation and debt relief would be a game changer for markets. Pessimists will say that Germans would never accept such costs. But with a 3.9% unemployment rate, an 8.5% of GDP current account surplus, and a budget surplus, Germany is firing at all cylinders. Ultimately, the question for German voters is whether they are willing to bear the costs of regional hegemony. If they are, then Europe's economy and markets are about to enter a multi-year bull market. If they are not, then the centrist victories in 2017 may be the calm before the storm. As BCA's Geopolitical Strategy argued in our aforementioned Special Report on the French election, we recommend going long French industrials versus German industrials, to capitalize on reforms we think are likely after the election (whereas Germany has already reformed). We are also sticking with our long German consumers versus exporters trade, reflecting the robust German economy and persistently dovish ECB. Finally, by contrast with these bullish trades, we maintain our more bearish tactical trade of matching every €1 of euro area equity exposure with 40 cents of VIX term structure, since the latter will spike if and when the various headline political risks cause market flutters. BCA is cyclically overweight euro-area equities relative to the U.S. in currency-hedged terms. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy and Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 See footnote 2 above. 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see "Language Use of the Population of Catalonia," Generalitat de Catalunya Institut d'Estadustuca de Catalunya, dated 2013, available at web.gencat.cat. 6 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Austerity Is Kaputt," dated May 8, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Great Migration - Europe, Refugees, And Investment Implications," dated September 23, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

特別レポート

Highlights France is on the verge of pro-market structural reforms; Marine Le Pen will not win the presidency. Her odds are 15%; The French economic upswing will continue to surprise; Overweight French stocks relative to German; Buy the euro on any election-related dip. Feature Le courage consiste à savoir choisir le moindre mal, si affreux soit-il encore. - Stendhal La France ne peut être la France sans la grandeur. - Charles de Gaulle Every decade, a country defies stereotypes and surprises investors with ambitious, pro-market and pro-business, structural reforms (Chart 1). Margaret Thatcher's laissez-faire reforms pulled Britain out of the ghastly 1970s and into the wild 1980s. Sweden surprised the world in the 1990s when voters turned against the generous social welfare system under the stewardship of the center-right Moderate Party. At the turn of the century, Germany's Social Democratic Party (SPD) defied its own label and moved the country to the right of the economic spectrum. Finally, this decade's reform surprise is Spain, which undertook painful labor and pension reforms that have underpinned its impressive recovery. What do all of these episodes have in common? Investors - and the public at large - didn't see them coming. Our favorite example is the Hartz IV labor reforms in Germany. The SPD government of Gerhardt Schröder completely re-wired Germany's labor market, leading to the export boom that has lasted to this day (Chart 2). And yet The Economist welcomed the Schroeder government with a scathing critique that is a textbook example of how the media often confuses stereotyping for data-driven analysis.1 Chart 1Each Decade Has A Reform Surprise Chart 2The German Miracle We think that this decade will belong to France. Yes, France. While the dominant narrative today is whether Marine Le Pen will win the presidential elections on April 23 (with a possible runoff on May 7), we think the real story is that the two other serious candidates are pro-growth, pro-reform, pro-market candidates. François Fillon and Emmanuel Macron are both running platforms of structural reforms. They are not hiding the fact that the reforms would be painful. On the contrary, their campaigns revel in the self-flagellation narrative. Most of our clients either politely roll their eyes when we present this view or counter that the French are ______ (insert favorite stereotype). We welcome the pessimism! It shows that the market is not yet pricing in a pro-market revolution that guillotines a long list of French inefficiencies. In this analysis, we present what is wrong with France, whether the presidential candidates running in the election plan to fix the problems, and our view of who is likely to win. Forecasting elections is a Bayesian process, which means that the probabilities must be constantly updated with new information. As such, we intend to keep a very close eye on the developments in the country over the next four months. What Is Wrong With France? France has a growth problem. While this is partly a cyclical issue, the reality is that its real per-capita GDP growth has been closer to Greek levels than German over the last two decades (Chart 3). In addition, France has lost competitiveness in the global marketplace, judging by its falling share of global exports relative to peers (Chart 4). Chart 3France's Lost Millennium Chart 4Export Performance Is A Disaster Three issues underpin the French malaise of the past two decades: The state is too large; The cost of financing the large state falls on the corporate sector; The labor market is inflexible. First, the French state relative to GDP is the largest in the developed world. In 2016, public spending was estimated to be 56% of GDP, compared with 44% of GDP in Germany and just 36% in the U.S. (Chart 5)! What is most concerning is that the state has actually grown in the past two decades from already unsustainable levels (Chart 6). Government employment as share of total employment is naturally very high (Chart 7). Chart 5The French State Is Large... Chart 6... And Continues To Be In Charge Chart 7French Talent Is Wasted In The Public Sector Such a large public sector requires very high levels of taxation. Government tax revenues are also second-largest in the developed world at 45% of GDP (Chart 8) and, like the size of the overall public sector, continue to grow (Chart 9). Chart 8French Tax Burden Is Large... Chart 9...And Growing Part of the problem is the labyrinth of administrative layers beneath the central government. France has 13 regional governments, 96 departments, 343 arrondissements, 4,058 cantons, and 35,699 municipalities.2 What do they all do? We have no idea. Reforms in 2015 have sought to reduce the number of sub-federal layers, but the process ought to go much further and faster. The French social welfare state is also inefficient. To be fair, it has kept income inequality in check, which has not been the case in more laissez-faire countries (Chart 10). This is an important part of our political analysis. French "socialism" is what keeps populism at bay, which was the intention of the expensive welfare state in the first place.3 However, there is a lot of room to trim the fat. The French welfare state is essentially an "insurance program" for the middle class, with more transfers going to the households in the top 30% income bracket than in the bottom 30% (Chart 11)! France could cut its massive social spending by means-testing the benefits that accrue to the upper middle class.4 Somebody ultimately must pay for the enormous public sector. In France, a large burden falls on employers. The French "tax wedge" - the difference between the cost of labor for the employer and the take-home pay of the employee as a percent of total remuneration - is one of the largest in the OECD (Chart 12). The heavy tax burden on employers, combined with a relatively high minimum wage, means that business owners are wary of hiring new workers. The tax wedge is ultimately passed on to the consumer by businesses, which hurts competitiveness and contributes to the poor performance of French exports.5 Chart 10A Positive: ##br##No Income Inequality Chart 11French Welfare State##br## Protects...The Rich! Chart 12Employees Are Too Expensive ##br##For Employers The French labor market remains inflexible and overprotected (Chart 13), which not only hurts competitiveness but also discourages youth employment (Chart 14). According to the OECD Employment Protection Index, both regular and temporary contracts have some of the highest levels of protection in the developed world. Germany actually has a higher level of protection in regular contracts, but not in temporary employment, thanks to ambitious reforms. Chart 13French Labor Market##br## Is Too Rigid Chart 14French Youth Underperforms ##br##OECD Peers Chart 15Starting A Business In France? ##br##Bonne Chance! Finally, France suffers from too much red-tape (Chart 15), too much regulation (Chart 16), high wealth taxes that force capital out of the country, and too many barriers to entry for medium-sized enterprises, the lifeblood of innovation and productivity gains (Chart 17). Part of the reason that France suffers from a lack of German-styled Mittelstand (small and medium-sized enterprises) is that the effective tax rate of the medium-sized businesses is greater than that of large enterprises (Chart 18). This is a problem given the already high levels of corporate tax rates in the country (Chart 19).6 Chart 16Too Much Regulation Chart 17France Needs A Mittelstand François Hollande's government tried to address many problems facing France. However, Hollande largely spent his term treating the symptoms and not trying to cure the disease. France can reduce regulatory barriers and tinker with labor flexibility. It can even shift the tax burden from employers to consumers. But the fundamental problem is the large state, which forces the government to raise lots of taxes one way or another. Chart 18French SMEs Are Punished ##br##With High Taxes Chart 19French Corporate Taxes ##br## Are High By European Standards Bottom Line: The French state is too big. Up to this point, reforms have largely focused on tinkering with how the government raises funds for the welfare state. But what France needs is to alleviate the tax burden in the first place. The state, therefore, must be cut. Why Will France Reform? Our clients and colleagues challenge our view on France by rightly pointing out that painful structural reforms are easiest following a "market riot" or deep recession. Neither has befallen France. It actually did remarkably well in weathering the 2008 Great Recession, compared to OECD peers, and it has not faced the extraordinary housing or unemployment busts of neighboring Spain. Yet crises are not necessarily a must for successful reforms. Australia, starting in the mid-1980s and throughout the 1990s, pursued broad-based reforms due to a prolonged period of mediocre growth.7 So did Germany in the 2000s. We think that it is precisely this underperformance that is today motivating France. In particular we see three broad motivations: Competition with Germany: France did not lead the creation of European institutions in the twentieth century in order to cede leadership to Germany. As Charles de Gaulle said, "France is not France without greatness." The economic underperformance versus Germany is not geopolitically sustainable (Chart 20). If France continues to lose economic ground to Germany, it will continue to play second-fiddle to Berlin in the governing of the EU. At some point, but not likely in 2017, this will reinforce the populist logic that France should go it alone, sans the European institutions. Change impetus: It is difficult to imagine how François Fillon and Emmanuel Macron can run on an anti-establishment, "change" platform. Fillon proudly calls himself a Thatcherite (in 2017!) and Macron is a former Rothschild investment banker. And yet they are doing so. This is especially astonishing after the successes of Donald Trump and the Brexit campaign, which specifically targeted elitist policymakers like Fillon and Macron. But in France, the status quo is a large state, dirigiste economy, and a generous welfare system. In other words, the French are turning against their status quo. Laissez-faire is change in France. Social welfare fatigue: Our colleague Peter Berezin argued in a recent Special Report that Europeans will turn against the welfare state due to the breakdown in social cohesion. Significant populations of immigrant descent - as well as recent arrivals - fail to properly integrate in countries where the welfare state is large.8 Resentment against immigrants, and citizens of immigrant descent, could therefore be fueling resentment against the expensive welfare state. Chart 20France Is Not France Without Greatness Chart 21"Silent Majority" Wants Reform Polls suggest that we are on to something. Chart 21 illustrates that there may be a Nixonian "silent majority" in France favoring supply side reforms. Per January 2017 polling, "blue collar" and "left leaning" employees oppose reforms. But surprisingly by extremely narrow margins (Chart 21, bottom panel)! Thus, there is demand for structural reforms, but is there supply? According to a review of the platforms of Macron and Fillon, we think the answer is a resounding yes (Table 1). Generally speaking, François Fillon's proposed reforms are the deepest, but Macron would also pursue reforms aimed at reducing the size of the state. Marine Le Pen, too, promises to reduce the size of the public sector, suggesting that the narrative of reform is now universal. However, it is not clear how she would do so. Her views on the EU and the euro are also not positive for growth or the markets, as they would precipitate a recession and an immediate redenomination crisis. As we discuss below, it is likely that her opposition to European integration is precisely what is preventing her from being a much more competitive opponent against Fillon and Macron in the second round. Table 1French Presidential Election: Policy Positions Of Chief Contenders What of implementation? In France, several reform efforts - the 1995 Juppé Plan, 2006 labor reforms and 2010 Sarkozy pension reforms in particular - prompted significant social unrest. However, unrest is having diminishing returns for unions and left-wing activists. While unrest forced the government to fully reverse both the 1995 Juppé Plan and the 2006 labor reforms, it did not manage to hold back retirement reforms in 2010. The Sarkozy government made some concessions, but the core of the reforms remained in place despite severe unrest that brought the country to a standstill. Most recently, in spring 2016, the El Khomri law - proposing modest changes to the French labor code - was rammed through by Prime Minister Manuel Valls using Article 49.3 of the French constitution. Despite significant unrest, the law passed and became law in August. Protests remained peaceful - unlike the 2010 unrest - and eventually fizzled out. Investors should not be afraid of unrest. Unrest is a sign that reforms are being enacted. We would be far more concerned if the election of Fillon or Macron did not lead to strikes and protests! That would be a sign that their reform efforts are not ambitious. But our review of the unrest and strikes in France since 1995 suggests that the last two events - in 2010 and 2016 - ultimately did lead to reforms. In addition, most significant international reform efforts lead to protests. The U.K. miners' strike (1984-85) led to over 10,000 arrests and significant violence. German labor reforms in the 2000s led to a spike in strikes. And the 2011 Spanish reforms under PM Rajoy led to the rise of Indignados, student protesters occupying public spaces, who ultimately gave the world Occupy Wall Street. When it comes to reforms, the adage "no pain, no gain" rings true. Most effective reforms, however, will come right after the election. The incoming president will have about 12 months to convince investors that he is serious about reforms, as this is when the new government has the most political capital and legitimacy for reforms. In addition, much will depend on whether Fillon and Macron have parliamentary majorities with which to work to enact reforms. France's parliamentary election will follow the presidential (two rounds, June 10 and 17). Every president has managed to gain the majority in parliament since the two elections were brought to the same year (2002). Macron's new third party - En Marche! - will likely struggle to gain a foothold in the parliament, even if he wins. However, we suspect that both Les Républicains and centrist members of the Socialist Party will support his reforms. Macron's reforms are more modest than Fillon, at least according to Table 1 and his rhetoric, but they would still be a net positive. Ultimately, investors will have plenty of opportunity to reassess the reform efforts as the new government proposes them. In this analysis, we have sought to simplify what we think is wrong with France. If the government does not address our three core issues - how big is the state, how the state is funded, and the flexibility of the labor market - then we will know that our optimism was misplaced. Bottom Line: We believe that the support for reform exists. A review of electoral platforms reveals that all three major candidates are promising reforms that reduce the size of the French state. This can only mean that French politicians recognize that the "median voter" wants it to be reduced.9 Can Le Pen Win? Although Marine Le Pen, leader of National Front (FN), wants to reduce the size of the state as much as her counterparts, her broader approach poses an obvious risk to the stability of France, Europe, and potentially the world. Her position on the EU and the euro is extreme. She seeks to replace the EU with a strategic alliance with Russia, that she thinks would then include Germany. In the process, the euro would be abandoned. The extreme nature of Le Pen's proposals may ironically increase the likelihood of pro-market reforms in France. François Fillon's problem - aside from the ongoing corruption scandal involving his wife - is that 62% of the French public believes that "his program is worrisome."10 He may therefore win purely because Le Pen's proposal of dissolving the EU and the euro is even more worrisome. What are Le Pen's chances of overcoming the population's fear of abandoning the euro and EU institutions? We think they are very slim. Fillon's corruption scandal could grow, but we think that it is too little too early. With three months ahead of the first round, the spotlight on Fillon may have come too soon. Meanwhile, Le Pen's FN is not without skeletons in her closet. The party's main financial backer has been a Russian bank whose license was revoked by Russia's central bank in June. Le Pen refuses to disclose the details of her campaign funding, unlike Fillon and Macron.11 So what are the chances of a Le Pen presidency? Following the U.S. election, many of our clients wonder where populism will triumph next. In meetings and at conference panels, clients ask whether Marine Le Pen can replicate the success of Donald Trump and the anti-establishment Brexit campaign. Our view has not changed since our Client Note on the topic last November: Le Pen has a very low probability of winning.12 Our subjective figure is 15%. This view is not necessarily based on the strength of her opponents. In other words, if François Fillon stumbles in the first round, we believe that Emmanuel Macron will win in the second round. Our view is focused more on the structural constraints that Le Pen faces. There are three reasons for this view: The Euro The French support the euro at a high level. Marine Le Pen wants to take France out of the euro. Thus, her popularity is inversely correlated with the support for the euro (Chart 22). Euro support bottomed in France in 2013 at 62%, the same year when Le Pen's popularity peaked at 36%. The populist and nationalist Le Pen has not regained her 2013 levels of support despite a massive immigration crisis in Europe and numerous terrorist attacks against French citizens. This is surprising and important. Chart 22The Euro Is Le Pen's Foil The only way we can explain her lackluster performance in the face of crises that should have helped her popularity is her ideological and rhetorical consistency on the euro. For several different reasons,13 the French public supports the common currency as well as the EU - like most Europeans. Le Pen's insistence on "Frexit" is a major hurdle to her chances of winning. The Polls Before we dive into the French presidential polls we should remind our readers of our view that polls did not get Brexit and Trump wrong. Pundits, the media, and data-journalists did. Polls were actually showing the Brexit camp ahead throughout the first two weeks of June. It was only once MP Jo Cox was tragically murdered on June 16 that polls favored the "Stay" vote for the final days of the campaign. Yet on the day of the vote, the "Stay" camp was ahead by only 4%. That should not have given investors the level of confidence they had in the pro-EU vote. The probability of Brexit, in other words, should have been a lot higher than the 30% estimated by the markets (Chart 23). Chart 23ASmart Money Got Brexit Wrong... Chart 23B...Despite Close Polling Similarly, the national polls in the U.S. election were not wrong. Rather, the pundits and quantitative models overstated the probability of a Clinton victory. What the modelers missed was the unfavorable structural backdrop for Clinton: the challenges associated with one party holding the White House for three terms, lackluster economic growth, lukewarm approval ratings for Barack Obama and his policies, and general discontent, partly signaled by the non-negligible polling of third-party challengers. In addition, the modelers ignored that American polls have a track record of underestimating, or overestimating, performance by about 2-3% (Chart 24). And crucially, the 2016 election was different in that the number of undecided voters at the cusp of the vote was nearly triple the average of the previous three elections (Chart 25). Chart 24Election Polls Usually Miss By A Few Points Chart 25Undecided Voters Decided The Election The polls were much closer, in other words, than the dominant media narrative revealed. With four months until the election, Donald Trump actually took a slight lead against Hillary Clinton, following the July GOP convention. In aggregate polling, he never trailed Clinton by more than 7% from that point onwards (Chart 26). With four months until the second round of the French election in May, Marine Le Pen is trailing her two centrist opponents by 20-30% (Chart 27)! In other words, Trump at this point in the campaign was roughly three times more competitive than Le Pen! Chart 26Le Pen Is No Trump Chart 27Second Round Polls Are All That Matters We will therefore agree with the narrative that Le Pen could be the next Trump or Brexit when she starts performing in the polls as well as Trump and Brexit! Right now, she is nowhere close to that. Could Marine Le Pen close the gap in the next four months? It is unlikely. Le Pen is not a political "unknown" like Trump. She is not going to "surprise" voters into voting for her in 2017. She was her party's presidential candidate in the 2012 election. Her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, contested elections in 1988, 1995, 2002, and 2007. The National Front has contested elections in France since the 1970s. Voters know what they are getting with Le Pen. The best-case scenario for Le Pen is that Fillon gets into the second round, and then during the two-week interval between the first and second rounds (April 23, May 7) more corruption is revealed by Fillon and his popularity tanks. This is the "Clinton model" and it is certainly plausible. But it would have to be egregious corruption given that Le Pen's popularity ceiling appears to be the same percentage of French population not in favor of the euro. We suspect that this ceiling is hard. Which is why we have Le Pen's probability of winning the election at only 15%. In addition, there is no vast pool of the undecided in France. French turnouts for the presidential election are consistently 80%. Therefore, translating polling data to actual turnout data will be relatively straightforward. The polls are real. Le Pen may be able to outperform her polls by several points. But not by the 20-30% by which she trails Fillon and Macron in polling for the crucial second round. In fact, Le Pen could even struggle to get into the second round given that the winner of the Socialist Party primary - Benoit Hamon - could bleed left-wing voters away from Le Pen, leaving Fillon and Macron to enter the second round instead. At that point, the election becomes a coin toss between two reformers, but we would give the less "worrisome" Macron a slight edge. Precedent History is important because there is a precedent for solid Euroskpetic performances in France. In fact, Euroskeptic candidates - broadly defined - have won around 32% of the vote in the first round of the presidential election since 1995 (Chart 28). As such, Le Pen's current polling in the first round - 26% level of support - and second round - 37% of support - is within the historical average. It is on the high end, but still within the norm. Her father, for example, got 17% in the first round of the 2002 election and 18% in the second. Chart 28French Euroskepticism ##br##Is Not A Novel Concept We also have a very good recent case study - a natural experiment if you will - of the anti-establishment's electoral performance: the December 2015 regional elections. The two-round regional elections occurred only 23 days following the November 2015 terrorist attack in Paris and at the height of that year's migration crisis. They should have favored the Front National (FN). They also should have favored the FN for these technical and political reasons: Rules: The second round in the regional elections has a participation threshold of 10%, unlike the presidential and parliamentary elections which eliminate all but the top two candidates. This means that FN faced off against multiple candidates, reducing the probability that "strategic voting" drove centrist voters to choose the one remaining establishment candidate over the anti-establishment candidate, as will be the case in the upcoming presidential election. Protest vote: The regions of France have no authority to negotiate international treaties. As such, voters could freely vote for the anti-establishment FN as a sign of protest, without fear that the FN councilors would then take the country out of the euro and the EU. Voters faced no clear downside risk of sending a harsh message to the establishment. Context: Both the ruling Socialists and the opposition Union for a Popular Movement (now renamed Les Républicains) were in disarray ahead of the regional elections for a number of reasons, including the aforementioned terrorist attacks, unpopularity of President Hollande, leadership struggle within UMP, and EU mismanagement of the migration crisis. The National Front ended the first round with a slight lead in total votes, but captured the lead in six out of the 13 regions. The financial press went wild, calling it an extraordinary win for the anti-establishment in France. Yet despite the near optimal circumstances and a strong showing in the first round, FN was obliterated in the second round, a mere one week later. The populists won none of the regions that they captured in the first round! Why? Participation increased in the second round from 49% to 59%, signaling that many French voters were motivated to vote in less-relevant regional elections purely to keep FN out of power. The National Front share of the total vote remained stable at 27%, despite the increase in the turnout. This means that almost none of the "new" voters cast their support for FN, an incredible development. Socialist Party candidates withdrew from the contest in several regions where FN candidates were high profile politicians (Nord Pas de Calais led by Marine Le Pen herself and Province Alpes Cote d'Azur led by Le Pen's niece Marion Marechal Le Pen). Most importantly, Socialist voters did not swing to the economically left-leaning FN in these contest, but rather either stayed home or swung to the center-right rival, the UMP. If French voters decided to cast a strategic vote against FN in an election where the downside risk to a protest vote was non-existent, why would they do any different in a vote that clearly and presently matters? Furthermore, the fact that the higher turnout hurt FN should concern Le Pen. As we mentioned above, presidential election turnouts in France are around 80%. The 2015 election also should teach us an important lesson about France: polls work. Based on IFOP polling conducted two weeks before the election, the average polling error in the December 2015 regional election was 2.5%. Bottom Line: Marine Le Pen's support is precisely the inverse of the French support for the euro. Her anti-European stance is apparently a "deal breaker" for many voters who would otherwise support her candidacy. If she asked us for advice, we would say to flip-flop on the euro. It would make her far more competitive in 2017. Le Pen is trailing her centrist opponents by a massive margin in the second round. Polls can be wrong when they suggest that the contest is within the margin of error. But that is definitely not the case in the upcoming French election. Finally, the 2015 election teaches us that strategic voting continues in France, even when the establishment parties are in disarray and the geopolitical and political context favors populists. Cyclical View The French economy is currently experiencing an economic upswing. This upswing is not much of a mystery. It is explained by three factors: Easing monetary conditions in Europe, pent-up demand, and reflationary policies in China. Let's start with monetary conditions. The easing began in July 2012, with ECB president Mario Draghi's now famous pronouncement that he would do "Whatever it takes" to ensure the survival of the euro. Thanks to these soothing words, risk premia in the region collapsed, with a massive narrowing of government bond spreads between the periphery and Germany. France too benefited from that phenomenon, with its own spreads moving from a max of 190 basis points in late 2011, to 21 basis points seven months ago. Thanks to this normalization, lending rates to the private sector collapsed from 4.6% to 2% (Chart 29) This meant that the fall in the repo rate engineered by the ECB was finally passed on to the private sector. Additionally, the ECB stress tests of 2014 played a major role. In anticipation of that exercise, euro area banks curtailed credit in order to clean up their balance sheets. This resulted in a large contraction of the European credit impulse. However, once the tests were passed, euro area banks, with somewhat healthier balance sheets, normalized credit conditions, letting credit growth move closer in line with trend GDP growth. The result was a surge in the credit impulse that lifted growth in Europe (Chart 30). Chart 29Whatever It Takes Equals##br## Lower Private Sector Rates Chart 30Credit Impulse Dynamics##br## And Growth The euro also was an important factor. In mid-2014, investors started to speculate on a major easing by the ECB, maybe even QE. Through this discounting process, the euro collapsed from a high of 1.39 in May 2014 to a low of 1.05 in March 2015, when the ECB indeed began implementing asset purchases. This incredible 25% collapse in the currency boosted net exports, and helped GDP, while limiting existing deflationary pressures in Europe. The final reflationary impulse came from fiscal policy. In the wake of 2008, French fiscal deficits ballooned. As a result, from 2011 to 2013, the French fiscal thrust was negative and subtracted an average 1% from GDP growth. However, starting 2014, this drag vanished, arithmetically lifting growth in the country (Chart 31). Ultimately, with the accumulated pent-up demand resulting from the double-dip recession, France was able to capitalize on these developments. First, after having contracted by 14% between 2008 and 2009, and then by another 3% between 2011 and 2013, capex growth was able to resume in earnest in 2015 . This was necessary because, due to the subpar growth in capital stock, even the current tepid economic improvement was able to push capacity utilization above its 5-year moving average. When this happens, the economy ends up displaying the clearest sign of capacity constraint, i.e. higher prices, which we are seeing today. It also results in growing orders (Chart 32). Chart 31The Vanishing Of ##br##French Fiscal Drag Chart 32French Capacity Utilization Has Tightened ##br##And Orders Are Improving Second, we have witnessed a stabilization in employment and wages. The unemployment rate has fallen by 1% from 10.5% in 2015 to 9.5% today. Most importantly, our wage and employment models are pointing toward higher salaries and job growth in the coming quarters (Chart 33). This is crucial. The French economy remains fundamentally driven by domestic demand and household consumption in particular. In fact, these signs of coming higher household income suggest that the consumer can once again begin to support economic activity in France. First, we expect real retail sales to improve in the coming quarter. Second, because of the combined effect of rising labor income, consumer confidence, and housing prices, the recent upswing in housing activity should gather momentum (Chart 34), creating a further floor under economic activity. Chart 33Improving French Labor Market Conditions Chart 34Housing Will Contribute More To Growth Third, the improvement in credit growth corroborates these developments. In fact, being supported by easing credit standards, it even suggests that broad economic activity in France could accelerate further in the coming months. The key question mark at this point in time is China. France exports to China are only 3.7% of total exports, or 0.7% of GDP, below Belgium. However, the largest single export market for France is Germany, at 16.2% of total exports or 3.3% of GDP (Chart 35). Most interestingly, combined French exports to Germany and China are an important source of economic volatility for France. However, because French exports to Germany are a function of broader German income shocks and demand for German exports, the result is that French exports to Germany and China are a direct function of Chinese industrial activity, as illustrated with their tight correlation with the Keqiang index (Chart 36). As a result, French manufacturing conditions have displayed co-relationship with Chinese LEIs since 2002. Chart 35French Export ##br## Distribution Chart 36French Business Cycle And China: ##br##Germany Is The Key Link So going forward, what to expect? The recent surge in the ZEW expectation index is likely to be validated and French GDP growth is likely to improve from 1% today to nearly 2% in mid-2017, well above the current expectation of 1.3%. We are more confident about the robustness of domestic demand than international demand. The support created by higher wages and rising credit will have a lagged effect for a few more quarters. In fact, the up-tick to 0.5% from -0.2% in underlying inflation suggests that French real borrowing costs for the private sector should remain well contained despite the recent improvement in capacity utilization. This means the support to housing activity remains solid, especially as France has some of the strongest demographics of the whole euro zone, and thus demand for housing is solid. Chart 37France Too Would Be Affected##br## By A Chinese Deceleration Fillon's threat to cut public sector employment by 500,000 thousand could at face value derail the improvement in the labor market - if such measures were implemented today and in one shot, the unemployment rate would spike from 9.5% to 11.2%. However, Fillon's victory is not yet baked in the cake, and even if he wins, this risk is unlikely to materialize in 2017 as it will take time to get the required laws passed. Moreover, the progressive nature of the cut, along with the tax cuts and regulatory easing for the private sector, suggest that firms would likely create many jobs during the same time frame, mitigating the pain created by such drastic job cutting. Nonetheless, some downside to growth should be expected from Fillon's policies. China and EM represent a more palpable risk. The Chinese uptake of machinery has recently spiked and real estate activity and prices have surged (Chart 37). Beijing is currently uneasy with this development and the PBoC has already increased medium-term lending-facility rates in recent weeks despite low loan demand and disappointing fixed-asset investment numbers. Moreover, China has also massively curtailed the fiscal stimulus that has been a key component of its recent powerful rebound in industrial activity. Finally, the strength in the dollar along with rising real rates globally could put a lid on commodity price appreciation, which means that the rise in Chinese producer prices that has greatly contributed to lower Chinese real rates and thus easier Chinese monetary conditions could be waning. French exports to Germany and China might be seeing their heyday as we write. Bottom Line: The French economy is enjoying a healthy upswing powered by easier monetary conditions in Europe, slight fiscal thrust, pent-up demand and improving credit conditions. While these domestic factors will prove durable, the improvement in external demand faced by France in 2016 raises a slight question mark. Nonetheless, we expect French economic growth to move toward 2% in 2017, a sharp beat of currently depressed expectations. On the political front, robust growth should help centrist candidates and hurt the anti-establishment Le Pen. Investment Implications While reforms, tax cuts, strong domestic demand, and potentially falling political risk premia point to an outperformance of French small cap equities, the story is more complex. Indeed, French small caps are heavily weighted toward IT and biotech firms, and have been mimicking the performance of the Nasdaq, corrected for currency developments (Chart 38). Thus, they do not represent a play on the story above. Instead, we favor buying French industrial equities relative to Germany's. Both sectors are exposed to similar global risk factors as their sales are a function of commodity prices and EM developments. However, French unit labor costs should be contained relative to German ones going forward. French competitiveness has been hampered by decades of rigidities while German competitiveness benefited greatly following the implementation of the Hartz IV labor reforms. Not only should the potential for reform help France over Germany, but the fact that the French unemployment rate remains elevated while that of Germany is at generational lows points also toward rising German labor costs vis-à-vis France (Chart 39). Additionally, our secular theme of overweighting defense stocks plays in France's favor, given that France is the world's fourth largest global defense exporter.14 Finally, adding to the attractiveness of the trade, French industrial equities are trading near the low of their 12-year trading range against German ones (Chart 40). Chart 38French Small Cap Equals Nasdaq##br## (And The Euro, Of Course) Chart 39Reforms Could ##br##Close This Gap Chart 40Industrials: Buy France / ##br##Short Germany In a broader sense, the implementation of the Hartz IV reforms in Germany resulted in a general outperformance of German stocks over French stocks. Now that reforms have been fully implemented and priced in Germany, while investors remain highly skeptical of the outlook for French reforms (and indeed, fear an anti-establishment revolution), today may be the time to begin overweighting French equities at the expense of German ones in European portfolios on a structural basis. Finally, the spike in French yield differentials against German suggest that investors are imbedding a risk premium for the probability of a Le Pen win in the May election. A Le Pen victory would represent a death knell for the euro. As such, the euro countertrend bounce could find further support from a falling risk premium. Any selloff in the euro if Le Pen wins the first round of the election would represent a tactical buying opportunity in EUR/USD. Bottom Line: French industrials should be the key outperformers vis-a-vis Germany in the event of a Fillon or Macron electoral victory. However, French stocks in general should be able to outperform. Buy the euro on any election-related dip, particularly following the first round of the election on April 23. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see The Economist, "The sick man of the euro," dated June 3, 1999, available at economist.com. 2 The figures presented here are actually the reduced numbers from the 2013 Acte III de la decentralization. 3 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 A generous pension system is part of the problem. The effective retirement age is around 61 years, well below the legal age of 65. According to the OECD, the French spend 25 years in retirement, the longest in the developed world. 5 To address this problem, President François Hollande's Responsibility and Solidarity Pact has begun to shift the burden of financing the public purse away from payroll taxes and onto consumption (via higher VAT taxes). But a greater effort is needed. 6 Oddly, France does not do that badly in the World Bank Ease of Doing Business ranking - it is 29th out of 190, ahead of Switzerland and Japan and only one place behind the Netherlands. 7 Please see Gary Banks, OECD, "Structural reform Australian-style: lessons for others?" presentations to the IMF and World Bank, May 26-27, 2005, and OECD, May 31, 2005, available at oecd.org. 8 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy, "Après Paris," dated November 20, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 IFOP poll from December 2016. 11 To be fair, French law does not require parties to publish their donations and spending. Please see Bloomberg, "Le Pen Struggling to Fund French Race as Russian Bank Fails," dated December 22, 2016, available at Bloomberg.com. 12 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-Exit?" dated July 13, 2016, and The Bank Credit Analyst, "Europe's Geopolitical Gambit: Relevance Through Integration," dated November 2011, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see Global Alpha Sector Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated January 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.