Inflation/Deflation

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

Highlights Chinese policymakers are walking a tightrope, attempting to balance contradictory objectives. While their task is not impossible, we find that financial markets are overly complacent. Recent price action in EM risk assets resembles a final bear capitulation phase, and a classic top formation. Currency appreciation and moderation in export growth will damp corporate profits of exporters in Korea and Taiwan. Stay short KRW versus THB and short MYR versus RUB and USD. Feature "...at first, a stick may bend under strain, ready all the time to bend back, until a certain point is reached, when it breaks." Irving Fisher, The Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depressions (1933) China continues to tighten financial regulations1 and onshore corporate bond yields keep marching higher. Yet EM and China-related financial markets have been extremely buoyant, completely ignoring the tightening dynamics underway. This reminds us of the above quote from Irving Fisher. The Chinese economy has been able to "...bend under strain, ready all the time to bend back..." In other words, growth has so far done well, despite ongoing liquidity and regulatory tightening (Chart I-1). This has led many investors and commentators to proclaim that the economy is healthy and will slow only a bit, or not at all. Chart I-1China: Will Economy Continue ##br##Defying Weak Credit Impulse? Yet, financial market risks linger. At a certain point, cumulative pressure from policy tightening will cause China's recovery to falter - "break," as per Fisher's quote above - impacting the rest of the world in general and EM in particular. This precept is pertinent to China at present because its money, credit and property markets are frothy, as we have written repeatedly in recent years, making them especially vulnerable to tightening. We thought such a deceleration in China's business cycle would occur in 2017, but it has not yet transpired. Forward-looking indicators such as money supply growth and the yield curve have been heralding a growth slowdown for many months (see Chart I-1). Nevertheless, this recovery has proved to be enduring; even though some segments have slowed, overall nominal growth, corporate pricing power and profits have done well. Does such growth resilience warrant an upgrade on China's outlook? An economy's past performance does not guarantee its future performance. This is relevant to China now, especially given the cumulative impact of the ongoing triple policy tightening - liquidity, regulatory and anti-corruption efforts in the financial industry2 - which will likely be substantial. Walking A Tightrope China's policymakers are walking a tightrope trying to balance contradictory objectives such as curbing financial speculation and credit excesses, capping inflation and maintaining a stable currency on the one hand, and maintaining robust growth on the other. Inflationary pressures are escalating in the mainland economy. Chart I-2 demonstrates that pricing power for 5,000 industrial companies - a diffusion index for producer prices compiled by the People's Bank of China - is approaching its 2007 and 2010 highs, while nominal interest rates are currently much lower than they were in 2007 and 2010 (Chart I-2, bottom panel). Notably, most of China's nominal recovery in the past two years has been due to prices, not volumes (Chart I-3). Given that rising prices benefit corporate profits much more than rising volumes, Chinese corporate profits have surged. Yet, the flip side of these dynamics is rising inflation. Chart I-2China: Inflationary Pressure Are Rising, ##br##While Interest Rates Are Low Chart I-3China: It Has Been Nominal (Price) Not ##br##Volume Manufacturing Recovery Mounting inflation amid enormous money excesses - the Chinese banking system has originated RMB 142 trillion (equivalent to $22 trillion) since January 20093 - risks triggering rising inflation expectations, which would then feed back into inflation. With real interest rates already extremely low (Chart I-4), increasing inflation expectations could lead to growing demand for foreign currency, in turn exerting downward pressure on the RMB exchange rate. Chart I-4China: Inflation-Adjusted ##br##Interest Rates Are Low Chinese households have been uneasy about the real (inflation-adjusted) value of their deposits, and have been opting for speculative investments that promise higher yields than bank deposits. Hence, policymakers cannot ignore households' desire for higher real interest rates if they aim to cool down speculative investment activities and contain systemic risks in the system. Overall, the authorities need to tread carefully, balancing between the need to preserve decent growth while keeping inflation at bay. Falling behind the inflation curve is as dangerous as being too aggressive in tightening. For now, rising domestic inflationary pressures, robust DM growth and the resilience of financial markets will justify further policy tightening in China. Controlling leverage, curbing financial market excesses and limiting speculation in the real estate market are all major components of the structural reforms agenda that China's top policymakers committed to at the Party Congress in October. Bottom Line: Chinese policymakers are walking a tightrope, trying to balance contradictory objectives. While their task is not impossible, we find that financial markets are overly complacent. The odds of successfully navigating these contradictory objectives amid lingering money, credit and property market imbalances are 30% or lower. In the meantime, financial markets seem priced for perfection. This gap between the market's views and our perception of risks leads us to maintain a negative investment stance. EM's Blow-Out Phase EM stocks and currencies have gone vertical in recent weeks, despite being overbought and not cheap. The recent price actions in EM and global risk assets looks like a final bear capitulation phase and a classic top formation. The EM overall equity and small-cap indexes have reached their 2011 high (Chart I-5, top and middle panels). Meanwhile, EM high-yield (junk) corporate and quasi-sovereign bond yields are at their historical lows (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Economic data, corporate profits and news flows are typically extremely positive at tops of cycles, and very negative at bottoms. Given that share prices have surged and credit spreads are extremely low, a lot of good news has already been discounted. In particular, EM long-term EPS growth expectations have shot up above their previous highs (Chart I-6). This indicator can serve as a proxy for investor sentiment on EM stocks, at the moment suggesting extreme bullishness. EM stocks topped out in the past when this indicator reached the current levels. Chart I-5Are EM At Their Zenith? Chart I-6Analysts Are Super Bullish On EM Profits Growth Needless to say, global investors' positioning is stretched in favor of risk assets. Chart I-7 entails that U.S. individual investors' holdings of cash was at a record low as of December, while their exposure to equities was not far from record highs. Apart from China-related risks, a potential rise in U.S. bond yields and/or the U.S. dollar, could spoil the EM party. Many investors have invested in EM on the assumption of continued weakness in the greenback and subdued U.S. bond yields. It would be unusual if this current robust global growth does not lead to higher inflation expectations or higher bond yields. With respect to market signals, Chart I-8 illustrates that global steel stocks in absolute terms, and the relative performance of emerging Asian stocks versus DM equities have approached their very long-term moving averages. The latter might become a major technical resistance. Failure to break above this resistance level would be consistent with EM share prices rolling over at their 2011 highs (see Chart I-7). Altogether, this could signal a major top in EM risk assets. Chart I-7Asset Allocation Of ##br##U.S. Individual Investors Chart I-8Select Segments Are At Their ##br##Long-Term Technical Resistances Bottom Line: The EM rally has endured much longer and has gone much farther than we envisioned. However, we maintain our cautious stance, and recommend underweighting EM stocks, currencies and credit versus their DM counterparts. Emerging Asia: Currencies And Business Cycle Chart I-9Geopolitics And Asian Currencies Emerging Asian currencies have recently been on the fly, surging versus the U.S. dollar. Apart from strong global manufacturing, one reason behind the emerging Asian currency appreciation has been geopolitics. We suspect political leaders in Taiwan and Korea have instructed their central banks to allow their currencies to appreciate to gratify the Trump administration's aspirations of a weaker greenback. The top panel of Chart I-9 shows that the Taiwanese dollar's sharp appreciation coincided with Trump's controversial phone call with the Taiwanese president on December 3rd, 2016. Similarly, Trump's visit to South Korea on November 7th, 2017 jives with the latest up leg in the Korean won (Chart I-9, bottom panel). It seems President Trump's geopolitical assurances to Taiwan and Korea are somewhat tied to these policymakers' increased tolerance for currency appreciation. Notably, foreign exchange reserves in both Taiwan and Korea have risen little, despite their strong trade surpluses and foreign capital inflows over the past year. This confirms that their central banks have been reluctant to purchase U.S. dollars and in turn cap their currencies' appreciation. In addition to the political context, there are a number of other important drivers of Asian exchange rates and the region's business cycle: The growth rate of Korean and Taiwanese total exports in U.S. dollars has moderated (Chart I-10). This, along with KRW and TWD appreciation, implies a meaningful deceleration in exporters' revenue growth in local currency terms. Besides, China's container freight index - the price to ship containers worldwide - has relapsed and it correlates well with Asia's export cycle (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Moderation In Asian Exports Growth Chart I-11A Negative Signal For Asian Exports Even though DRAM prices are rising, other semiconductor prices have rolled over (Chart I-12). Semiconductor prices and volumes are vital for the tech-heavy Taiwanese and Korean manufacturing sectors. The RMB rally is also late. Enormous pent-up demand for foreign assets from Chinese residents due to low mainland real interest rates creates the potential for capital outflows to cap RMB strength. This would weigh on the ongoing Asian currency rally. Finally, net EPS revisions of Korean and Taiwanese technology companies' have rolled over (Chart I-13), probably reflecting a dampening effect of currency appreciation. This could in turn lead to foreign capital outflows from their equity markets causing currency selloffs. Chart I-12Divergence In Semiconductor Prices Chart I-13Asia Tech Companies: Net EPS Revisions Corroborating budding signs of a slowdown in exports and corporate profits, emerging Asian stocks have begun underperforming DM equities, as shown in Chart I-8 on page 7. The deceleration in export revenues and currency appreciation are adverse developments for share prices in export-related sectors of Korea and Taiwan. Nevertheless, for dedicated EM equity portfolios, we recommend overweighting the Taiwanese bourse and Korean technology stocks (and being neutral on the rest of KOSPI). The basis is that share prices of hardware tech manufacturers have less downside than other EM sectors. Their attractive relative valuations combined with prospects for robust growth in DM warrant their outperformance against the overall EM equity index in common currency terms. As to exchange rates, the Trump factor will delay and mitigate Asian currency depreciation, but will not preclude it if export growth slows, as we expect. In such a scenario, policymakers in Asia will opt for modest currency depreciation, reversing their recent gains. In terms of investment strategy, we have been shorting the Korean won versus the Thai baht. This trade has so far been flat, but we are maintaining it because the won is a higher-beta currency than the baht, and the former will underperform the latter as Asia's business cycle eventually slows. In addition, we are also shorting the Malaysian ringgit versus the U.S. dollar and the Russian ruble due to weak domestic fundamentals in Malaysia. Bottom Line: Currency appreciation will damp corporate profits of exporters in Korea and Taiwan. This will weigh on EM share prices in aggregate, given that the Korean and Taiwanese markets together account for 27% of the MSCI EM market cap, compared with an 12% share of the entire Latin American region. The 12-month outlook for Asian currencies is downbeat: continue shorting the MYR versus both the U.S. dollar and the RUB, and stay long the THB versus the KRW. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 This week the China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC) announced a set of sweeping new rules to control banks' entrusted lending (Source: Caixin). This is in addition to a slew of regulatory measures for financial institutions that have been introduced over the past year. 2 We discussed these in details in Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Questions For Emerging Markets," dated November 29, 2017, a link available on page 13. 3 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "The True Meaning Of China's Great 'Savings' Wall," dated December 20, 2017, a link available on page 13. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Question #1: Will global growth remain above trend? Yes. Question #2: Will growth continue to outperform outside the U.S.? No. Question #3: Will productivity growth pick up? Yes, but only cyclically. The structural outlook remains bleak. Question #4: Will continued strong global growth finally deliver higher inflation? Yes, although the increase in inflation will be gradual and concentrated in economies that already have little spare capacity. Feature Global Growth In Focus We wish all our readers a joyous and prosperous 2018. As the new year begins, four questions about the global growth outlook loom large. Question #1: Will global growth remain above trend? Our answer: Yes. It is likely that global growth will come down a notch from its current elevated pace. However, it should remain firmly above trend. For one thing, the global economy continues to exhibit a lot of positive momentum. Real-time measures of economic activity, such as the Goldman Sachs Current Activity Indicator (CAI), highlight that global real GDP is rising at a robust pace (Chart 1). Our global leading indicator, as well as a wide swath of PMI data, suggest that this trend has legs (Chart 2). Chart 1APositive Global Growth Momentum Can Be Seen Here Chart 1BPositive Global Growth Momentum Can Be Seen Here Since 1980, above-trend global growth in one year has been accompanied by above-trend growth in the following year nearly three-quarters of the time. This bodes well for 2018. Chart 2... And Here Too Chart 3Financial Conditions Tend To Lead Growth By Six-To-Nine Months Global financial conditions eased significantly in 2017, thanks mainly to higher equity prices and narrower credit spreads. Easier financial conditions tend to benefit growth with a 6-to-9 month lag (Chart 3). The 6-month global credit impulse, which tends to lead activity, is also positive (Chart 4). Fiscal policy should remain stimulative. The fiscal thrust moved into positive territory in advanced economies in 2016-17 and this should remain the case in 2018 (Chart 5). Tax cuts will add about 0.3 percentage points to U.S. growth, while hurricane reconstruction spending and a likely congressional agreement to raise the cap on federal discretionary spending will add another 0.2 points. Chart 4Positive Credit Impulse Is Another Tailwind For Growth Chart 5Fiscal Policy Has Turned More Stimulative Our political strategists expect further fiscal easing in Japan this year. They also believe that German coalition talks will produce more government spending, with the SDP extracting concessions from Merkel on public investment and the CSU securing a commitment for more defense expenditure. On the flipside, our strategists expect some fiscal tightening in France as President Macron takes steps to trim France's bloated welfare state. Question #2: Will growth continue to outperform outside the U.S.? Our answer: No. Global revisions were more favorable outside the U.S. in the first nine months of 2017, which helps explain why the dollar came under downward pressure (Chart 6). More recently, U.S. growth estimates have begun to drift higher. As a result, the U.S. surprise index has surged relative to those of other economies (Chart 7). Chart 6U.S. Growth Expectations Were Lagging... ##br## But Not Anymore Chart 7U.S. Economic Surprise Index Increased ##br## Relative To Those Of Other Countries We expect the data to continue to favor the U.S. Aggregate U.S. hours worked in November was up 3.4% at an annualized rate over Q3 levels. If we add in productivity growth, Q4 GDP growth was probably in excess of 4% - well above current consensus estimates. Financial conditions have eased a lot more in the U.S. than in the rest of the world. Fiscal policy is also set to loosen relatively more in the U.S. Euro area growth is likely to tick lower next year from its current stellar pace, as the impact of a stronger euro begins to bite. The 6-month credit impulse has already turned negative there. Japanese growth should also cool somewhat from the heady pace of 2.7% seen over the past two quarters. The Chinese economy will decelerate modestly in 2018. The authorities are tightening the screws on the shadow banking system, expediting efforts to reduce excess capacity in the industrial sector, and clamping down on corruption. All of these reforms will pay off in the long run, but they could dent growth in the short run. Question #3: Will productivity growth pick up? Our Answer: Yes, but only cyclically. The structural outlook remains bleak. U.S. nonfarm productivity rose by 1.5% over the prior year in Q3, well above the post-2010 average of 0.8%. This improvement occurred despite the fact that low-skilled workers continue to re-enter the labor market - dragging down output-per-hour in the process - a phenomenon that is not well captured by the official productivity data. Productivity growth elsewhere in the world also appears to be on the upswing (Chart 8). Increased business investment should support productivity in 2018. Corporate surveys indicate that a rising percentage of companies anticipate boosting capital budgets (Chart 9). This often happens in the last few innings of business-cycle expansions, as more companies begin to experience capacity constraints. Chart 8Productivity Growth Showing Signs Of ##br## A Tentative Recovery Chart 9Surveys Are Signaling Acceleration ##br## In Capex Unfortunately, while the cyclical outlook for productivity is improving, the structural backdrop remains downbeat. As we have discussed in the past, flagging educational achievement, decreased creative destruction, and a shift in technological innovation towards consumers and away from businesses all augur poorly for future productivity trends.1 The much-hyped Amazon effect makes for good news stories, but is not borne out by the data.2 Question #4: Will continued strong global growth finally deliver higher inflation? Our answer: Yes, although the increase in inflation will be gradual and concentrated in economies that already have little spare capacity. Chart 10A Pick-Up In Wage Growth Would Put Upward Pressure ##br## On Service Inflation Going into 2017, the Fed had expected core PCE inflation to end the year at 1.9%. It is likely to have finished the year at only 1.5%. We expect core PCE inflation to move toward 2% by the end of 2018. Wage growth should accelerate as the labor market continues to tighten. This should put upward pressure on service inflation (Chart 10). Goods price inflation should also recover due to the lagged effects of a weaker dollar and the bleed-through of higher energy prices into several core components of the CPI (airline fares being a notable example). Slower rent growth will dampen inflation. However, this will be partially offset by higher health care prices. The cost control measures introduced in the Affordable Care Act helped push down PCE health care services inflation from 3% in late 2010 to less than 0.5% in early 2016 (Chart 11). Many of these measures have been realized, and as a consequence, health care inflation has begun to revert to its long-term trend (though in level terms, the savings to consumers remain). The Republican tax bill could put some upward pressure on health care costs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the repeal of the Individual Mandate will raise premiums on health care exchanges by 10% because a larger share of healthy individuals will decide to forgo buying health insurance.3 Japanese inflation should move modestly higher in 2018, but from extremely depressed levels. The Japanese unemployment rate is now a full percentage point lower than in 2007 and the ratio of job opening-to-applicants has reached the highest level since 1974 (Chart 12). Chart 11U.S. Inflation Breakdown Chart 12Japan's Tightening Labor Market Euro area inflation will be held down by the lagged effects of a stronger euro and continued high levels of slack across southern Europe. Outside Germany, labor market underutilization is still 6.3 percentage points higher than it was in 2008 (Chart 13). U.K. inflation should edge lower as the spike in import prices stemming from the post-Brexit pound depreciation dissipates. Chart 13There Is Still Labor Market Slack Outside Of Germany Investment Conclusions A shift in global growth leadership back towards the U.S. would benefit the beleaguered U.S. dollar. Higher U.S. inflation will prompt the Fed to raise rates four times in 2018, one more hike than implied by the dots and two more hikes than implied by current market expectations. Rising inflation should also keep Treasury yields on an upward trajectory. We expect the 10-year yield to finish 2018 at around 3%. As long as inflation is rising in response to stronger growth, and from below-target levels, both U.S. and global risk assets should continue to rally. Only once U.S. inflation rises above 2% in 2019, and growth begins to slow on the back of binding supply-side constraints, will equities flounder. Stay long stocks for now, but look to significantly trim exposure towards the end of the year. Regionally, we favor euro area and Japanese equities over U.S. stocks for the next 12 months on a currency-hedged basis. Both the euro area and Japanese stock markets are dominated by large multinational companies whose prospects are geared more towards global growth than demand in their own regions. Above-trend global growth and rising capital spending should disproportionately benefit European and Japanese bourses, given that they have a greater tilt towards cyclically-sensitive companies. Valuations also tend to favor non-U.S. stocks. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Is Slow Productivity Growth Good Or Bad For Bonds?," dated May 31, 2017; Weekly Report, "A Secular Bottom In Inflation," dated July 28, 2017; and Weekly Report, "Is The Phillips Curve Dead Or Dormant?" dated September 22, 2017. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve?" dated September 1, 2017. 3 Please see "Repealing the Individual Health Insurance Mandate: An Updated Estimate," Congressional Budget Office, dated November 8, 2017. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Before re-capping the performance of our recommendations last year - up 77%, led by oil calls, which posted an average gain of 111% - we take a look at what the re-emergence of financial and monetary factors will mean for commodities this year. Fundamentals - supply, demand, inventories - drove the evolution of industrial commodity prices over the past two years, and will remain supportive for oil and, to a lesser degree, base metals in 1H18. Thereafter, in 2H18, we believe financial and monetary variables will begin to re-assert their importance in the evolution of commodity prices. Forecasting commodity prices becomes more difficult, as a result, as it is not clear the Fed or other systematically important central banks, understand what is driving their principal policy variables - particularly inflation - or how they are evolving. Despite these central-bank uncertainties, we remain long broad commodity exposure via the S&P GSCI (up 6.4% since it was recommended in Dec/17), long call spreads in Brent and WTI across 2018 deliveries (up 78%); and long gold (up 6.7%). 2018 Weightings Energy: Overweight. WTI and Brent crude oil forward curves will become more backwardated as the combination of OPEC 2.0 production discipline and continued strength in demand draws inventories lower. This will boost S&P GSCI returns.1 Base Metals: Neutral. Base metals will continue to be supported through 1Q18 by China's environmental reforms, which are reducing supply in the face of continued strength in global demand. Strong demand ex-China will offset weaker Chinese growth, supporting metals prices. Precious Metals: Neutral. While we expect four rate hikes by the Fed this year, we are wary of policy errors at systemically important central banks, which makes forecasting monetary policy highly uncertain. We remain long gold as a portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Still-high supplies outside the corn market; policy uncertainty re NAFTA; and uncertainty over Fed policy likely keep grain prices weak. A stronger USD would weaken demand for U.S.-sourced grains and softs. Feature Chart of the WeekFundamentals Continue To##BR##Support Commodities That was quick! Oil prices are closely hewing to fundamentals as the year opens. We revised our Brent forecast to $67/bbl in early December (up from a $65/bbl forecast in mid-October 2017), based on our fundamental assessment of the market - supply, demand and inventories - and, voilà, contracts for Mar/18 delivery got there by the end of 2017. Our $63/bbl forecast for WTI is still ~ $2.50/bbl from being realized, but we continue to expect this gap to close. At the moment, fundamentals for industrial commodities - oil and, to a slightly lesser extent, base metals - will support firmer prices in 1H18 (Chart of the Week). For oil, this will be an extension of the fundamental realignment initiated by OPEC 2.0 at the end of 2016. The producer coalition agreed to remove ~ 1.1mm b/d from the market, which, along with another 300k to 400k barrels of natural declines, tightened the supply side considerably. On the demand side, the synchronized global economic upturn that powered consumption up by 1.65mm b/d last year, by our estimation, will push demand higher by 1.67mm b/d this year. Supply-side adjustments in base metals, particularly copper, where strikes and natural disasters combined to tighten markets, will be augmented by the ongoing environmental reforms in China (Chart 2). These supply-side effects in industrial commodities occurred against a backdrop of stronger-than-expected economic growth worldwide last year - the first such upturn since the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) in 2008 (Chart 3). Chart 2Fundamentals Supported Metals Chart 3Global Upturn Powers Commodity Demand We expect this to continue. Part of the recovery in aggregate demand worldwide can be attributed to the massive monetary stimulus by systematically important central banks - led by the Fed, the ECB and BoJ. Lower energy prices last year, which acted like a tax cut, put more discretionary income in consumers' hands and also boosted aggregate demand.2 Monetary Policy Will Re-Assert Itself Chart 4The USD Will Re-Emerge As A##BR##Driver Of Commodity Prices The influence of monetary policy - chiefly how the Fed's actions affect the USD - has been de minimis over the past two years relative to fundamentals, which have driven price formation in industrial commodities (Chart 4). While the Fed raised its policy rate 3 times last year, monetary conditions remained relatively loose in the U.S., which was supportive of commodity prices. Looser monetary conditions kept the USD better offered than other major currencies in 4Q17, which allowed gold prices to recover late in the year. A weaker USD also supported grain markets, which also have staged a somewhat subdued recovery following a mid-2017 sell-off. For at least 1H18, we see commodities generally continuing to be supported by strong fundamentals and relatively accommodative monetary policy globally, even with the Fed lifting its policy rate as many as four times this year, per our House view. Inflation Pressures Could Start Building By 2H18, inflationary pressures could start to build: In the U.S., tax cuts coupled with fiscal stimulus from the federal government in the form of disaster relief and higher discretionary spending - could add ~ 0.5% to GDP growth this year, based on calculations by BCA's Global Investment Strategy team (Chart 5).3 This should, all else equal, increase demand for labor and push the U.S. unemployment rate lower, lifting wages, inflation and inflation expectations in turn (Chart 6). At least that's how it's supposed to work. Our colleagues in BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy note, the "dichotomy between stronger growth and a tight labor market on the one hand and low inflation on the other gets to the heart of the first big challenge that incoming Fed Chairman Jay Powell will face next year. Specifically, how much faith should the Fed have in its framework for forecasting inflation? Chart 5U.S. Inflation Is Ticking Higher Chart 6Still Waiting On The Phillips Curve "... Janet Yellen's Phillips Curve model of core inflation does not explain this year's decline.1 It also shows that inflation is close to 0.5% below fair value, almost the largest deviation since 1995."4 We're inclined to agree with former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke on this. In 2016, he noted that, given the years-long stretch of errors in forecasting key economic variables - output, unemployment and the Fed funds rate - "Fed-watchers should probably focus on incoming data and count a bit less on Fed policymakers for guidance."5 This is a mixed blessing (or curse) for commodity markets: Increased economic activity raises demand for commodities, so at least in 1H18, and most likely for the second half as well, commodity demand will remain well supported globally. If we do get higher inflation, the Fed likely would feel it could lean into its rate-normalization with greater vigor, and start guiding to more frequent or bigger rate hikes. If we don't see higher inflation - if, as Chicago Fed President Charles Evans fears, inflation expectations have been marked down in a meaningful way - and the Fed cannot justify further rate hikes, we could see the real side of the global economy take another leg higher, lifting commodity demand in the process.6 This is the big issue for the coming year. We cannot say at this point how it plays out, which is why we recommend commodity investors remain in tactical mode, as we did a year ago. Recapping 2017's Recommendations Our trade recommendations were up an average of 77% last year, led by a 111% gain in our oil calls. This was a touch better than the 95% average gain we posted on our oil recommendations in 2016 (Table 1). Table 1Average Quarterly Returns 2017 Without a doubt, most of our recommendations were in the oil markets, as the accompanying tables show, and we maintained an exposure of one sort or another in oil throughout the year (Table 2). Table 2Trades Closed In 2017 The big drivers of our view in oil markets were fundamentals: On the supply side, we maintained the view OPEC 2.0 would not waver in its commitment to draining global storage levels, particularly in the OECD commercial inventories via supply reductions. On the demand side, by mid-2017, it became apparent to us the big data providers - the U.S. EIA and the IEA in Paris - and most of the sell-side analysts were underestimating demand. Information flows during 1H17 were often contradictory, which injected enormous volatility in crude-oil spread markets - particularly the calendar spreads trading markets employ to take a view on the shape of the forward curve (e.g., long a near-term futures contract like Dec/17 Brent, vs. short a deferred delivery contract like Dec/18). This intense volatility drove us toward the relative safety of call-option spreads in 2H17, where the risk of loss is limited to the net premium paid for the call spread. As we did last year, we constructed an information ratio (IR) to determine whether the additional volatility produced by our recommendations was adequately compensated for by the returns (simple percent changes of the opening level for a recommendation vs. the closing level). Our IR uses the S&P GSCI as a benchmark, given it has a relatively high weight in energy-related exposures. Our ratio looks at the average excess return of the active portfolio against this benchmark. This average excess return is divided by its standard deviation (also referred to as the tracking error volatility) in order to generate a risk-adjusted metric to measure returns on our recommendations relative to the risk we took to generate them. BCA's IR thus is calculated as: The higher the IR, the better the risk-adjusted relative performance of the portfolio. Three elements can explain a high IR: High returns in the portfolio; low returns in the benchmark, or low tracking error volatility. Hence, this measure provides a numeric value to analyze the risk-reward trade-off; it tells us whether or not the risk assumed in our trades was compensated for by larger returns. Viewing our energy recommendations as a portfolio over the course of 2017, our average return was 111%, while the GSCI return was 5.8%. The tracking error volatility was 112%.7 Using these inputs, the IR of our recommendations was 0.94. While not as stellar as our 2016 IR of 1.47, this risk-adjusted return is still stout, and indicates the consistent positive excess returns of our portfolio relative to passive GSCI exposure compensated for the high volatility of those returns. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 OPEC 2.0 is the name we've given the OPEC + non-OPEC producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. 2 For a summary of our 2018 outlooks, please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Oil Fundamentals Remain Bullish Heading Into 2018," published on December 21, 2017, and "Opposing Forces: Stay Neutral Metals In 2018" in the same issue. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Don't Fear A Flatter Yield Curve," published December 22, 2017. It is available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Ill Placed Trust?," published December 19, 2017. It is available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see "The Fed's shifting perspective on the economy and its implications for monetary policy," by Ben S. Bernanke, published by the Brookings Institution on its website August 8, 2016. 6 Please see "All Talk, Few Answers From FOMC for Yellen's Long Inflation Miss," published by bloomberg.com on January 3, 2018. 7 Note: In order to find the standard deviation of the portfolio's excess returns (tracking error volatility), we averaged the daily percentage change in each trade's underlying assets. Any given trade only weighed in the daily average return if it was open during that day of the year. We are not accounting for the type of trades (spreads, pairs or single trades), we only track the underlying asset returns. From these daily average returns we subtracted the daily return of the preferred benchmark to obtain the daily excess return. Using this, we computed an historical standard deviation (based on 20-day periods) for every day during which a trade was open in our portfolio (we had 224 days with at least one energy trade opened). Lastly, we annualized this standard deviation to obtain our tracking-error volatility. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2017

Highlights Global bourses celebrated solid earnings growth and the passage of U.S. tax cuts heading into year-end. The direct effect of the tax cuts will likely boost U.S. real GDP growth in 2018 by 0.2 to 0.3 percentage points. It could be more, depending on the impact on animal spirits in the business sector and any fresh infrastructure spending. The good news on global growth continue to roll in. Real GDP growth is accelerating in the major advanced economies, driven in part by a surge in capital spending. Nonetheless, record low volatility and a flat yield curve in the U.S. highlight our major theme for 2018; policy is on a collision course with risk assets because output gaps are closing and monetary policy is moving away from "pedal to the metal" stimulus. We expect inflation to finally begin moving higher in the U.S. and some of the other advanced economies. This will challenge the consensus view that "inflation is dead forever", and that central banks will respond quickly to any turbulence in financial markets with an easier policy stance. The S&P 500 would suffer only a 3-5% correction if the VIX were to simply mean-revert. But the pain would likely be more intense if there is a complete unwinding of 'low-vol' trading strategies. We will be watching inflation expectations and our S&P Scorecard for signs to de-risk. Government yield curves should bear steepen, before flattening again later in 2018. Stay below benchmark in duration for now and favor bonds in Japan, Italy, the U.K. and Australia versus the U.S. and Canada (currency hedged). Interest rate differentials in the first half of the year should modestly benefit the U.S. dollar versus the other major currencies. Investors should remain exposed to oil and related assets, and bet on rising inflation expectations in the major bond markets. The intensity of forthcoming Chinese reforms will have to be monitored carefully for signs they have reached an economic 'pain threshold'. We do not view China as a risk to DM risk assets, but even a soft landing scenario could be painful for base metals and the EM complex. Bitcoin is not a systemic threat to global financial markets. Feature Chart I-1Policy Collision Course? Global bourses celebrated solid earnings growth and the passage of U.S. tax cuts heading into year-end. Ominously, though, a flatter U.S. yield curve and extraordinarily low measures of volatility hover like dark clouds over the equity bull market (Chart I-1). The flatter curve could be a sign that the Fed is at risk of tightening too far, which seems incompatible with depressed asset market volatility. This combination underscores the major theme of the BCA Outlook 2018 that was sent to clients in November; policy is on a collision course with risk assets because output gaps are closing and monetary policy is moving away from "pedal to the metal" stimulus. Analysts are debating how much of the decline in volatility is due to technical factors and how much can be pinned on the macro backdrop. For us, they are two sides of the same coin. Betting that volatility will remain depressed has reportedly become a yield play, via technical trading strategies and ETFs. Trading models encourage more risk taking as volatility declines, such that lower volatility enters a self-reinforcing feedback loop. The danger is that this virtuous circle turns vicious. On the macro front, many investors appear to believe that the structure of the advanced economies has changed in a fundamental and permanent way. Deflationary forces, such as Uber, Amazon and robotics are so strong that inflation cannot rise even if labor becomes very scarce. If true, this implies that central banks will proceed slowly in tightening, and that the peak in rates is not far away. Moreover, below-target inflation allows central banks to respond to any economic weakness or unwanted tightening in financial conditions by adopting a more accommodative policy stance. In other words, investors appear to believe in the "Fed Put". Implied volatility is a mean-reverting series. It can remain at depressed levels for extended periods, especially when global growth is robust and synchronized. Nonetheless, we believe that the "outdated Phillips curve" and the "Fed Put" consensus views will be challenged later in 2018, leading to an unwinding of low-vol yield plays. For now, though, it is too early to scale back on risk assets. Global Growth Shifts Up A Gear... The good news on global growth continue to roll in. Easy financial conditions and the end of fiscal austerity provide a supportive growth backdrop. A measure of fiscal thrust for the G20 advanced economies shifted from a headwind to a slight tailwind in 2016 (Chart I-2). Our short-term models for real GDP growth in the major countries continue to rise, in line with extremely elevated purchasing managers' survey data (Chart I-3). The major exception is the U.K., where our GDP growth model is rolling over as the Brexit negotiations take a toll. Chart I-2Fiscal Austerity Is Over Chart I-3GDP Growth Models Are Upbeat Much of the acceleration in our GDP models is driven by the capital spending components. Animal spirits appear to be taking off and it is a theme across most of the advanced economies. G3 capital goods orders pulled back a bit in late 2017, but this is more likely due to noise in the data than to a peak in the capex cycle (Chart I-4). Industrial production, the PMI diffusion index and advanced-economy capital goods imports confirm strong underlying momentum in investment spending. Chart I-4Capital Spending Helping To Drive Growth In the U.S., tax cuts will give business outlays and overall U.S. GDP growth a modest lift in 2018. The House and Senate hammered out a compromise on tax cuts that is similar to the original Senate version. The new legislation will cut individual taxes by about $680 billion over ten years, trim small business taxes by just under $400 billion, and reduce corporate taxes by roughly the same amount (including the offsetting tax on currently untaxed foreign profits). The direct effect of the tax cuts will likely boost U.S. real GDP growth in 2018 by 0.2 to 0.3 percentage points. However, much depends on the ability that the tax changes and immediate capital expensing to further lift animal spirits in the business sector and bring forward investment spending. Any infrastructure program would also augment the fiscal stimulus. The total impact is difficult to estimate given the lack of details, but it is clearly growth-positive. ...But The U.S. Yield Curve Flattens... Bond investors are unimpressed so far with the upbeat global economic data. It appears that long-term yields are almost impervious as long as inflation is stuck at low levels. In the U.S., a rising 2-year yield and a range-trading 10-year yield have resulted in a substantial flattening of the 2/10 yield slope (although some of the flattening has unwound as we go to press). Investors view a flattening yield curve with trepidation because it smells of a Fed policy mistake. It appears that the bond market is discounting that the Fed can only deliver another few rate hikes before the economy starts to struggle, at which point inflation will still be below target according to market expectations. We would not be as dismissive of an inverted yield curve as Fed Chair Yellen was during her December press conference. There are indeed reasons for the curve to be structurally flatter today than in the past, suggesting that it will invert more easily. Nonetheless, the fact that the yield curve has called all of the last seven recessions is impressive (with one false positive). The good news is that, in the seven episodes in which the curve correctly called a recession, the signal was confirmed by warning signs from our Global Leading Economic Indicator and our monetary conditions index. At the moment, these confirming indicators are not even flashing yellow.1 Our fixed-income strategists believe that the curve is more likely to steepen than invert over the next six months. If inflation edges higher as we expect, then long-term yields will finally break out to the upside and the curve will steepen until the Fed's tightening cycle is further advanced. If we are wrong and inflation remains stuck near current levels or declines, then the FOMC will have to revise the 'dot plot' lower and the curve will bull-steepen. In other words, we do not think the FOMC will make a policy mistake by sticking to the dot plot if inflation remains quiescent. Rising inflation is a larger risk for stocks and bonds than a policy mistake. A clear uptrend in inflation would shake investors' confidence in the "Fed Put" and thereby trigger an unwinding of the low-vol investment strategies. A sharp selloff at the long end of the curve in the major markets would send a chill through the investment world because it would suggest that the Phillips curve is not dead, and that central banks might have fallen behind the curve. ...As Inflation Languishes For now there is little evidence of building inflation pressure in either the CPI or the Fed's preferred measure, the core PCE price index. The latter edged up a little in October to 1.4% year-over-year, but the November core CPI rate slipped slightly to 1.7%. For perspective, core CPI inflation of 2.4-2.5% is consistent with the Fed's 2% target for the core PCE index. The Fed has made no progress in returning inflation to target since the FOMC started the tightening cycle. A risk to our view is that the expected inflation upturn takes longer to materialize. The annual core CPI inflation rate fell from 2.3 in January 2017 to 1.7 in November, a total decline of 0.55 percentage points. The drop was mostly accounted for by negative contributions from rent of shelter (-0.31), medical care services (-0.13) and wireless telephone services (-0.1). These categories are not closely related to the amount of slack in the economy, and thus might continue to depress the headline inflation rate in the coming months even as the labor market tightens further. Recent regulatory changes, for example, suggest that there is more downside potential in health care services inflation. We have highlighted in past research that it is not unusual for inflation to respond to a tight labor market with an extended lag, especially at the end of extremely long expansion phases. Chart I-5 updates the four indicators that heralded inflection points in inflation at the end of the 1980s and 1990s. All four leading inflation indicators are on the rise, as is the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Indicator (not shown). Importantly, economic slack is disappearing at the global level. The OECD as a group will be operating above potential in 2018 for the first time since the Great Recession (Chart I-6). Finally, oil prices have further upside potential. Higher energy prices will add to headline inflation and boost inflation expectations in the U.S. and the other major economies. Chart I-5U.S. Inflation: Indicators Point Up Chart I-6Vanishing Economic Slack The bottom line is that we are sticking with the view that U.S. inflation will grind higher in the coming months, allowing the FOMC to deliver the three rate hikes implied by the 'dot plot' for 2018. In December, the FOMC revised up its economic growth forecast to 2.5% in 2018, up from 2.1%. The projections for 2019 and 2020 were also revised higher. Growth is seen remaining above the 1.8% trend rate for the next three years. The FOMC expects that the jobless rate will dip to 3.9% in 2018 and 2019, before ticking up to 4.0% in 2020. With the estimate for long-run unemployment unchanged at 4.6%, this means that the labor market is expected to shift even further into 'excess demand' territory. If anything, these forecasts look too conservative. It is unreasonable to expect the unemployment rate to stabilize in 2019 and tick up in 2020 if the economy is growing above-trend. This forecast highlights the risk that the FOMC will suddenly feel 'behind the curve' if inflation re-bounds more quickly than expected, at a time when the labor market is so deep in 'excess demand' territory. The consensus among investors would also be caught off guard in this scenario, resulting in a rise in bond volatility from rock-bottom levels. How Vulnerable Are Stocks? How large a correction in risk assets should we expect? One way to gauge this risk is to estimate the historical 'beta' of risk asset prices to mean-reversions in the VIX. The VIX is currently a long way below its median. Major spikes to well above the median are associated with recessions and/or financial crises. However, as a starting point, we are interested in the downside potential for risk asset prices if the VIX simply moves back to the median. Table I-1 presents data corresponding to periods since 1990 when the VIX mean-reverted from a low level over a short period of time. We chose periods in which the VIX surged at least to its median level (17.2) from a starting point that was below 13. The choice of 13 as the lower threshold is arbitrary, but this level filters out insignificant noise in the data and still provides a reasonable number of episodes to analyze.2 Table I-1Episodes Of VIX 'Mean Reversion' The episodes are presented in ascending order with respect to the starting point for the 12-month forward P/E ratio. This was done to see whether the valuation starting point matters for the size of the equity correction. The "VIX Beta" column shows the ratio of the percent decline in the S&P 500 to the change in the VIX. The average beta over the 15 episodes suggests that stocks fall by almost a half of a percent for every one percent increase in the VIX. Today, the VIX would have to rise by about 7½% to reach the median value, implying that the S&P 500 would correct by roughly 3½%. Investment- and speculative-grade corporate bonds would underperform Treasurys by 22 and 46 basis points, respectively, in this scenario. Interestingly, the equity market reaction to a given jump in the VIX does not appear to intensify when stocks are expensive heading into the shock. The implication is that a shock that simply returns the VIX to "normal" would not be devastating for risk assets. The shock would have to be worse. Chart I-7Market Reaction To 1994 Fed Shock The episodes of VIX "mean reversion" shown in Table I-1 are a mixture of those caused by financial crises and by monetary tightening (and sometimes both). The U.S. 1994 bond market blood bath is a good example of a pure monetary policy shock. It was partly responsible for the "tequila crisis", but that did not occur until late that year. Chart I-7 highlights that the U.S. equity market reacted more violently to Fed rate hikes in 1994 than the average VIX beta would suggest. The VIX jumped by about 14% early in the year, coinciding with a 9% correction in the S&P 500. Investors had misread the Fed's intension in late 1993, expecting little in the way of rate hikes over the subsequent year. A dramatic re-rating of the Fed outlook caused a violent bond selloff that unnerved equity investors. We are not expecting a replay of the 1994 bond market turmoil because the Fed is far more transparent today. Nonetheless, the equity correction could be quite painful to the extent that the VIX overshoots the median as the large volume of low-volatility trades are unwound. A 10% equity correction in the U.S. this year would not be a surprise given the late stage of the bull market and current market positioning. Yield Curves To Bear Steepen Upward pressure on inflation, bond yields and volatility will not only come from the U.S. We expect inflation to edge higher in the Eurozone, Canada, and even Japan, given tight labor markets and diminished levels of global spare capacity. The European economy has been a star performer this year and this should continue through 2018. Even the periphery countries are participating. The key driving factors include the end of the fiscal squeeze in the periphery and the recapitalization of troubled banks. The latter has opened the door to bank lending, the weakness of which has been a major growth headwind in this expansion. Taken at face value, recent survey data are consistent with about 3% GDP growth (Chart I-3). We would dis-count that a bit, but even continued 2.0-2.5% GDP growth in the euro area would compare well to the 1% potential growth rate. This means that the output gap is shrinking and the labor market will continue tightening. Despite impressive economic momentum, the ECB is sticking to the policy path it laid out in October. Starting in January, asset purchases will continue at a reduced rate of €30bn per month until September 2018 or beyond. Meanwhile, interest rates will remain steady "for an extended period of time, and well past the horizon of the net asset purchases." If asset purchases come to an end next September, then the first rate hike may not come until 2019 Q1 at the earliest. Thus, rate hikes are a long way off, but the deceleration of growth in the Eurozone monetary base will likely place upward pressure on the long end of the bund curve (shown inverted in Chart I-8). Chart I-8ECB Tapering Will Be Bond-Bearish Canada is another economy with ultra-low interest rates and rapidly diminishing labor market slack. The Bank of Canada will be forced to follow the Fed in hiking rates in the coming quarters. In Japan, strong PMI and capital goods orders are hopeful signs that domestic capital spending is picking up, consistent with our upbeat real GDP model (Chart I-3). Recent data on industrial production and retail sales were weak, but this was likely due to heavy storm activity; we expect those readings to bounce back. Nonetheless, it is still not clear that the Japanese economy has moved away from a complete dependency on the global growth engine. We would like to see stronger wage gains to signal that the economy is finally transitioning to a more self-reinforcing stage. It is hopeful that various measures of core inflation are slightly positive, but this is tentative at best. That said, the BoJ may be forced to alter its current "yield curve control" strategy by modestly lifting the target on longer-term JGB yields later in 2018, in response to pressures from robust growth and rising global bond yields. Thus, the pressure for higher bond yields should rotate away from the U.S. in the latter half of 2018 towards Europe, Canada and possibly Japan. This could eventually see the U.S. dollar head lower, but we still foresee a window in the first half of 2018 in which the dollar will appreciate on the back of widening interest rate differentials. We are less bullish than we were in mid-2017, expecting only about a 5% dollar appreciation. China: Long-Term Gain Or Short-Term Pain? The Chinese cyclical outlook remains a key risk to our upbeat view on risk assets. Significant structural reforms are on the way, now that President Xi has amassed significant political support for his reform agenda. These include deleveraging in the financial sector, a more intense anti-corruption campaign focused on the shadow-banking sector, and an ongoing restructuring in the industrial sector. The reforms will likely be positive for long-term growth, but only to the extent that they are accompanied by economic reforms. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 19, highlights that 2018 will be pivotal for China's long-term investment outlook. In the short term, reforms could be a net negative for growth depending on how deftly the authorities handle the monetary and fiscal policy dials. We witnessed this tension between growth and reform in the early years of President Xi's term, when the drive to curtail excessive credit growth and overcapacity caused an abrupt slowdown in 2015. Managing the tradeoff means that China's economy will evolve in a series of growth mini cycles. China is in the down-phase of a mini cycle at the moment, as highlighted by the Li Keqiang Index (LKI; Chart I-9). The LKI is a good proxy for the business cycle. BCA's China Strategy service recently combined the data with the best leading properties for the LKI into a single indicator.3 This indicator suggests that the LKI will end up retracing about 50% of its late 2015 to early 2017 rise before the current slowdown is complete. The good news is that broad money growth, which is a part of the LKI leading indicator, has re-accelerated in recent months. This suggests that the current economic slowdown phase will not be protracted, consistent with our 'soft landing' view. The intensity of forthcoming reforms will have to be monitored carefully for signs they have reached an economic pain threshold. We will be watching our LKI leading indicator and a basket of relevant equity sectors for warning signs. We do not view China as a risk to DM risk assets, but even a soft landing scenario could be painful for base metals and the EM complex (Chart I-10). Chart I-9China: Where Is The Bottom? Chart I-10Metals At Risk Of China Soft Landing Equity Country Allocation For now we continue to recommend overweight positions in stocks versus bonds and cash within balanced portfolios. We also still prefer Japanese stocks to the U.S., reflecting our expectation for rising bond yields in the latter and an earnings outlook that favors the former. Chart I-11 updates our earnings-per-share growth forecast for the U.S., Japan and the Eurozone. We expect U.S. EPS growth to decelerate more quickly in 2018 than in Japan, since the U.S. is further ahead in the earning cycle and is more exposed to wage and margin pressure. European earnings growth will also be solid in 2018, but this year's euro appreciation will be a headwind for Q4 2017 and Q1 2018 earnings. European and Japanese stocks are also a little on the cheap side versus the U.S., although not by enough to justify overweight positions on valuation grounds alone. We have extended our valuation work to a broader range of countries, shown in Chart I-12. All are expressed relative to the U.S. market. These metric exclude the Financials sector, and adjust for both differing sector weights and structural shifts in relative valuation. Mexico is the only one that is more than one standard deviation cheap relative to the U.S. Nonetheless, our EM team is reluctant to recommend this market given uncertainty regarding the NAFTA negotiations. Russia is not as cheap, but is in the early stages of recovery. Our EM team is overweight. Chart I-11Top-Down EPS Projection Chart I-12Valuation Ranking Of Nonfinancial Equity Markets Relative To The U.S. A Note On Bitcoin Finally, we have received a lot of client questions regarding bitcoin. The incredible surge in the price of the cryptocurrency dwarfs previous asset price bubbles by a wide margin (Chart I-13). As is usually the case with bubble, supporters argue that "this time is different." We doubt it. Chart I-13Bitcoin Bubble Dwarfs All The Rest BCA's Technology Sector Strategy weighed into this debate in a recent Special Report.4 In theory, blockchain technology, including cyber currencies, can be used as a highly secure, low cost, means of transfer value from one person to the next without an intermediary. However, the report highlights that bitcoin is highly subject to fraud and manipulation because it is unregulated. Liquidity and accurate market quotes are questionable on the "fly by night" exchanges. Its use as a medium of exchange is very limited, and governments are bound to regulate it because cryptocurrencies are a tool for money laundering, tax evasion and other criminal activities. Another fact to keep in mind is that, although the supply of new bitcoins is restricted, the creation of other cryptocurrencies is unlimited. Would the bursting of the bitcoin bubble represent a risk to the economy? The market cap of all cryptocurrencies is estimated to be roughly US$400 billion (US$250 billion for bitcoin alone). This is tiny compared to global GDP or the market cap of the main asset classes such as stocks and bonds. The amount of leverage associated with bitcoin is unknown, but it is hard to see that it would be large enough to generate a significant wealth effect on spending and/or a marked impact on overall credit conditions. The links to other financial markets appear limited. Investment Conclusions Our recommended asset allocation is "steady as she goes" as we move into 2018. The policy and corporate earnings backdrop will remain supportive of risk assets at least for the first half of the year. In the U.S., the recently passed tax reform package will boost after-tax corporate cash flows by roughly 3-5%. Cyclical stocks should outperform defensives in the near term. Nonetheless, we expect 2018 to be a transition year. Stretched valuations and extremely low volatility imply that risk assets are vulnerable to the consensus macro view that central banks will not be able to reach their inflation targets even in the long term. The consensus could be in for a rude awakening. We expect equity markets to begin discounting the next U.S. recession sometime in early 2019, but markets will be vulnerable in 2018 to a bond bear phase and escalating uncertainty regarding the economic outlook. If risk assets have indeed entered the late innings, then we must watch closely for signs to de-risk. One item to watch is the 10-year U.S. CPI swap rate; a shift above 2.3% would be consistent with the Fed's 2% target for the PCE measure of inflation. This would be a signal that the FOMC will have to step-up the pace of rate hikes and aggressively slow economic growth. We will also use our S&P Scorecard Indicator to help time the exit from our overweight equity position (Chart I-14). The Scorecard is based on seven indicators that have a good track record of heralding equity bear markets.5 These include measures of monetary conditions, financial conditions, value, momentum, and economic activity. The more of these indicators in "bullish" territory, the higher the score. Currently, four of the indicators are flashing a bullish signal (financial conditions, U.S. unemployment claims, ISM new orders minus inventories, and momentum). We demonstrated in previous research that a Scorecard reading of three or above was historically associated with positive equity total returns in the subsequent months. A drop below three this year would signal the time to de-risk. Our thoughts on the risks facing equities carry over to the corporate bonds space. Our Global Fixed Income Strategy service notes that uncertainty about future growth has the potential to increase interest rate volatility that can also push corporate credit spreads wider (Chart I-15).6 Elevated leverage in the corporate sector adds to the risk of a re-rating of implied volatility. For now, however, investors should continue to favor corporate bonds relative to governments for the (albeit modest) yield pickup. Chart I-14Watch Our Scorecard To Time The Exit Chart I-15Higher Uncertainty & ##br##Vol To Hit Corporate Bonds Overall bond portfolio duration should be kept short of benchmark. We may recommend taking profits and switching to benchmark duration after global yields have increased and are beginning to negatively affect risk assets. While yields are rising, investors should favor bonds in Japan, Italy, the U.K. and Australia within fixed-income portfolios (on a currency-hedged basis). Underweight the U.S. and Canada. German and French bonds should be close to benchmark. Yield curves should steepen, before flattening later in the year. Interest rate differentials in the first half of the year should modestly benefit the U.S. dollar versus the other major currencies. Finally, investors should remain exposed to oil and related assets, and bet on rising inflation expectations in the major bond markets. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst December 28, 2017 Next Report: January 25, 2018 1 Please see BCA Global ETF Strategy service, "A Guide to Spotting And Weathering Bear Markets," August 16, 2017, available at etf.bcaresearch.com 2 Note that we are not saying that a rise in the VIX "causes" stocks to correct. Rather, we are assuming that a shock occurs that causes stocks to correct and the VIX to rise simultaneously. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Data Lab: Testing The Predictability Of China's Business Cycle," November 30, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA Technology Sector Strategy Special Report, "Cyber Currencies: Actual Currencies Or Just Speculative Assets?" December 12, 2017, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 5 Market Timing: Holy Grail Or Fool's Gold? The Bank Credit Analyst, May 26, 2016. 6 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy service, "Our Model Bond Portfolio Allocation In 2018: A Tail Of Two Halves," December 19, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com II. A Long View Of China 2018 is a pivotal year for China, as it will set the trajectory for President Xi Jinping's second term ... and he may not step down in 2022. Poverty, inequality, and middle-class angst are structural and persistent threats to China's political stability. The new wave of the anti-corruption campaign is part of Xi's attempt to improve governance and mitigate political risks. Yet without institutional checks and balances, Xi's governance agenda will fail. Without pro-market reforms, investors will face a China that is both more authoritarian and less productive. Hearts rectified, persons were cultivated; persons cultivated, families were regulated; families regulated, states were rightly governed; states rightly governed, the whole world was made tranquil and happy. - Confucius, The Great Learning Comparisons of modern Chinese politics with Confucian notions of political order have become cliché. Nevertheless, there is a distinctly Confucian element to Chinese President Xi Jinping's strategy. Xi's sweeping anti-corruption campaign, which will enter "phase two" in 2018, is essentially an attempt to rectify the hearts and regulate the families of Communist Party officials and civil servants. The same could be said for his use of censorship and strict ideological controls to ensure that the general public remains in line with the regime. Yet Xi is also using positive measures - like pollution curbs, social welfare, and other reforms - to win over hearts and minds. His purpose is ultimately the preservation of the Chinese state - namely, the prevention of a Soviet-style collapse. Only if the regime is stable at home can Xi hope to enhance the state's international security and erode American hegemony in East Asia. This would, from Beijing's vantage, make the whole world more tranquil and happy. Thus, for investors seeking a better understanding of China in the long run, it is necessary to look at what is happening to its governance as well as to its macroeconomic fundamentals and foreign relations.1 China's greatest vulnerability over the long run is its political system. Because Xi Jinping's willingness to relinquish power is now uncertain, his governance and reform agenda in his second term will have an outsized impact on China's long-run investment outlook. The Danger From Within From 1978-2008, the Communist Party's legitimacy rested on its ability to deliver rising incomes. Since the Great Recession, however, China has entered a "New Normal" of declining potential GDP growth as the society ages and productivity growth converges toward the emerging market average (Chart II-1). In this context, Chinese policymakers are deathly afraid of getting caught in the "middle income trap," a loose concept used to explain why some middle-income economies get bogged down in slower growth rates that prevent them from reaching high-income status (Chart II-2).2 Chart II-1The New Normal Chart II-2Will China Get Caught In The Middle-Income Trap? Such a negative economic outcome would likely prompt a wave of popular discontent, which, in turn, could eventually jeopardize Communist Party rule. The quid pro quo between the Chinese government and its population is that the former delivers rising incomes in exchange for the latter's compliance with authoritarian rule. The party is not blind to the fate of other authoritarian states whose growth trajectory stalled. The threat of popular unrest in China may seem remote today. The Communist Party is rallying around its leader, Xi Jinping; the economy rebounded from the turmoil of 2015 and its cyclical slowdown in recent months is so far benign; consumer sentiment is extremely buoyant; and the global economic backdrop is bright (Chart II-3). Yet these positive political and economic developments are cyclical, whereas the underlying political risks are structural and persistent. China has made massive gains in lifting its population out of poverty, but it is still home to 559 million people, around 40% of the population, living on less than $6 per day, the living standard of Uzbekistan. It will be harder to continue improving these workers' quality of life as trend growth slows and the prospects for export-oriented manufacturing dry up. This is why the Xi administration has recently renewed its attention to poverty alleviation. The government is on target in lifting rural incomes, but behind target in lifting urban incomes, and urban-dwellers are now the majority of the nation (Chart II-4). The plight of China's 200-250 million urban migrants, in particular, poses the risk of social discontent. Chart II-3China's Slowdown So Far Benign Chart II-4Urban Income Targets At Risk Moreover, while China knows how to alleviate poverty, it has less experiencing coping with the greatest threat to the regime: the rapid growth of the middle class, with its high expectations, demands for meritocracy and social mobility, and potential for unrest if those expectations are spoiled (Chart II-5). Democracy is not necessarily a condition for reaching high-income status, but all of Asia's high-income countries are democracies. A higher level of wealth encourages household autonomy vis-à-vis the state. Today, China has reached the $8,000 GDP per capita range that often accompanies the overthrow of authoritarian regimes.3 The Chinese are above the level of income at which the Taiwanese replaced their military dictatorship in 1987; China's poorest provinces are now above South Korea's level in that same year, when it too cast off the yoke of authoritarianism (Chart II-6). Chart II-5The Communist Party's Greatest Challenge Chart II-6China's Development Beyond Point At Which Taiwan And Korea Overthrew Dictatorship This is not an argument for democracy in China. We are agnostic about whether China will become democratic in our lifetime. We are making a far more humble point: that political risk will mount as wealth is accumulated by the country's growing middle class. Several emerging markets - including Thailand, Malaysia, Turkey and Brazil - have witnessed substantial political tumult after their middle class reached half of the population and stalled (Chart II-7). China is approaching this point and will eventually face similar challenges. Chart II-7Middle Class Growth Troubles Other EMs The comparison reveals that an inflection point exists for a society where the country's political establishment faces difficulties in negotiating the growing demands of a wealthier population. As political scientists have shown empirically, the very norms of society evolve as wealth erodes the pull of Malthusian and traditional cultural variables.4 Political transformation can follow this process, often quite unexpectedly and radically.5 Clearly the Chinese public shows no sign of large-scale, revolutionary sentiment at the moment. And political opposition does not necessarily result in regime change. Nevertheless, it is empirically false that the Chinese people are naturally opposed to democracy or representative government. After all, Sun Yat Sen founded a Republic of China in 1912, well before many western democratic transformations! And more to the point, the best survey evidence shows that the Chinese are culturally most similar to their East Asian neighbors (as well as, surprisingly, the Baltic and eastern European states): this is not a neighborhood that inherently eschews democracy. Remarkably, recent surveys suggest that China's millennial generation, while not wildly enthusiastic about democracy, is nevertheless more enthusiastic than its peers in the western world's liberal democracies (Chart II-8)! Chart II-8Chinese People Not Less Fond Of Democracy Than Others China is also home to one of the most reliable predictors of political change: inequality. China's economic boom is coincident with the rise of extreme inequalities in income, wealth, region, and social status. True, judging by average household wealth, everyone appears to be a winner; but the average is misleading because it is pulled upward by very high net worth individuals - and China has created 528 billionaires in the past decade alone. A better measure is the mean-to-median wealth ratio, as it demonstrates the gap that opens up between the average and the typical household. As Chart II-9 demonstrates, China is witnessing a sharp increase in inequality relative to its neighbors and peers. More standard measures of inequality, such as the Gini coefficient, also show very high readings in China. And this trend has combined with social immobility: China has a very high degree of generational earnings elasticity, which is a measure of the responsiveness of one's income to one's parent's income. If elasticity is high, then social outcomes are largely predetermined by family and social mobility is low. On this measure, China is an extreme outlier - comparable to the U.S. and the U.K., which, while very different economies, have suffered recent political shocks as a result of this very predicament (Chart II-10). Chart II-9Inequality: A Severe Problem In China Chart II-10China An Outlier In Inequality And Social Immobility "China does not have voters" unlike the U.S. and U.K., is the instant reply. Yet that statement entails that China has no pressure valve for releasing pent-up frustrations. Any political shock may be more, not less, destabilizing. In the U.S. and the U.K., voters could release their frustrations by electing an anti-establishment president or abrogating a trade relationship with Europe. In China, the only option may be to demand an "exit" from the political system altogether. Note that there is already substantial evidence of social unrest in China over the past decade. From 2003 to 2007, China faced a worrisome increase in "mass incidents," at which point the National Bureau of Statistics stopped keeping track. The longer data on "public incidents" suggests that the level of unrest remains elevated, despite improvements under the Xi administration (Chart II-11). Broader measures tell a similar story of a country facing severe tensions under the surface. For instance, China's public security spending outstrips its national defense spending (Chart II-12). Chart II-11Chinese Social Unrest Is Real Chart II-12China Spends More On ##br##Domestic Security Than Defense In essence, Chinese political risk is understated. This conclusion may seem counterintuitive, given Xi's remarkable consolidation of power. But is ultimately structural factors, not individual leaders, that will carry the day. The Communist Party is in a good position now, but its leaders are all-too-aware of the volcanic frustrations that could be unleashed should they fail to deliver the "China Dream." This is why so much depends upon Xi's policy agenda in the second half of his term. To that question we will now turn. Bottom Line: The Communist Party is at a cyclical high point of above-trend economic growth and political consolidation under a strongman leader. However, political risk is understated: poverty, inequality, and middle-class angst are structural and persistent and the long-term potential growth rate is slowing. If we assume that China is not unique in its historical trajectory, then we can conclude that it is approaching one of the most politically volatile periods in its development. Chart II-13Xi's Anti-Corruption Campaign The Governance And Reform Agenda Since coming to office in 2012-13, President Xi has spearheaded an extraordinary anti-corruption campaign and purge of the Communist Party (Chart II-13). The campaign has understandably drawn comparisons to Chairman Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution (1966-76). Yet these are not entirely fair, as Xi has tried to improve governance as well as eradicate his enemies. As Xi prepares for his "re-election" in March 2018, he has declared that he will expand the anti-corruption campaign further in his second term in office: details are scant, but the gist is that the campaign will branch out from the ruling party to the entire state bureaucracy, on a permanent basis, in the form of a new National Supervision Commission.6 There are three ways in which this agenda could prove positive for China's long-term outlook. First, the regime clearly hopes to convince the public that it is addressing the most burning social grievances. Corruption persistently ranks at the top of the list, insofar as public opinion can be known (Chart II-14). Public opinion is hard to measure, but it is clear that consumer sentiment is soaring in the wake of the October party congress (see Chart II-3 above). It is also worth noting that the Chinese public's optimism perked up in Xi's first year in office, when the policy agenda on offer was substantially the same and the economy had just experienced a sharp drop in growth rates (Chart II-15). Reassuring the public over corruption will improve trust in the regime. Second, the anti-corruption campaign feeds into Xi's broader economic reform agenda. Productivity growth is harder to generate as a country's industrialization process matures. With the bulk of the big increases in labor, capital, and land supply now complete in China, the need to improve total factor productivity becomes more pressing (Chart II-16). Unlike the early stages of growth, this requires reaching the hard-to-get economic conditions, such as property rights, human capital, financial deepening, entrepreneurship, innovation, education, technology, and social welfare. Chart II-14Chinese Public Grievances Chart II-15Anti-Corruption Is Popular Chart II-16Productivity Requires Institutional Change On this count, the Xi administration's anti-corruption campaign has been a net positive. The most widely accepted corruption indicators suggest that it has made a notable improvement to the country's governance. Yet the country remains far below its competitors in the absolute rankings, notably its most similar neighbor Taiwan (Chart II-17 A&B). The institutionalization of the campaign could thus further improve the institutional framework and business environment. Chart II-17AAnti-Corruption Campaign Is A Plus... Chart II-17B...But There's A Long Way To Go Third, the anti-corruption campaign can serve as a central government tool in enforcing other economic reforms. Pro-productivity reforms are harder to execute in the context of slowing growth because political resistance increases among established actors fighting to preserve their existing advantages. If the ruling party is to break through these vested interests, it needs a powerful set of tools. Recently, the central government in Beijing has been able to implement policy more effectively on the local level by paving the way through corruption probes that remove personnel and sharpen compliance. Case in point: the use of anti-corruption officials this year gave teeth to environmental inspection teams tasked with trimming overcapacity in the industrial sector (Chart II-18). And there are already clear signs that this method will be replicated as financial regulators tackle the shadow banking sector.7 Chart II-18Reforms Cut Steel Capacity, ##br##Reduced Need For Scrap These last examples - financial and environmental regulatory tightening - are policy priorities in 2018. The coercive aspect of the corruption probes should ensure that they are more effective than they would otherwise be. And reining in asset bubbles and reducing pollution are clear long-term positives for the regime. Ideally, then, Xi's anti-corruption campaign will deliver three substantial improvements to China's long-term outlook: greater public trust in the government, higher total factor productivity, and reduced systemic risks. The administration hopes that it can mitigate its governance deficit while improving economic sustainability. In this way it can buy both public support and precious time to continue adjusting to the new normal. The danger is that these policies will combine to increase downside risks to growth in the short term.8 Bottom Line: Xi's anti-corruption campaign is being expanded and institutionalized to cover the entire Chinese administrative state. This is a consequential campaign that will take up a large part of Xi's second term. It is the administration's major attempt to mitigate the socio-political challenges that await China as it rises up the income ladder. Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely? The problem, however, is that Xi may merely use the anti-corruption campaign to accrue more power into his hands. As is clear from the above, Xi's governance agenda is far from impartial and professional. The anti-corruption campaign is being used not only to punish corrupt officials but also to achieve various other goals. Xi has even publicly linked the campaign to the downfall of his political rivals.9 In essence, the campaign highlights the core contradiction of the Xi administration: can Xi genuinely improve China's governance by means of the centralization and personalization of power? Chart II-19China's Governance Still Falls Far Behind Over the long haul, the fundamental problem is the absence of checks and balances, i.e. accountability, from Xi's agenda. For instance, the National Supervision Commission will be granted immense powers to investigate and punish malefactors within the state - but who will inspect the inspectors? Xi's other governance reforms suffer the same problem. His attempt to create "rule of law" is lacking the critical ingredients of judicial independence and oversight. The courts are not likely to be able to bring cases against the party, central government, or powerful state-owned firms, and they will not be able to repeal government decisions. Thus, as many commentators have noted, Xi's notion of rule of law is more accurately described as "rule by law": the reformed legal system will in all probability remain an instrument in the hands of the Communist Party. Likewise, Xi's attempt to grant the People's Bank of China greater powers of oversight in order to combat systemic financial risk suffers from the fact that the central bank is not independent, and will remain subordinate to the State Council, and hence to the Politburo Standing Committee. This is not even to mention the lamentable fact that Xi's campaign for better governance has so far coincided with extensive repression of civil society, which does not mesh well with the desire to improve human capital and innovation.10 Thus it is of immense importance whether Xi sets up relatively durable anti-corruption, legal, and financial institutions that will maintain their legitimate functions beyond his term and political purposes. Otherwise, his actions will simply illustrate why China's governance indicators lag so far behind its peers in absolute terms. Corruption perceptions may improve further, but there will be virtually no progress in areas like "voice and accountability," "political stability and absence of violence," "rule of law," and "regulatory quality," each of which touches on the Communist Party's weak spots in various ways (Chart II-19). Analysis of the Communist Party's shifting leadership characteristics reinforces a pessimistic view of the long run if Xi misses his current opportunity.11 The party's top leadership increasingly consists of career politicians from the poor, heavily populated interior provinces - i.e. the home base of the party. Their educational backgrounds are less scientific, i.e. more susceptible to party ideology. (Indeed, Xi Jinping's top young protégé, Chen Miner, is a propaganda chief.) And their work experience largely consists of ruling China's provinces, where they earned their spurs by crushing rebellions and redistributing funds to placate various interest groups (Chart II-20). While one should be careful in drawing conclusions from such general statistics, the contrast with the leadership that oversaw China's boldest reforms in the 1990s is plain. Chart II-20China's Leaders Becoming More 'Communist' Over Time Bottom Line: Xi's reform agenda is contradictory in its attempt to create better governance through centralizing and personalizing power. Unless he creates checks and balances in his reform of China's institutions, he is likely to fall short of long-lasting improvements. The character profiles of China's political elite do not suggest that the party will become more likely to pursue pro-market reforms in Xi's wake. Xi Jinping's Choice Xi is the pivotal player because of his rare consolidation of power, and 2018 is the pivotal year. It is pivotal because it will establish the policy trajectory of Xi's second term - which may or may not extend into additional terms after 2022. So far, the world has gained a few key takeaways from Xi's policy blueprint, which he delivered at the nineteenth National Party Congress on October 18: Xi has consolidated power: He and his faction reign supreme both within the Communist Party and the broader Chinese state; Xi's policy agenda is broadly continuous: Xi's speech built on his administration's stated aims in the first five years as well as the inherited long-term aims of previous administrations; China is coming out of its shell: In the international realm, Xi sees China "moving closer to center stage and making greater contributions to mankind"; The 2022 succession is in doubt: Xi refrained from promoting a successor to the Politburo Standing Committee, the unwritten norm since 1992. Markets have not reacted overly negatively to these developments (Chart II-21), as the latter do not pose an immediate threat to the global rally in risk assets. The reasons are several: Chart II-21Market Not Too Worried About ##br##Party Congress Outcomes Maoism is overrated: While the Communist Party constitution now treats Xi Jinping as the sole peer of the disastrous ruler Mao Zedong, the market does not buy the Maoist rhetoric. Instead, it sees policy continuity, yet with more effective central leadership, which is a plus. Reforms are making gradual progress: Xi is treading carefully, but is still publicly committed to a reform agenda of rebalancing China's economic model toward consumption and services, improving governance and productivity, and maintaining trade openness. Whatever the shortcomings of the first five years, this agenda is at least reformist in intention. China's tactic of "seeking progress while maintaining stability" is certainly more reassuring than "progress at any cost" or "no progress at all"! Trump and Xi are getting along so far: Xi's promises to move China toward center stage threaten to increase geopolitical tensions with the United States in the long run, yet markets are not overly alarmed. China is imposing sanctions on North Korea to help resolve the nuclear missile standoff, negotiating a "Code of Conduct" in the South China Sea, and promoting the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which will marginally add to global development and growth. Trump is hurling threatening words rather than concrete tariffs. 2022 is a long way away: Markets are unconcerned with Xi's decision not to put a clear successor on the Politburo Standing Committee, even though it implies that Xi will not step down at the end of his term in five years. Investors are implicitly approving Xi's strongman behavior while blissfully ignoring the implication that the peaceful transition of power in China could become less secure. Are investors right to be so sanguine? Cyclically, BCA's China Investment Strategy is overweight Chinese investible equities relative to EM and global stocks. Geopolitical Strategy also recommends that clients follow this view and overweight China relative to EM. Beyond this 6-12 month period, it depends on how Xi uses his political capital. If Xi is serious about governance and economic reform, then long-term investors should tolerate the other political risks, and the volatility of reforms, and overweight China within their EM portfolio. After all, China's two greatest pro-market reformers, Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin, were also heavy-handed authoritarians who crushed domestic dissent, clashed with the United States from time to time, and hesitated to relinquish control to their successors. However, if Xi is not serious, then investors with a long time horizon should downgrade China/EM assets - as not only China but the world will have a serious problem on its hands. For Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin always reaffirmed China's pro-market orientation and desire to integrate into the global economic order. If Xi turns his back on this orientation, while imprisoning his rivals for corruption, concentrating power exclusively in his own person, and contesting U.S. leadership in the Asia Pacific, then the long-run outlook for China and the region should darken rather quickly. Domestic institutions will decay and trade and foreign investment will suffer. How and when will investors know the difference? As mentioned, we think 2018 is critical. Xi is flush with political capital and has a positive global economic backdrop. If he does not frontload serious efforts this year then it will become harder to gain traction as time goes by.12 If he demurs, the Chinese political system will not afford another opportunity like this for years to come. The country will approach the 2020s with additional layers of bureaucracy loyal to Xi, but no significant macro adjustments to its governance or productivity. It is not clear how long China's growth rate is sustainable without pro-productivity reforms. It is also not clear that the world will wait five years before responding to a China that, without a new reform push, will appear unabashedly mercantilist, neo-communist, and revisionist. Bottom Line: The long-run investment outlook for China hinges on Xi Jinping's willingness to use his immense personal authority and concentration of power for the purposes of good governance and market-oriented economic reform. Without concrete progress, investors will have to decide whether they want to invest in a China that is becoming less economically vibrant as well as more authoritarian. We think this would be a bad bet. Matt Gertken Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy Marko Papic Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist Geopolitical Strategy 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Chinese policymakers are expressly concerned about the middle-income trap. Please see the World Bank and China's Development Research Center of the State Council, "China 2030: Building A Modern, Harmonious, And Creative Society," 2013, available at www.worldbank.org. Liu He, who is perhaps Xi Jinping's top economic adviser, had a hand in drafting this report and is now a member of the Politburo and shortlisted to take charge of the newly established Financial Stability and Development Commission at the People's Bank of China. 3 Please see Indermit S. Gill and Homi Kharas, "The Middle-Income Trap Turns Ten," World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper 7403 (August, 2015), available at www.worldbank.org 4 Please see Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, Modernization, Cultural Change and Democracy: the Human Development Sequence (Cambridge: CUP, 2005). 5 For example, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Arab Spring, as well as the downfall of communist regimes writ large, were completely unanticipated. 6 Specifically, Xi is creating a National Supervision Commission that will group a range of existing anti-graft watchdogs under its roof at the local, provincial, and central levels of administration, while coordinating with the Communist Party's top anti-graft watchdog. More details are likely to be revealed at the March legislative session, but what matters is that the initiative is a significant attempt to institutionalize the anti-corruption campaign. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China's Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 China has recently drafted top anti-graft officials, such as Zhou Liang, from the powerful Central Discipline and Inspection Commission and placed them in the China Banking Regulatory Commission, which is in charge of overseeing banks. Authorities have already imposed fines in nearly 3,000 cases in 2017 affecting various kinds of banks, including state-owned banks. On the broader use of anti-corruption teams for economic policy, please see Barry Naughton, "The General Secretary's Extended Reach: Xi Jinping Combines Economics And Politics," China Leadership Monitor 54 (Fall 2017), available at www.hoover.org. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Gao Shan et al, "China's President Xi Jinping Hits Out at 'Political Conspiracies' in Keynote Speech," Radio Free Asia, January 3, 2017, available at www.rfa.org 10 Xi has cranked up the state's propaganda organs, censorship of the media, public surveillance, and broader ideological and security controls (including an aggressive push for "cyber-sovereignty") to warn the public that there is no alternative to Communist Party rule. This tendency has raised alarms among civil rights defenders, lawyers, NGOs, and the western world to the effect that China's governance is actually regressing despite nominal improvement in standard indicators. This is the opposite of Confucius's bottom-up notion of order. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Xi faces politically sensitive deadlines in the 2020-22 period: the economic targets in the thirteenth Five Year Plan; the hundredth anniversary of the Communist Party in 2021; and Xi's possible retirement at the twentieth National Party Congress in 2022. At that point he will need to focus on demonstrating the Communist Party's all-around excellence and make careful preparations either to step down or cling to power. III. Indicators And Reference Charts Global equity indexes remained on a tear heading into year-end on the back of robust earnings growth in the major countries and U.S. tax cuts. There are some dark clouds hanging over this rally, as discussed in the Overview section. The technicals are stretched, but none of our fundamental indicators are warning of a market top. Implied equity volatility is very low, which can be interpreted in a contrary fashion. Investor sentiment is frothy and our Speculation Indicator is very elevated. Moreover, our equity valuation indicator has finally reached one standard deviation, which is our threshold of overvaluation. Valuation does not tell us anything about timing, but it does highlight the downside risks. Our monetary indicator also deteriorated a little more in December, although not by enough on its own to justify downgrading risk assets. On a positive note, earnings surprises and the net revisions ratio are not sending any warning signs for profit growth (although net revisions have edged lower recently). Moreover, our new Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) continued on its bullish equity signal in November for the fifth consecutive month. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators are also bullish on stocks in the U.S., Europe and Japan. These indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. The small dip in the Japanese WTP in December is a little worrying, but we need to see more weakness to confirm that flows no longer favor Japanese equities. In contrast, Europe's WTP rose sharply in December, suggesting that investors are allocating more to their European equity holdings. We are overweight both Europe and (especially) Japan relative to the U.S. (currency hedged). U.S. Treasury valuation is still very close to neutral, even following December's backup in yields. There is plenty of upside potential for yields before they hit "inexpensive" territory. Similarly, our technical bond indicator suggests that technical factors will not be headwind to a further bond selloff in 2018. Little has change for the dollar. The technicals are neutral. Value is expensive based on PPP, but less so by other valuation metrics. We see modest upside for the greenback in 2018. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And ##br##Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart II-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart II-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart II-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart II-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart II-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart II-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart II-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart II-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart II-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart II-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart II-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart II-20Euro Technicals Chart II-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart II-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart II-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart II-24Commodity Prices Chart II-25Commodity Prices Chart II-26Commodity Sentiment Chart II-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart II-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart II-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart II-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart II-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart II-32U.S. Labor Market Chart II-33U.S. Consumption Chart II-34U.S. Housing Chart II-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart II-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart II-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart II-38Global Economic Snapshot: China

Highlights As bitcoin has developed into a fledgling form of money, the best valuation framework for it is the quantity theory of money. This states that the bitcoin money supply (in dollars) times bitcoin's velocity of circulation = the amount of world GDP carried out in bitcoin. In the short term, excessive herding signals a likely countertrend reversal, and implies that the bitcoin price will retest $12,750 at some point in the next 130 days. In the long term, the wholesale acceptance of cryptocurrencies in the global economy will be deflationary. Feature Bitcoin's near-vertical price ascent to $19,000 has left many commentators crying "bubble!" The problem with this is that you cannot define an asset bubble simply from the behaviour of a price. You need to assess fundamental value, and the extent of deviation above this fundamental value. Conceivably, bitcoin's near-vertical price ascent could be a correction from an "anti-bubble", in which the price was a long way below its fundamental value and rapidly corrected upwards. Which begs the question: what is the best way to assess the fundamental value of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies? Chart of the WeekCryptocurrencies Will Prevent Inflation, Just Like The Gold Standard A Valuation Framework For Bitcoin As bitcoin has developed into a fledgling form of money, one potential valuation framework is the quantity theory of money. This states that the money supply times its velocity of circulation equals nominal GDP. Given that the supply of bitcoin will not exceed an upper limit of 21 million coins, we can say that the bitcoin money supply (in dollars) is the bitcoin price times 21 million. We can then use the quantity theory to deduce: Bitcoin price times 21 million times bitcoin's velocity of circulation = Amount of world GDP carried out in bitcoin. If we additionally assume that bitcoin's velocity is similar to that of the stock of broad fiat money, 1.5, then we can rearrange and simplify the equation to approximately: Bitcoin price = Amount of world GDP carried out in bitcoin divided by 30 million So if the market was discounting that $0.5 trillion of world GDP would be carried out in bitcoin, then its price should be $16,700. Given the purported nefarious uses of cryptocurrencies at the moment, and an estimated size of the world's shadow economy at around $16 trillion, an assumption of $0.5 trillion of bitcoin use in the world economy does not seem excessive. On the other hand, nefarious use might make bitcoin's velocity of circulation a lot higher than conventional money. Which would pull bitcoin's fair price much lower. Suffice to say, the above assumptions are broad-brush and open to challenge. Nevertheless, despite the many caveats, the above framework is probably the most valid for valuing a cryptocurrency once it gains acceptance as a fledgling form of money. Putting Bitcoin Through Fractal Analysis The behaviour of price alone cannot gauge an asset bubble. But the behaviour of price alone can gauge a shortage of liquidity in the asset which implies a potential countertrend reversal. Liquidity is plentiful when the market is split between short-term momentum traders and longer-term value investors. This is because the two herds generally disagree with each other. If the price fluctuates up, the momentum trader wants to buy while the value investor wants to sell; and vice-versa. So the herds trade with each other with plentiful liquidity and little movement in price. This raises an obvious question. Can there really be any value investors in cryptocurrencies? The answer is potentially yes, if these investors believe that cryptocurrency acceptance will increase over time. And if they apply the aforementioned valuation framework from the quantity theory of money. Still, liquidity will periodically evaporate if too many value investors join the short-term momentum herd. Instead of dispassionately investing on the basis of a valuation framework, value investors get lured into participating in a strong rally, and their buy orders add fuel to the rally. A tipping point comes when all the value investors have joined the momentum herd. If a value investor then suddenly reverts to type and puts in a sell order, he will find that there are no buyers left. Liquidity has evaporated, and finding new liquidity might require a substantial reversal in the price to attract a buy order from an ultra-long-term deep value investor. As regular readers know, fractal analysis measures whether the herding behaviour in any financial instrument has reached its tipping point, signalling a likely end of its price trend. Today, the 130-day herding indicator for bitcoin is at a level which has indicated three previous countertrend reversals of at least one fifth of the preceding 130-day move (Chart I-2, Chart I-3, Chart I-4). Chart I-2Bitcoin: The 130 Day Fractal Dimension Signalled A Reversal In 2015 Chart I-3Bitcoin: The 130 Day Fractal Dimension Signalled Two Reversals In 2017 Chart I-4Bitcoin: The 65 Day Fractal Dimension Also Signalled Two Previous Reversals If this herding indicator signals a fourth countertrend reversal, it implies that the bitcoin price will retest $12,750 at some point in the next 130 days. Are Cryptocurrencies Inflationary Or Deflationary? On the face of it, the emergence of cryptocurrencies sounds inflationary. After all, if the general acceptance of cryptocurrencies for commercial transactions increases, there will be new money supply. And this new money supply will increase the nominal demand for goods and services. However, the truth is more nuanced. Unlike fiat money supply - which can expand without limit - each cryptocurrency has a defined limit to its supply. Although new cryptocurrencies can emerge, there seems to be a limit to the aggregate amount of cryptocurrency supply. The limiting factor is that it takes energy to create cryptocurrency through so-called 'mining'. Miners must compete to validate transactions that occur in a cryptocurrency. The competition takes the form of solving a mathematical problem - for example, finding the prime factors of a very large number. And the computational demands are energy sapping. Furthermore, the computational demands - known as 'proof of work' - get progressively more difficult for each additional new coin mined. Given that the computational resources in the world are finite and growing at a gentle and predictable rate, the implication is that the growth in the total amount of cryptocurrency is also limited. So while the emergence of cryptocurrencies does increase the money supply in the near-term (Chart I-5), a large-scale rejection of fiat money would make it impossible for uncouth policymakers to spike the overall money supply over the longer-term. Chart I-5Cryptocurrencies: Market Cap Is Now Non-Trivial Here's a further thought. Imagine if the proof of work computations, instead of being random mathematical calculations, solved useful problems that expanded the envelope of knowledge. This could boost real productivity, which is ultimately just a function of the stock of human ingenuity. In which case, any increase in money supply would be matched by an increase in potential real output. Interestingly, a recent paper from the Bank of Canada proposes that a wholesale acceptance of cryptocurrencies in the global economy could act as a new gold standard, whose effect would be mildly deflationary1 (Chart of the Week) and Table I-1). We fully agree with the Bank of Canada analysis. Table I-1No Persistent Inflation For 700 Years! The sting in the tail is that the analysis describes prices denominated in cryptocurrency terms. In fiat currency terms, the quantity theory of money implies that prices would rise2 - unless central banks reacted to the emergence of cryptocurrencies by shrinking the supply of fiat money. Would they? Very likely yes. If they didn't, the demise of fiat money would accelerate as people voted with their wallets and switched to superior stores of purchasing power. Nevertheless, we suspect that any central bank response would just delay the inevitable. As Larry Summers puts it: I am much more confident that the world of payments will look very different 20 years from now than I am about how it will look. And with that observation, I am signing off for 2017. I do hope you have enjoyed our provocative and counterintuitive insights this year. In the vast majority of cases, these insights have led to highly profitable investment recommendations. We promise to continue the success in 2018! Early next year, we will also unveil a major enhancement to our proprietary fractal trading strategy. So stay tuned. It just remains for me to wish you all a very enjoyable Festive Season and a prosperous 2018. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Bank of Canada Staff Working Paper, A Bitcoin Standard: Lessons from the Gold Standard https://www.bankofcanada.ca/2016/03/staff-working-paper-2016-14/ 2 Please see the Global Investment Strategy Special Report titled "Bitcoin's Macro Impact", dated September 15, 2017 available at gis.bcaresearch.com and Technology Sector Strategy Special Report titled "Cyber Currencies: Actual Currencies Or Just Speculative Assets?", dated December 12, 2017 available at tech.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* As discussed in the main body of this report, this week's trade is to expect a countertrend reversal in bitcoin. Go short with a profit target at $12750 and stop-loss at $28000. In other trades, long silver has had a strong 1-week bounce while long U.K. personal products / short U.K. food and beverages reached the end of its 65 day maximum holding period and closed with a small profit. 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-6 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. * 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 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-7Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations

Dear Client, This is our last report of 2017. We will be back on January 4, 2018, with our customary recap of recommendations made this year. We wish you and your loved ones the very best this lovely season has to offer. Sincerely, Robert P. Ryan, Chief Commodity Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy Highlights With GDP growth accelerating in ~ 75% of countries monitored by the IMF, we expect commodity demand - particularly for crude oil and refined products - to remain strong in 2018. On the supply side, OPEC 2.0 - the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia - will maintain its production discipline, which will force commercial oil inventories lower in 2018. As a result, we expect oil markets to continue to tighten in 2018, keeping upside risk to prices from unplanned production outages acute. This was clearly demonstrated in separate incidents in the U.S. and North Sea in the past two months, which removed more than 400k b/d from markets since November. Geopolitical risk will remain elevated, particularly in Venezuela, where operations at the state oil company were paralyzed after senior military officers assumed leadership positions there. Beyond 2018, we believe OPEC 2.0 will endure as a coalition. It will manage production and provide forward guidance consistent with a strategy to keep WTI and Brent forward curves backwardated. This will provide a supportive backdrop for the Saudi Aramco IPO, expected toward the end of next year, and will limit the volume of hedging U.S. shale-oil producers are able to effect. In turn, this will limit the number of rigs U.S. E&Ps can profitably deploy. Energy: Overweight. Our Brent and WTI call spreads in 2018 - long $55/bbl calls vs. short $60/bbl calls - are up an average 53.8%. We will retain these exposures into 2018. Base Metals: Neutral. We expect base metals to be supported through 1Q18, after which reform measures in China could crimp supply and demand, as we discuss below. Precious Metals: Neutral. We remain long gold as a strategic portfolio hedge against inflation and geopolitical risk, even though inflation remains quiescent (see below). Ags/Softs: Underweight. Fed policy will be critical to ag markets in 2018. We expect as many as four rate hikes next year, as the Fed continues with rates normalization (see below). Feature Our updated balances model indicates global oil markets will continue to tighten in 2018, as demand growth accelerates and OPEC 2.0 - the producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia - maintains production discipline (Chart of the Week). Earlier this week, IMF noted improving employment conditions globally, which will continue to support aggregate demand and the synchronized global expansion in manufacturing and trade (Chart 2 and Chart 3).1 This acceleration of GDP growth rates globally will continue to support income growth and commodity demand generally. Oil-exporters have not participated in the global economic expansion to the extent of other economies, according to the Fund, which can be seen in the trade data (Chart 3). However, imports by Middle East and African countries are moving higher, and look set to post year-on-year (yoy) growth in the near future. Chart of the WeekOil Balances Will Continue to Tighten In 2018 Chart 2Global Upturn Boosts Manufacturing, ##br##Commodity Demand... The combination of continued production discipline from OPEC 2.0 and expanding incomes boosting demand will force crude and product inventories lower, particularly those in the OECD, which are the primary target of the producer coalition (Chart 4). Chart 3...And Global Trade Chart 4OECD Inventories Will Fall Below 5-year ##br##Average In BCA's Supply-Demand Assessment Unplanned Outages Mounting; Risk Remains Acute Unlike many forecasters, we continue to expect inventories to draw in 1Q18. This expectation is the direct result of our supply-demand modelling, and also is supported by our expectation that the risk of unplanned outages is increasing. This already has been demonstrated in the U.S. and U.K. North Sea, where more than 400k b/d of pipeline flows in November and December were lost. Of far greater moment, however, is the potential for unplanned outages in Venezuela. We believe the state-owned oil company there is one systemic malfunction away from shutting down exports entirely - e.g., a breakdown in pumping stations - as happened in 2002. Reuters reports the government of Nicolas Maduro appears to be consolidating power via an "anti-corruption" campaign, and is installing senior military officials with little or no industry experience in leadership roles inside PDVSA.2 Reuters notes, "The ongoing purge, in which prosecutors have arrested at least 67 executives including two recently ousted oil ministers, now threatens to further harm operations for the OPEC country, which is already producing at 30-year-lows and struggling to run PDVSA units including Citgo Petroleum, its U.S. refiner." The news service goes on to report, "Executives that remain, meanwhile, are so rattled by the arrests that they are loathe to act, scared they will later be accused of wrongdoing." We have Venezuela output at just under 1.90mm b/d, and expect it to decline to a little more than 1.70mm b/d by the end of 2018. Brent Expected To Average $67/bbl In 2018 We continue to forecast average Brent prices of $67/bbl and WTI at $63/bbl next year, given our assessment of global supply-demand balances, which drive our fundamental price forecasts: We expect global crude and liquids supply to average 100.23mm b/d in 2018, vs 100.01mm b/d expected by the U.S. EIA, while we have global demand coming in at 100.29mm b/d on average next year, vs the 99.97mm b/d expected by EIA (Chart 5 and Chart 6). Chart 5BCA's Expected Crude Oil Supply Vs. EIA's Chart 6BCA's Expected Demand Exceeds EIA's In 2018 Our expectations translate into a 2.55mm b/d increase in supply next year, vs a 1.67mm b/d increase in demand yoy (Table 1). Running the EIA's supply-demand assessments through our fundamental pricing models produces average Brent and WTI prices of $49/bbl and $47/bbl, respectively. EIA is expecting a 2.04mm b/d increase in supply next year, vs a 1.63mm b/d increase in demand. Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (mm b/d) In line with our House view, we are expecting some USD strengthening on the back of as many as four interest-rate hikes by the Federal Reserve in the U.S. (Chart 7). As we've noted in the past, we expect these effects to be felt more in 2H18. Along with higher U.S. shale-oil production driven by higher prices - we expect shale output to go up 0.97mm b/d next year to 6.64mm b/d - a stronger USD will keep Brent and WTI prices below $70/bbl next year. Oil Beyond 2018: OPEC 2.0 Endures OPEC 2.0 will remain an enduring feature of the oil market going forward, in our view. Allowing the coalition to fade away, and returning the global oil market to a production free-for-all once again serves neither KSA's nor Russia's interests. Following the IPO of Saudi Aramco toward the end of 2018, KSA will, we believe, want to maintain stability in the market, by demonstrating to capital markets that OPEC 2.0 can manage crude-oil supplies in a way that is not disruptive to its new-found investors. It is important to remember the Aramco IPO is only the beginning of the process of transforming KSA from a crude resource exporter into a vertically integrated global refining and marketing colossus. To eclipse Exxon as the world's largest refiner, Aramco would benefit from continued access to capital markets throughout the following decades, as well reliable cash flows to lower its cost of capital, service debt, and maintain whatever dividends it envisions. This cannot occur if oil markets are continually at risk of collapsing because production cannot be managed in a business-like manner. While Russia has not embarked on the same sort of transformation of its resource industry as KSA, it still has a very strong interest in maintaining stability in the crude oil markets, given its dependence on hydrocarbon exports. The Russian rouble moves in near-lock-step with Brent prices - since 2010, Brent prices explain ~80% of the movement in the rouble (Chart 8). It is obvious a collapse in global crude oil prices would, once again, have devastating effects on Russia's economy, as it did in 2009 and 2014. Such a collapse would trigger inflation domestically, as the cost of imports skyrockets, and threaten civil unrest as incomes and GDP are hobbled and foreign reserves evaporate. Chart 7Stronger USD Limits Oil-Price Appreciation In 2018 Chart 8Russia Cannot Afford An Oil Price Collapse Both KSA and Russia have a deep interest in maintaining oil's pre-eminent position as a transportation fuel for as long as possible. For this reason, neither wants to encourage prices that are too high - $100/bbl+ prices greatly encouraged the development of shale technology in the U.S. - nor too low, given the dire consequences such an outcome would have for both their economies. The common goals of KSA and Russia cannot be achieved by allowing OPEC 2.0 to dissolve, leaving member states to produce at will in the sort of production free-for-all that characterized the OPEC market-share war of 2014 - 15. To the extent possible, OPEC 2.0 must continue to manage member states' production in a manner that does not permit inventories to once again fill to the point where the only way to moderate over-production is to push prices through cash costs, so that enough output is shut in to clear the market. The most obvious way for these goals to be accomplished is by keeping markets relatively tight. This can be done by keeping commercial oil inventories worldwide low enough to keep Brent and WTI forward curves backwardated - particularly in highly visible OECD and U.S. storage facilities. A backwardated forward curve means the average price over a typical 2- or 3-year hedge horizon is lower than the spot price received by OPEC 2.0 producers. The deeper the backwardation, the lower the average price a U.S. shale producer can lock in by hedging. This limits the number of rigs that can be deployed by shale producers. This will require continual communication with markets to assure them sufficient spare capacity and easily developed production can be brought to market to alleviate any temporary shortage. In the meantime, OPEC 2.0 members with flexible storage will need to communicate these barrels will be readily available to the market. This management and forward-guidance should be easier for OPEC 2.0 to execute on, following its recent success in keeping some 1.0mm b/d of production off the market - largely in KSA and Russia - and member states' existing spare capacity and storage. We continue to expect the daily working dialogue of the OPEC 2.0 member states - most especially KSA and Russia - to deepen as time goes by, and for tactics and strategy to evolve as each gains comfort operating with the other. Whether OPEC 2.0 can pull this off remains to be seen. However, given the success of the coalition over the past two years, we are inclined to believe they will continue to develop a durable modus operandi supporting this outcome. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com Opposing Forces: Stay Neutral Metals In 2018 Chart 9Strong Global Demand Will Neutralize ##br##Impact of China Slowdown While we expect more upside to metal prices in the first half of 2018, slowing growth in China and a stronger USD will prevent a repeat of this year's stellar performance. While a deceleration in China is - ceteris paribus - most definitely a headwind to metal prices, we believe the impact may pan out differently this time around. The silver lining comes from the Communist Party's commitment to environmental reforms, which, in many cases, will manifest themselves in the form of less supply of the refined product, or demand for the ores. Either way, this alone is a positive for metals. China's Environmental Reforms Will Dominate in 1Q18 China's commitment to cleaning its air is currently shaping up in the form of winter cuts in major steel- and aluminum-producing provinces. While policies are hard to predict, we will keep monitoring the development and implementation of reforms from within China to assess how they will impact the markets. Outcomes from the Annual National People's Congress in March will give us a clearer indication of what to expect in terms of policy. For now, we see these reforms putting a floor under metal prices, at least in the beginning of 2018. Robust Global Demand Offsets Stronger USD & Slower Chinese Growth Xi's reforms will turn into a headwind for metal prices as they begin to impact the real economy in 2H18. Signs of weakness have already emerged in measures of industrial activity such as the Li Keqiang and Chinese PMI (Chart 9). In addition, the real estate sector has been showing some weakness since the beginning of the year. Annual growth rates in real estate investment and floor-space started are decelerating - a worrisome sign. Nonetheless, domestic demand remains robust, and policymakers in Beijing are approaching economic reforms gradually and with caution. Consequently we do not expect a major policy mistake to derail the Chinese economy. While Chinese growth will likely slow from above trend levels, a hard landing is most probably not in the cards. Another bearish risk comes from a stronger USD. We see the Fed as more committed to interest-rate normalization than markets expect, and consequently would not be surprised to see up to four rate hikes next year. Inverting the yield curve is a policy mistake incoming Chair Jerome Powell will try to avoid; however, we expect inflation to bottom in the first half of next year, giving the Fed room to accelerate its path of rate hikes. This will result in a stronger USD, which is bearish for commodities priced in U.S. dollars. In any case, these bearish factors will likely be offset by strong global growth, supported by a robust U.S. economy. Bottom Line: Xi's reforms will dominate metal markets in 2018 as bullish supply side environmental reforms duel against bearish demand-side economic reforms. Robust global growth will neutralize the impact of downside pressures. Stay neutral, but beware of modest USD strength. Low Inflation Retards Gold's Advance Once again, reality confounded theory: Inflation failed to emerge this year, even as systematically important central banks remained massively accommodative, and some 70% of the economies tracked by the OECD reported jobless rates below the commonly used estimate of the natural rate of unemployment (Chart 10). Chart 10Massive Monetary Accommodation Failed ##br##To Spur Inflation In The U.S. These fundamentals should be inflationary and supportive of gold. To date, they haven't been. We Expect Inflation To Revive The global economy has endured decades of low inflation going back at least to the 1990s. This has been driven by numerous factors. First, the expansion of the global value chain (GVC) over the past three decades has synchronized inflation rates worldwide, as our research and that of the BIS has found. As a result, U.S. wages and goods' inflation are now more dependent on global spare capacity. With the global output gap now almost closed, this disinflationary force will dissipate.3 Second, most measures of labor-market slack are now pointing toward tighter conditions, which, we expect, will strengthen the Phillips curve trade-off between inflation and unemployment next year. Inflation is a lagging indicator: Wage inflation lags the unemployment rate, and CPI inflation lags wage inflation. Investors should expect inflation to show up in 2018.4 Lastly, one-off technical factors, which depressed inflation last year - e.g. drop in cellphone data charges and prescription drug prices - also will fade. Once these big one-offs are no longer in annual percent-change calculations, inflation rates will rise. The Fed's Choppy Waters Against this backdrop, the Fed is embarking on a rates-normalization policy, which we believe will result in U.S. central bank's policy rate being increased up to four times next year. The risk of a policy error is high. Should the Fed proceed with its rate hikes while inflation remains quiescent, real interest rates will increase. This would depress gold prices, and, at the limit, threaten the current economic expansion by tightening monetary conditions well beyond current levels, potentially lifting unemployment levels. If, on the other hand, the Fed deliberately keeps rate hikes below the rate of growth in prices - i.e., it stays "behind the curve" - it risks being forced to implement steeper rate hikes later in 2018 or in 2019 to get stronger inflation under control. This could tighten monetary conditions suddenly, and threaten the expansion, pushing the U.S. economy into recession. There's a lot riding on how the Fed navigates these difficult conditions. Geopolitical Risks Will Support Gold On the geopolitical side, the risks we've identified in our October 12, 2017 publication - i.e. (1) U.S.-North Korea tensions, (2) trade protectionism of the Trump administration, and (3) ongoing conflicts in the Middle East-- will add a geopolitical risk premium to gold prices, supporting the metal's role as a safe haven.5 Bottom Line: We remain neutral precious metals, but still recommend investors allocate to gold as a strategic portfolio hedge against inflation and geopolitical risk. U.S. Policies Will Weigh On Ags In 2018 U.S. monetary and trade policy will dominate ags next year. Our modelling reveals that U.S. financial factors - real rates and the USD - are significant in explaining ag price behavior (Chart 11).6 Given that we expect the Fed to hike interest rates more aggressively than what the market is currently pricing in, we see grains as vulnerable to the downside. In addition, the risk that NAFTA is abrogated by the U.S. would weigh on ag markets, as Canada and Mexico are among the U.S.'s top three ag export destinations. Chart 11Bearish U.S. Monetary And Trade Policies ##br##Amid Healthy Inventories Will Weigh On Ags We expect ag markets will remain well supplied next year, and inventories will moderate the impact of supply-side shocks - most notably in the form of a La Nina event. The probability of a La Nina currently stands above 80%, and is expected to last until mid-to-late spring. U.S. Monetary Policy Is Relevant With U.S. inflation rates still subdued, there has been much talk about how soon the Fed will be able embark on its tightening cycle. A weaker-than-expected USD has been favorable for ag markets this year, and thus kept U.S. ag exports competitive. However, if and when the economy reaches the kink in the Philipps Curve, and inflation begins its ascent, the Fed will be able to proceed with its rate-hiking cycle. With the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge at a cycle high, we expect this scenario to unfold in the first half of 2018. This would give incoming Fed Chairman Jerome Powell ample room to hike rates which would - ceteris paribus - bear down on ag prices. FX Developments In Other Major Exporters Will Also Be Bearish The effects of higher U.S. interest rates are translated to ag markets via the exchange-rate channel. Commodities are priced in USD, thus a stronger USD vis-à-vis the currency of a major ag exporter will, all else equal, increase the profitability of farmers competing against U.S. exporters in international markets. Among the ag-relevant currencies, we highlight the Brazilian Real, EUR, Russian Rouble, and Australian Dollar as most likely to depreciate vis-à-vis the USD in 2018. Termination Of NAFTA Is A Risk For American Farmers U.S. farmers are keeping a close eye on NAFTA renegotiations, and rightly so. Canada and Mexico are the U.S.'s second and third largest agricultural export markets - accounting for 15% and 13% of U.S. agricultural exports in 2016, respectively. In fact, corn, rice, and wheat exports to Mexico accounted for 26%, 15%, and 11% share of U.S. exports of those commodities, respectively. However, as BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy service points out, the long-run impact depends on the underlying reason for the termination of the trade agreement. If Trump is merely a "pluto-populist" - as they expect - NAFTA will simply be replaced by bilateral trade agreements, with no lasting economic disturbance. The risk is that Trump is a genuine populist. If this turns out to be the case, tariffs and a rejection of the WTO would make U.S. exports less competitive, and would become a bearish force in ag markets.7 The risk of a collapse in the NAFTA trade deal would be devastating for U.S. farmers. In fact, in a bid to reduce reliance on the U.S., Mexican Economic Minister Ildefonso Guajardo recently announced that they are working on a Mexico-European Union trade deal.8 In addition, Mexico signed the world's largest free trade agreement with Japan, and is currently exploring the opportunity to join Mercosur. Bottom Line: Weather-induced volatility is possible in the near term, as a La Nina event threatens to reduce yields. Nevertheless, U.S. financial conditions and trade policy will dominate ag markets in 2018. With markets underestimating the Fed's resolve regarding interest rate hikes, we see some upside to the USD. This will keep a lid on ag prices next year. 1 Please see "The year in Review: Global Economy in 5 Charts," published on the IMF Blog December 18, 2017. https://blogs.imf.org/2017/12/17/the-year-in-review-global-economy-in-5-charts/ 2 Please see "Paralysis at PDVSA: Venezuela's oil purge cripples company," published by reuters.com December 15, 2017. 3 The IMF estimates the median output gap for 20 advanced economies reached -0.1% in 2017 and will rise to +0.3% in 2018. Please see BIS https://www.bis.org/publ/work602.htm. The Bank for International Settlements in Basel describes the GVC as "cross-border trade in intermediate goods and services." 4 The U.S. unemployment has been under its estimated NAIRU for 9 consecutive months now. 5 Please see Commodity and Energy Strategy Weekly Report titled "Balance Of Risks Favors Holding Gold," dated October 12, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 Our modelling indicates that U.S. financial factors are important determinants of agriculture commodity price developments. More specifically, a 1% move in the USD TWI and a 1pp change in 5 year real rates are associated with a 1.4%, and an 18% change in the CCI Grains & Oilseed Index, in the opposite direction. 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report titled "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see "Mexico sees possible EU trade deal as NAFTA talks drag on," dated December 13, 2017, available at reuters.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trade Recommendation Performance In 3Q17 Trades Closed in Summary of Trades Closed in

特別レポート

Highlights The financial system / banks cannot and do not lend out or intermediate national or households "savings". In any economy, new money/new purchasing power is originated by commercial banks "out of thin air". The term "savings" in macroeconomics denotes an increase in the economy's capital stock, not deposits at the banks. The Chinese banking system has enormous amount of deposits because banks have created them "out of nothing" not because households save a lot. Hence, the narrative that justifies China's money, credit and property market excesses by high national and household "savings" is incorrect. The maneuvering room for China is diminishing as inflationary pressures are rising, productivity is slowing and speculative leverage is high. Feature The debate on China's macro outlook continues to linger both within and outside BCA. The focal point of the debate centers on the role of national "savings" in China in spurring credit origination and debt formation. Many of my colleagues at BCA and the majority of commentators outside BCA argue that China's high "savings" rate, or so-called "excess savings", has been an important contributor to its exponential credit and money growth. Contrary to this narrative, we within BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team maintain that the dramatic surge in credit and money in China has been the result of speculative behavior by banks and debtors. As such, the boom in money and credit growth has produced large imbalances and excesses, if not outright bubbles (Chart I-1). Chart I-1An Unprecedented Credit ##br##And Money Boom In China Every financial bubble in history has had its justifications. Last decade, the common narrative about U.S. real estate was that nationwide, U.S. house prices had historically never deflated in nominal terms. In the late 1990s, the tech bubble was vindicated by the "new productivity" era. In the meantime, in the 1980s in Japan and the mid-1990s in Hong Kong, sky high property prices were rationalized by limited amounts of land, given that these are islands. Despite these validations, all of these bubbles ultimately burst. We feel that vindicating China's enormous credit, money and property market excesses - which are all interrelated - by the nation's high "savings" is another attempt to endorse overextended and unsustainable macro imbalances. This report is a continuation of our series discussing these issues in great depth.1 The objective of this piece is to illuminate on the confusion between national "savings" and credit / deposits / money. Intuitively, many investors and commentators use the term "savings" to refer to bank deposits. Yet, in macroeconomics, national and household "savings" are not about deposits or money in the banking system at all. The term "savings" in macroeconomics denotes an increase in the economy's capital stock. Therefore, the financial system in general, and banks in particular, cannot and do not lend out or intermediate national or households "savings." The Chinese banking system has enormous amount of deposits because banks have created them "out of nothing" not because households save a lot. In an economy where banks exist, "savings" and financing are very different things. Commercial banks (hereafter referred to as banks) provide financing by expanding their balance sheets - creating deposits "out of thin air" as and when they originate loans. We previously elaborated on this money creation process,2 but given its importance to the topic of this report, we revisit it here. Banks Create New Purchasing Power "Out Of Thin Air" When a bank originates a loan, it simultaneously creates a deposit, or new money. Importantly, this does not represent a transfer of an existing deposit to the new borrower. This is a new deposit - new purchasing power - that did not previously exist (Figure 1). Figure I-1Credit / Money Creation Process The borrower can immediately use this new deposit to purchase goods and services or buy assets. At the same time, all owners of existing deposits at the bank still have their deposits too, and can use them as, when, and how they prefer. Thereby, the bank has created new purchasing power "out of nothing" when it originated a loan. Traditional macroeconomic theory presumes that for a person or company to invest in productive capacity, another person/unit must save. This assumption is true for a barter economy with no banks and money - where some entities produce but do not consume, so that others can acquire their output (goods) and in turn use them as investment. Nevertheless, in an economy with banks, one does not need to save in the form of a deposit in a bank in order for the latter to lend money to another entity. When a bank grants a loan or acquires an asset, it simultaneously creates new deposit/money - which is de facto new purchasing power originated by the bank "out of thin air." We use the terms deposit and money interchangeably because broad money supply is computed as the sum of all deposits in the commercial banks. Let's consider an example of how a bank loan leads to new income creation. A company borrows from a bank to build a bridge, it then pays its suppliers and contractors for their work. As a result, the suppliers and contractors, and consequently their employees and shareholders, earn income. Without this loan, the bridge would not have been built, and the suppliers, their employees and business owners would not have received income. In short, the loan comes first, then the investment - and only after the investment is carried out do employees and business owners earn income. Thereafter, they can consume, acquire assets and save in forms of bank deposits. Critically, this income is realized because the bank originated a loan / new purchasing power "out of nothing." Chart I-2 illustrates that the Chinese banking system has created RMB 140 trillion of broad money/deposits since January 2009. This is equivalent to US$21 trillion at today's exchange rate. This is twice as much as aggregate broad money - equivalent to $10.5 trillion - generated by commercial and central banks in the U.S., the euro area and Japan combined since early 2009 - even amid their respective QE programs. Chart I-2Helicopter Money In China The unprecedented new purchasing power of Chinese companies and households has been primarily due to this enormous balance sheet expansion by mainland commercial banks (Chart I-3). Chart I-3China: Commercial Banks ##br##Assets And Money Multiplier Bank Versus Financial Intermediaries Banks perform a unique function in the economy and financial system. There are considerable differences between a bank lending money or buying assets and a non-bank doing the same. This is unfortunately not reflected in mainstream economic theory and macro models. Unlike banks, non-banks - such as pension funds, insurance companies, households, businesses and all other non-bank entities - do not create new money/new purchasing power when they grant a loan or acquire an asset. The act of lending by non-banks simply constitutes a transfer of an existing deposit from a creditor to a borrower. Banks are not intermediaries of deposits into loans as the Loanable Funds Theory (LFT) alleges. They create deposits themselves by making loans and acquiring assets. The LFT, nonetheless, applies to non-bank lenders - the latter are indeed financial intermediaries, i.e., they channel existing deposits into loans or other assets. The institutional and legal differences that make commercial banks unique and allow them to create money are discussed in detail in "How Do Banks Create Money, and Why Can Other Firms Not Do the Same?," Werner (2014b).3 The theory of fractional banking is not applicable to modern banking as well.4 It is the theory of money creation by banks that we subscribe to and present here that accurately describes the process of money creation. Bottom Line: Banks differ vastly from non-bank financial institutions, and are unique in their ability to create money/new purchasing power by originating loans or acquiring assets. Money Versus Credit Remarkably, there is also an important analytical distinction between credit/leverage and money. New money matters when one is attempting to gauge the (nominal) growth outlook because it represents new purchasing power. New money can only be originated by banks, including the central bank. Central banks can create broad money in circulation (i.e. beyond central bank reserves) when they buy financial assets from or lend to non-bank entities. Doing so creates a deposit in the commercial banking system. By contrast, the degree of credit/leverage is critical when evaluating the risk of financial distress in both the economy and the financial system. Credit can be extended not only by banks but also by non-banks. Hence, lending or buying corporate bonds by non-banks creates leverage/credit but not new money. The banking system is the only one capable of originating new money, and in turn, new purchasing power. In China, the outstanding stock of total non-financial debt (private plus public) is close to the amount of money supply (Chart I-4). Even though non-bank credit growth has risen in importance since 2010, it seems that without banks' money creation, non-bank credit would not have expanded. Chart I-4China: Money Versus Credit/Debt On another note, household propensity to save alters the velocity of money, not the amount of money in the banking system. A decision by a household to spend more rather than save does not change the amount of deposits in the banking system. As an example, a person who gets paid $1000 might spend $800 of her income and decide to save the remaining $200. The amount of deposits in the banking system does not change; $800 will be transferred to another bank account as she pays for her purchases, while the remaining $200 stays in her existing bank account. Hence, there is no change in the amount of deposits and money supply in the banking system in this scenario. On the whole, the amount of deposits, and hence, broad money supply, in any banking system is equal to the cumulative net money creation by banks and the central bank over the course of their history. This has nothing to do with household and national "savings." The Chinese banking system has enormous amount of deposits because banks have created them "out of nothing" not because households save a lot. Interestingly, changes in household propensity to save are reflected not in money supply but in the velocity of money. When households or companies decide to spend their deposits, the velocity of money rises. Conversely, when households and companies decide to save (retain) their deposits, the velocity of money drops. Bottom Line: Money is distinct from credit and leverage. Changes in the propensity to save alter the velocity of money, but not the amount of deposits/money supply in the banking system. True Meaning Of "Savings" In Macroeconomics What is the true meaning of "savings"5 in macroeconomics, given the amount of deposits in the banking system has no bearing on "savings?" The confusion between national "savings" and deposit/money creation is dealt with nicely by Fabian Lindner. Having modelled it, Lindner6 argues: "... the aggregate economy's saving is equal to the newly produced tangible assets and inventories. That total saving is equal to just the increase in tangible assets ... (because) all changes in net financial assets in the economy add up to zero... Thus, for every economic agent increasing her net financial assets, there is a corresponding decrease in net financial assets of all other economic agents in the economy. Put in more general terms: An economic agent can only save financially if other agents dis-save financially by the same amount... That is why in the entire economy (that is the world economy or a closed economy) only the increase in tangible assets, thus investment, is saving (emphasis is added). Thus, saving and investment are equivalent in the aggregate... The equivalence of investment and saving however does not mean - as claimed by LFT - that household saving (or the sum of household and government saving) is equal to total saving and thus to investment. No matter how high one group's financial saving is, the financial dis-saving of the rest of the economy has to be just as high. The only thing remaining is the creation of tangible assets." (Lindner 2015) In another paper,7 Lindner asserts: "Investment is the production of any non-financial asset in an economy and thus is always directly and unambiguously savings: it increases the economy's net worth... The economy as a whole cannot change its net financial wealth since it always equals zero. The aggregate economy can only save in the form of non-financial assets...The only way an economy can save is by increasing its non-financial wealth, i.e., its physical capital stock." (Lindner 2012) Bottom Line: For a country to raise its domestic "savings" rate, it needs to build its capital stock by using domestically produced investment goods and raw materials. Thereby, domestic "savings" have nothing to do with the absolute level or changes in amount of deposits/money in the banking system. China's Great Wall Of "Savings" China has been investing tremendous amounts for many years, and its capital stock has been mushrooming (Chart I-5, top panel). Yet, the incremental capital-to-output ratio (ICOR) has surged and, its inverse, the output-to-capital ratio has plunged since 2010 (Chart I-5, middle and bottom panels). These developments signify deteriorating efficiency in the Chinese economy and worsening capital allocation. They also entail that companies might have difficulties servicing their debt. When its export machine faltered in 2008 due to the Global Financial Crisis, China offset it by boosting its domestic investments. These investments - incremental additions to the nation's capital stock - defined by macroeconomics as domestic "savings"- offset the decline in external "savings." As such, the composition of national "savings" has changed dramatically since 2008: the share of external "savings" (net exports) have declined while the share of domestic "savings" has risen (Chart I-6). Chart I-5China: Capital Stocks Has Surged Chart I-6China: Domestic And External 'Savings' In China, the augmentation of its capital stock and, hence, its domestic "savings," have been largely financed by loans from Chinese banks. This may sound like nonsense, but only because we are using the term "savings" in a way used in macroeconomics. Yet, new purchasing power originated by the banking system is not in and of itself a sufficient condition to generate domestic "savings." The sufficient condition for having high domestic "savings" is the ability to produce domestic capital goods and raw materials that go into investment. If a country does not build its capacity to produce capital goods and raw materials, it would need to rely on imports - in other words it has to acquire foreign "savings" to invest. Encouraging domestic "savings" entails enhancing capacity to produce goods that are used in capital spending like raw materials, chemicals, steel, cement, machinery, and various equipment and instruments. This is what China has done exceptionally well over the past 20 years. The following points illustrate how China achieved very high "savings" and investment rates (Chart I-7): China devalued its currency in January 1994 by 32% and relied on a cheap currency to produce large trade surpluses (Chart I-8). It used the foreign currency proceeds to purchase foreign technologies and equipment to boost its capital stock. Chart I-7Savings And Investment Ratios Chart I-8China: The 1994 Currency ##br##Devaluation Started New Era It also attracted FDI to build its productive capacity both for consumer goods as well as capital goods. FDI inflows surged since China's acceptance into the WTO in 2001. Since 2009, however, China has been relying on new purchasing power created by banks to expand its industrial capacity to produce commodities, raw materials, industrial equipment and machinery. Meanwhile, mainland banks have been originating new loans, and hence deposits/money - new purchasing power - to finance real estate development and infrastructure construction, utilizing these domestically produced raw materials and machinery. This has allowed China to sustain high levels of domestic "savings." On the whole, China indeed has had "excess savings" as its economy has been suffering from excess industrial capacity. Initially, China invested to create such excess capacity. Then, its banking system originated enormous amount of money/new purchasing power to support and keep zombie companies alive in these industries with excess capacity. The banking system is still involved in this function up until today. While this is a reasonable economic policy in the short run, it is not a good growth strategy in the long term. The problem is that easy money and credit support inefficient enterprises and encourage unproductive investment. As a result, productivity growth will slow and potential growth will decelerate considerably. Bottom Line: The countries that produce a lot of goods and services for domestic investment are said to have high domestic "savings." By definition, the more excess industrial capacity a country has, the more "excess savings" that economy will carry. Yet, uncontrolled money/credit origination to support zombie enterprises in over-capacity sectors entails inefficient allocation of capital that necessarily slows productivity growth and hence economic growth potential in the long term. Limits On Money Creation A natural question that arise from all this is what are the limits on money creation? We list some of major ones here, but these issues have been addressed in our previous three reports,8 and we will address them again in forthcoming reports. Inflation and/or deprecation pressures on the currency that could lead to monetary tightening; Bank regulation and various regulatory ratios; Shareholders of banks - who are highly leveraged to non-performing assets/loans - might order reduced lending; Removing the implicit government "put" that encourage irresponsible borrowing and lending. Inflationary pressures are presently rising and more entrenched in China now than at any time in the past decade or so (Chart I-9). In the context of negative real interest rates (Chart I-10) and barring major growth slowdown, the authorities are unlikely to stimulate anytime soon. Chart I-9Beware Of Rising Inflation In China... Chart I-10...Making Interest Rates Negative Negative real local interest rates undermine Chinese households' willingness to hold the currency. China's foreign exchange reserves at $3 trillion, while high, are equal only to 10% broad money (M3) and 14% of official M2. This signifies how much money the banking system has created. At the moment, mainland banking regulations are being tightened. This as well as liquidity tightening by the People's Bank of China and the government's anti-corruption crackdown that is moving into the financial industry will further dampen money creation and leverage expansion. This triple tightening amid lingering money and credit excesses constitutes the main rationale behind our negative stance on China's growth and China-related plays in global financial markets. Policy tightening is especially dangerous amid the existing credit, money and property market imbalances and excesses. Downgrade Chinese Stocks From Overweight To Neutral The Chinese MSCI Investable equity index - which unlike H-shares includes mega-cap tech companies - has rallied massively and outperformed the EM benchmark (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Downgrade Chinese Investable Stocks ##br##From Overweight To Neutral Relative performance is overbought, and we recommend dedicated EM equity portfolios downgrade their allocation from overweight to neutral. Our overweight position was initiated on November 26, 2014, and has generated an 18.5% gain. The freed-up capital should be allocated proportionally to our remaining overweights, which are Taiwan, Thailand, Korean tech stocks, Russia and central Europe. We are contemplating upgrading Chile. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Assistant andrijav@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports from October 26, 2016, November 23, 2016 and January 18, 2017; available on ems.bcaresearch.com 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 16, 2016, available on available on ems.bcaresearch.com 3 Werner, R. (2014b), "How Do Banks Create Money, and Why Can Other Firms Not Do the Same?", International Review of Financial Analysis, 36, 71-77. 4 Werner, R. (2014a), "Can banks individually create money out of nothing? -- The theories and the empirical evidence", International Review of Financial Analysis, 36, 1-19. 5 We use "savings" in parenthesis because as this term does not really mean households' and companies' and governments' financial assets or deposits at the banks. "Savings" signifies the amount of goods and services produced but not consumed by an economy. 6 Lindner, F. (2015), "Did Scarce Global Savings Finance the US Real Estate Bubble? The Global Saving Glut thesis from a stock flow Consistent Perspective", Macroeconomic Policy Institute, Working Paper 155, July 2015. 7 Lindner, F. (2012), "Savings does not finance Investment: Accounting as an indispensable guide to economic theory", Macroeconomic Policy Institute, Working Paper 100, October 2012. 8 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports from October 26, 2016, November 23, 2016 and January 18, 2017; available on ems.bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights BCA expects the 2/10 curve to steepen in 1H in 2018, then flatten in 2H. U.S. equities, the stock-to-bond ratio and oil thrive when the curve is flat. Small caps struggle. Record household net worth matters more for household saving than for consumption. Feature Wrangling over the GOP's tax plan and the Federal Open Market Committee's final meeting of 2017 provided the backdrop for financial markets last week. The dollar was the big loser, as investors doubted the ability of the Republican leadership in Congress to find the votes needed to pass the bill. BCA's view remains that Congress will pass a tax cut package by the end of Q1 2018. Even though inflation missed the Fed's forecast in 2017 (Chart 1), the FOMC left its inflation and interest projections unchanged for the next two years given its outlook for stronger growth and lower unemployment. Inflation will reach the 2% target by the end of 2019. As a consequence, the Fed expects to lift interest rates three more times in 2018 and another two times in 2019 (Chart 2). Chart 1Persistent Inflation Shortfall Chart 2The FOMC's Latest Forecasts The economy is now expected to grow 2.5% in 2018, up from the Fed's previous forecast of 2.1%. Growth is seen remaining above the 1.8% trend rate for three years. The Fed nudged its forecasts for the unemployment rate down by 0.2% for the next three years, based on the higher growth projections. The jobless rate is now expected to dip to 3.9% in 2018 and 2019, before ticking up to 4.0% in 2020. If anything, these forecasts look too conservative. Importantly, the Fed left its estimate for long-run unemployment unchanged at 4.6%. Therefore, the labor market is expected to tighten further beyond full employment. Consequently, wage gains should accelerate and allow inflation to return to the Fed's 2% target in 2019. We don't have any major disagreements with the Fed's interest rate forecasts for 2018, but inflation must turn higher. The Fed has raised rates five times over the last two years, but CPI inflation has made no progress toward the 2% objective. However, the New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge continues to move steadily higher (Chart 1, panel 1). Nevertheless, the real Fed funds moved closer to its neutral level and the yield curve has continued to flatten (panel 3). Bottom Line: BCA expects the yield curve to steepen in the first half of 2018, driven either by rising inflation or a more dovish Fed. However, a flat curve is not the death knoll for risk assets. The yield curve will not invert until inflation has recovered to the Fed's target. This means that a period of modest curve steepening is likely, driven either by rising inflation or a more dovish Fed. Powell Versus The Market BCA's view is that the current paths of inflation and the yield curve are unsustainable. If the Fed continues to hike rates, but inflation fails to rise, then the yield curve will invert in the coming months. The inversion would signal that bond investors anticipate a recession and the Fed has not achieved its inflation target. Such an obvious policy error will not be permitted to occur, which leaves three possible outcomes for Fed policy and the Treasury curve during the next six months.1 1) The Fed Is Right In this scenario, inflation would rebound in the coming months, pushing up the compensation for inflation protection embedded in long-dated bond yields. This would cause an increase in long-maturity nominal yields and probably impart a steepening bias to the yield curve, depending on how quickly the Fed lifts rates. BCA's Outlook for 2018 makes a case why inflation will likely bottom in the coming months. Therefore, we view the "Fed is Right" scenario as the most probable outcome.2 2) The Fed Is Proactive In another scenario, the Fed recognizes there is a risk of tightening the yield curve into inversion - and the economy into recession - if inflation stays low. Therefore, the Fed may proactively adopt a more dovish policy stance to prevent the yield curve from inverting. The yield curve would also steepen, but this time it would be a bull-steepener where short-maturity yields fall more than long-maturity yields. This outcome would be the least likely of our three scenarios. The Fed will cling to its forecast that inflation will climb, given that economic growth is accelerating. If inflation fails to respond, then risky assets will eventually sell-off. 3) The Fed Is Reactive The Fed has a strong track record of reacting to tighter financial conditions and risk-off periods in equities and credit markets. If the yield curve continues to flatten, then we will soon see credit spreads widen and equities sell-off. At that stage, the Fed would almost certainly respond by signaling a slower pace of rate hikes. This would steepen the curve and ease pressures on risky assets. We view this development as more likely than the one where the Fed is proactive. Trouble With The Curve BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy team expects that the 2/10 yield curve will languish between 0 and 50 bps in 2018. The curve will steepen from 53 bps in mid-December 2017 through mid-year 2018, and then flatten into year-end. Which asset classes would benefit if BCA's curve call is accurate? Charts 3 through 7 show how several key financial markets have performed in previous yield curve environments. Chart 3A shows that the S&P 500 performs best when the curve is flat (between 0 and 50 bps), with average annualized returns of 22% and median annualized returns of 21%. Moreover, S&P 500 returns are negative less than 5% of the time when the curve is flat, but are negative 25% of the time when the curve is very steep (+100 to +150 bps) (Chart 3B). In general, Chart 3A demonstrates that returns diminish as the curve climbs. Chart 3AS&P 500 Total Return & Yield Curve##BR##(1988- Present) Chart 3BPercent Of Months With Negative##BR##S&P 500 Returns (1988- Present) A flat slope of the 2/10 curve is also the sweet spot for the stock-to-bond ratio (Chart 4A). Treasuries outperform stocks only in 5% of months when the 2/10 Treasury curve is flat (Chart 4B). As with stocks, the performance of the stock-to-bond ratio deteriorates as the curve steepens. The stock-to-bond ratio declines more than a third of the time when the curve is very steep. A 2/10 slope of +100 to +150 bps is the worst backdrop for the stock-to-bond ratio. Stocks underperform bonds 40% of the time in this situation. Chart 4AStock-To-Bond Total Return & Yield Curve##BR##(1988 - Present) Chart 4BPercent Of Months With Negative##BR##Stock-To-Bond Total Return (1988 - Present) However, a flat curve is a poor setting for small-cap excess performance (Chart 5A). Small caps underperform large caps nearly 80% of the time when the curve is flat (Chart 5B). The average underperformance is 600 bps. Moreover, a flat curve is the most unhealthy climate for small-cap excess returns, even poorer than when the curve inverts. A precipitous curve is the best environment for small caps, with small caps outperforming large by 400 bps on average. Small caps beat large caps 60% of the time when the curve is between 100 and 150 bps. Chart 5AS&P Small/Large TOTAL Return & Yield Curve##BR##(1988- Present) Chart 5BPercent Of Months With Negative##BR##S&P Small/Large Total Return (1988- Present) Our U.S. Bond Strategy colleagues note that the flatter the curve, the higher the risk of a sell-off in high-yields relative to Treasuries.3 Junk bonds underperform Treasuries 48% of the time when the curve is flat, which we expect in 2018 (not shown). The implication for investors is that the first half of 2018 will be the best period for junk bond returns. Investment-grade corporates have a similar return profile relative to the curve. Oil performs best when the 2/10 curve is inverted (Chart 6A). However, WTI oil returns an annualized 10-15% when the curve is between 0 and 100 bps. Plus, oil is higher 75% of the time when the curve is between 50 and 100 bps, which is the environment we expect in the first half of next year (Chart 6B). Chart 6AWTI Crude Oil Price Return & Yield Curve##BR##(1988- Present) Chart 6BPercent Of Months With Negative##BR##WTI Crude Oil Price Return (1988- Present) Forward earnings per share perform well with a flat curve, but earnings growth is optimal when the curve is inverted. The steeper the curve, the bigger the headwind for EPS. Since 1988, earnings growth has been positive when the curve inverts and is positive 95% of the time when the curve is flat. Chart 7 provides the historical context for a flat yield curve (0 to 50 bps) in terms of the performance of stocks, Treasury bonds, the stock-to-bond ratio, small caps and oil. The Appendix (see page 13) also includes three other charts that provide a perspective on asset class performance when the curve is moderately steep (50 to 100 bps), steep (100 to 150bps) and above 150 bps. Chart 7Stocks, Treasuries, Small Caps And Oil When The Curve Is Flat Bottom Line: BCA expects that the yield curve will first steepen in 2018, then become flatter, ultimately spending most of the year between 0 and 50 bps. A flat curve is the ideal environment for the S&P 500 and the stock-to-bond ratio. However, small cap stocks struggle when the curve is flat; BCA's view is that small caps will outperform large caps in 2018. A flat yield curve raises the risk of a sell-off in high yield, but provides a favorable grounding for oil, which is in line with BCA's fundamental view. BCA expects EPS growth will be positive next year; earnings growth is higher 75% of the time when the curve is flat. Household Net Worth Loses Influence Chart 8The Consumer Is In Good Shape U.S. consumer health has improved markedly since early this year, driving BCA's Consumer Health Indicator into positive territory (Chart 8). These elevated readings should bolster household consumption well into 2018. The improvement supports BCA's view of a stronger U.S. economy alongside a global synchronized recovery, at least over the next 12 months. Real consumer spending is underpinned by advances in real disposable income stemming from increasingly healthy labor market. Moreover, household net worth has continued to soar to an all-time high in 2017Q3 as equity markets remain frothy and house prices stable. However, net worth's direct influence on overall household consumption is not as significant as before the Great Recession. During the housing bubble in the early 2000s, U.S. households leveraged their spending through extensive mortgage refinancing and mortgage equity withdrawal. Real estate was the principal holding on most households' balance sheets. However, as the Great Recession unfolded, household net worth suffered with a collapse in both house prices and equity markets. By 2009, U.S. households were tapped out and grossly over-indebted. Deleveraging is now over, U.S. households have re-fortified their balance sheets and consumer spending is back in line with income growth. In the long term, inflation-adjusted disposable income is more highly correlated with inflation-adjusted consumer spending growth than real household net worth (Chart 9). Positive momentum should continue to support further real consumer spending over the next few quarters, given that unemployment is at a 17-year low and consumer confidence is at a 17-year high, and also given elevated consumers' expectations of real income gains over the next year or two. Chart 9Consumer Spending More Correlated With Income Than Net Worth Household net worth matters more for household saving than for consumption. Chart 10 shows the inverse relationship between net worth and the saving rate. Empirical research has demonstrated the risk that the structural decline (since the mid-1990s) in personal savings has on consumer spending and the overall economy. An often cited conclusion drawn by the investment community is that a lower savings rate raises the risk of consumer retrenchment.4 Chart 10Low Savings Rate, Record High Household Net Worth And Rising Income Expectations Even though the personal savings rate can be considered a contrarian measure for consumer spending, like many measures from the BEA national accounts (NIPA), it is subject to regular revisions. Over the long-term, according to the BEA, the level of the savings rate is often revised upwards but the trend over the last 45 years remains unchanged. There was a downtrend path to revisions in the mid-2000s housing bubble, but there has been a subtle uptrend since 2008 (Chart 11). Even so, in the long run, BCA views the low personal savings rate as a potential headwind for consumer spending as it cannot sustainably remain at its recovery low of 3.2%. However, rising income expectations and a sturdy labor market are offsets to depressed savings and will ensure that the economic expansion remains sustainable and, therefore, less vulnerable to volatile saving patterns. Does record high net worth alter the risks to the FOMC's goals of price stability and sustainable economic growth? In a recent research paper, the Federal Reserve of St-Louis looked at the most exuberant peaks in the ratio of household net worth to income in 1999 and 2006, which occurred before collapses in asset prices and recessions. Although caution is prescribed as household net worth keeps making new highs, the report noted that the composition of households' balance sheet is less alarming today than prior peaks, as equities and real estate relative to household income or total assets are more reasonable. Debt levels are also much more tame today than in 2006. With more immune balance sheets, households may be less vulnerable to unexpected shocks in the future (Chart 12).5 BCA's view is that financial vulnerabilities from the household sector are well contained. Outside of subprime auto loans, household borrowing is increasing modestly at an annual pace of 3.6%, in stark contrast with a 12.9% rate in the early-to-mid 2000s. Broad measures of household solvency, such as the household debt-to-income ratio, is within the range of the past few years and back to pre-recession levels. Furthermore, liquidity buffers (liquid assets to liabilities) are almost as high as the levels that preceded the equity market boom/bust in 1999-2000 (Chart 13). Chart 11Savings Rate Level Often Revised Upwards Chart 12Household Sector Balance Sheet Composition Chart 13Household Sector Buffers Are Solid BCA expects the Fed to remain vigilant about financial stability.6 Policymakers will take comfort that household liquidity and solvency ratios have improved dramatically in the past nine years, aided by the cumulative gains in housing and financial assets. Bottom Line: The outlook for the U.S. consumer is bright as incomes continue to improve amid tight labor market conditions. However, record household net worth is more relevant today for savings than for consumption. The Fed should remain committed to gradual rate hikes, but the central bank's quandary will be to determine the optimal pace to foster maximum employment and price stability. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Jizel Georges, Senior Analyst jizelg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Proactive, Reactive Or Right?," published on December 12, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's "2018 Outlook Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course ," published December 2017. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report "Proactive, Reactive Or Right?," published on December 12, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 4 "Should The Decline In The Personal Savings Rate Be A Cause For Concern?", Alan C. Garner, The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 2006Q2; and "The Decline in the U.S. Personal Savings Rate: Is It Real and Is It A Puzzle?", Massimo Guidolin and Elizabeth A. La Jeunesse, The Federal Reserve Bank of St-Louis, November/December 2007. 5 "Household Wealth Is At A Post-WW II High: Should We Celebrate or Worry?", William R. Emmons and Lowell R. Ricketts, Federal Reserve Bank of St-Louis, In the Balance, Perspectives on Household Balance Sheets, May 2017. 6 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Powell's In Power," published on November 6, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Chart 14U.S. Financial Markets When The 2/10 Curve Is Between 50 And 100 Bps Chart 15U.S. Financial Markets When The 2/10 Curve Is Between 100 And 150 Bps Chart 16U.S. Financial Markets When The 2/10 Curve Is Steeper Than 150 Bps

Highlights Global growth will remain strong in 2018, but the composition of that growth will shift in favour of the U.S. The surprise results of the Alabama Senate election are unlikely to scuttle the Republicans' tax plans. We expect a bill to be finalized by the end of the year. The Fed is poised to raise rates four times next year, two more hikes than the market is pricing in. The dollar should stage a modest rebound in 2018. China's economy will decelerate over the coming months, but merely from an above-trend pace. Near-term concerns about Chinese debt levels are overblown. Stay cyclically overweight global risk assets at least for the next six months. Feature Tax Cut Or Not, U.S. Growth Is Likely To Stay Strong In 2018 We expect global growth to remain strong in 2018. However, the composition of that growth is likely to shift back towards the United States. The weakening of the dollar this year should boost net exports, while dwindling spare capacity and faster wage growth should spur business investment and consumer spending. A looser fiscal policy will also help buoy the U.S. economy, but as we have discussed in recent reports, the contribution to growth from lower tax rates is likely to be fairly modest.1 We estimate that the final bill will lift real GDP growth by about 0.2%-0.3% in 2018 and 2019. The effects will diminish thereafter, eventually turning negative as larger budget deficits crowd out the savings that are necessary to finance private-sector investment. Democrat Doug Jones' surprise victory in the Alabama Senate election has thrown a wrench into the legislative process. Outgoing Senator Bob Corker voted against the original bill. If the reconciled House and Senate bill is not passed by the time Jones is seated in January, the Republicans may not have enough votes to get it through the chamber. Our geopolitical strategists expect the bill to pass by the end of the year, but this will likely require that Congressional Republicans acquiesce to Senator Collins' demand that Congress adopt legislation to help health insurers deal with the proposed abolition of the individual mandate. It may also require that Republican dealmakers ditch their last-minute effort to cut the marginal personal tax rate to 37% (the House version of the bill penciled in a top rate of 39.6%, while the Senate version envisioned a rate of 38.5%). The Fed Keeps On Hiking The Federal Reserve hiked rates again this week, taking the fed funds target range up to 1.25%-1.50%. The Fed's determination to tighten monetary policy at a time when inflation is still below target has many investors fretting. We are not particularly concerned. Inflation is a highly lagging indicator. The New York Fed's Underlying Inflation Gauge, which includes various forward-looking inflation components such as producer prices and the ISM prices paid index, has accelerated to a cycle high of 3.0% (Chart 1). The unemployment rate is likely to fall to 3.5% by the end of next year. This would leave it more than one full point below NAIRU and 0.4 points below the median dot in the Summary Of Economic Projections released on Wednesday. Auxiliary measures of labor market slack, such as the U-6 rate and the share of the working-age population that is out of the labor force but wants a job, have also fallen back to pre-recession levels (Chart 2). Chart 1U.S. Inflationary Pressures Starting To Brew Chart 2Labor Market Slack Has Largely Vanished If U.S. growth surprises on the upside next year, as we expect, the Fed is likely to raise rates four times in 2018. This is roughly two more hikes than the market is currently pricing in. We recommended shorting the December 2018 fed funds futures contract on September 7th. The trade is up 48 basis points since then, but we think there is still scope for further gains. Modestly Slower Growth Elsewhere Outside the U.S., growth is likely to come down a notch in 2018. Japanese growth should cool somewhat from the heady pace of 2.7% seen over the past two quarters. Euro area growth is also likely to tick lower, as the impact of a stronger euro begins to bite. Financial conditions in the U.S. have loosened significantly relative to those in the euro area since the start of 2017. If history is any guide, this will cause euro area inflation to rise less than U.S. inflation over the coming year (Chart 3). This, in turn, will keep the ECB's forward guidance on the dovish side. This week's ECB meeting reinforced the message that the central bank is unlikely to raise rates at least until the summer of 2019. Chart 3Diverging Financial Conditions Will Have Inflationary Consequences Chart 4 shows that the euro has strengthened more against the dollar since the beginning of this year than can be accounted for by changes in interest rate expectations. We expect EUR/USD to fall back to 1.11 by the end of 2018. Chart 4AEUR/USD Has Strengthened More Than What One Would Have Expected Based On Changes In Interest Rate Differentials Chart 4BEUR/USD Has Strengthened More Than What One Would Have Expected Based On Changes In Interest Rate Differentials The Chinese Wildcard The biggest question mark over growth surrounds China. Real-time measures of industrial activity such as electricity generation, freight traffic, and excavator sales have slowed since the start of the year (Chart 5). The Caixin manufacturing PMI has also dipped, signaling weaker growth prospects among the country's small-to-medium sized private enterprises. Monetary conditions have tightened (Chart 6). How worried should investors be? So far, there is no reason to panic. Growth has weakened, but from an above-trend pace. Nominal GDP growth reached 11.2% year-over-year in Q3 2017, up from 6.4% in Q4 2015. Producer price inflation rose to 6.9% in October before backing off to 5.8% in November. Some cooling in the economy was both inevitable and desirable (Chart 7). Chart 5Growth Has Ticked Down ##br##Modestly In China Chart 6Monetary Conditions Have##br## Tightened In China Chart 7Chinese Growth Has Merely Weakened##br## From An Above-Trend Pace A more ominous slowdown cannot be ruled out, but that would require a substantial policy error. Such errors have occurred in the past. In 2015, the government undertook measures to reduce credit growth and cool the property market just as the global manufacturing sector was entering a recession on the heels of a sudden decline in energy sector capex. The Chinese authorities amplified the problem by trying to tippy-toe over the question of whether to devalue the currency, even as other EM currencies were sinking. This led to large capital outflows, thereby exacerbating the tightening in Chinese financial conditions. The circumstances today are quite different from 2015. While the authorities have clearly stepped up the pace of reforms following the Party Congress, the global and domestic backdrop is a lot more favorable. Global growth is much stronger. The yuan is also a lot cheaper - down 8.8% in real trade-weighted terms since its peak in 2015 (Chart 8). Chart 8The Yuan Has Cheapened Since 2015 Domestic demand remains on a firm footing. The service sector PMI ticked up further in November, an important development considering that China's service sector is now larger than its manufacturing sector (Chart 9). Alibaba reported sales of over U.S. $25 billion on its platform on "Singles Day" last month, up 39% from last year, and greater than U.S. online sales on Black Friday and Cyber Monday combined. The Chinese government is unlikely to take measures that allow growth to fall significantly below trend. Indeed, if anything, the recent evidence suggests that the authorities are tentatively easing their foot off the brake. Bond yields and credit spreads have come off their recent highs. New loans to the real economy clocked in at RMB 1.12 trillion in November, well above consensus estimates of RMB 800 billion. While the year-over-year change in M2 growth remains close to historic lows, the three-month change has hooked up (Chart 10). Chart 9It's Not All About Manufacturing In China Chart 10China: Money Growth Starting To Accelerate Higher core inflation has pushed real deposit rates into negative territory, making it increasingly painful for households to hold cash. This should cause the velocity of money to speed up, allowing nominal GDP growth to exceed money growth. Don't Bet On A Chinese Debt Crisis... Yet What about the longer-term debt issues haunting China? Here, there is both good and bad news. The bad news is that China's need to keep piling on debt may be an even more vexing problem than typically assumed. Pundits often claim that the government simply needs to bite the bullet and take the painful measures that are necessary to curb debt growth. The problem with this argument is that it sidesteps the question of what will offset the loss in spending from slower debt accumulation. Chinese households are massive net savers (Chart 11). As a matter of arithmetic, these savings must either be transformed into domestic investment or exported abroad via a current account surplus. China used to emphasize the latter. Its current account surplus reached 10% of GDP in 2007, mainly due to a widening trade surplus. It would be economically and politically impossible to pursue such a beggar-thy-neighbour strategy today. Economically, China is simply too big. Its economy has more than doubled relative to the rest of the world over the past decade (Chart 12). Politically, no major economy these days is prepared to tolerate a massive trade deficit with China - certainly not the U.S. Chart 11Mattresses Are ##br##Thicker In China Chart 12China's Size Limits Its Ability To Export Its ##br##Way Out Of Its Problems This means that China must now recycle excess savings internally. One way that Chinese households have done this is by purchasing real estate. In many respects, the Chinese property market has served as a piggy bank of sorts for much of the population. Large amounts of savings have also been placed into bank deposits and, increasingly, so-called wealth management products. These funds have then been used to satisfy the borrowing needs of local governments and business enterprises. It is no surprise that credit growth in China began to accelerate in 2009, just as the current account surplus was starting to narrow (Chart 13). In practice, the distinction between fiscal and corporate spending in China is rather blurry. Chart 14 shows China's official general government budget deficit as well as an augmented version constructed by the IMF which includes various off-balance sheet expenses. The former stands at a reasonably slim 3.7% of GDP, while the latter weighs in at a hefty 12.6% of GDP. Chart 13Credit Growth Took Off As ##br##Current Account Surplus Shrunk Chart 14China's "Secret" ##br##Budget Deficit A large chunk of these off-balance sheet items consist of losses incurred by China's state-owned enterprises. In many respects, these companies are the equivalent of Japan's fabled "bridges to nowhere": They exist to prop up demand in an economy where there is too much savings. Rather than making the economy more efficient, the risk is that structural reforms, if undertaken too rapidly, will simply depress growth. The most misallocated resource is a worker who wants a job but cannot find one. The troubling implication is that deleveraging may be difficult to achieve without causing significant economic distress. On The Bright Side... Fortunately, a number of factors mitigate the risks of a Chinese debt crisis. As Japan's experience shows, as long as a country has ample domestic savings and borrows primarily in its own currency, debt can increase to levels that many people might have thought impossible. Moreover, most of China's debt mountain consists of loans made by state-owned banks to SOEs and local governments. These loans often carry implicit guarantees from the central government. While this exacerbates the moral hazard problem, it does limit the potential of "leveraged losses" to lead to a massive credit crunch of the sort experienced during the Global Financial Crisis. China also has reasonably good long-term growth prospects. Output-per-worker is only a quarter of U.S. levels. Likewise, capital-per-worker is a fraction of what it is among advanced economies (Chart 15). Even with its bleak demographics, China would need to grow by around 6% per year over the coming decade if it were to remain on course to catch up to South Korea in output-per-worker by 2050 (Chart 16). Chart 15China Has More Catching Up To Do (1) Chart 16China Has More Catching Up To Do (2) Given China's well-educated labor force, it is likely that productivity levels will continue to converge with richer economies in the years ahead (Chart 17). Rapid growth, in turn, will allow China to outgrow some its debt and overcapacity problems more easily than would be the case for slower growing economies. Chart 17A Well-Educated Labor Force Bodes Well For China's Development Lastly, not all credit creation in China represents the intermediation of savings into productive investment. A lot of it is simply driven by speculative activities that contribute little to growth. Curbing the ability of individuals and companies to use extreme amounts of leverage to supercharge financial returns would enhance economic stability. To its credit, the government is actively addressing this issue. The bottom line is that Chinese growth is likely to slow modestly next year, but not by enough to imperil the global economy. Investors should remain cyclically overweight global equities and other risk assets at least for the next six months. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "When To Get Out," dated December 8, 2017; and Weekly Report, "Fiscal Follies," dated November 17, 2017. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades