Asia

Highlights Barring major external disruption, Chinese GDP growth will likely continue to accelerate into the first half of 2017. The overall policy stance will stay accommodative to safeguard against potentially negative shocks from abroad. Trade tensions between the world's two largest economies will inevitably increase, the degree of which matters greatly for how the Chinese economy as well as the global economy perform in the medium to long term. The dollar trend will continue to dictate the USD/RMB cross rate in the near term. The PBoC will continue to intervene heavily to prevent excessive currency weakness. Shorting the CNH/USD is not much different from a direct bet on the dollar index. Aggressive directional bet on Chinese shares is not warranted in the near term. Strategically favor Chinese equities over their global peers. Feature China has rung into 2017 with strengthening growth momentum that has been building in recent months, but the New Year clearly brings new challenges. China is on the receiving end of two major external uncertainties - namely, the anti-globalization backlash from the U.S. under President-elect Donald Trump and the outlook for the U.S. dollar, both of which are completely beyond its control. 2017 will also be a highly charged year in Chinese politics, as the ruling Communist Party prepares for a generational leadership reshuffle. This means the Chinese leadership will be more sensitive to perceived "provocations" from abroad, making political risk between the U.S. and China even less predictable. The Chinese authorities will remain highly vigilant about economic and financial stability. Meanwhile, the government will continue to mobilize the public sector and fiscal resources to support the economy, as external uncertainties mount. Domestic Demand Should Remain Buoyant Most of the recent data releases coming out of China have surprised to the upside, and the regained strength appears rather broad-based (Chart 1). Some indicators that are highly sensitive to industrial activity such as transportation freight, electricity generation and construction machine sales have rebounded sharply, partly due to last year's low base. Meanwhile, the consumer sector has remained buoyant, with strong expansion in durable goods sales such as cars and air conditioners. Looking forward, we expect the economy to continue to improve, at least in the next two quarters. Leading indicators are still strengthening. The latest PMI figures, both manufacturing and non-manufacturing, have continued to climb, and remain above the boom-bust threshold. The labor market is on the mend. The employment component of the PMIs has been rising in recent months, indicating increased hiring as the economy picks up (Chart 2). This could lead to a self-feeding virtuous cycle where an improving labor market leads to rising income growth and strengthening aggregate demand, which further boosts overall business activity and the labor market. Chart 1Broad-Based Recovery Broad-Based Recovery Broad-Based Recovery Chart 2Labor Market On The Mend Labor Market On The Mend Labor Market On The Mend The corporate sector is recovering. Inventories are exceptionally low, setting the stage for inventory restocking, which could further boost production (Chart 3). Profit growth among both private and state-owned enterprises has continued to accelerate. Rising profits are easing financial stress, particularly for debt-laden, asset-heavy sectors. This is also reflected in banks' asset quality; banks' non-performing loan accumulation has slowed sharply of late (Chart 4). In addition, recovery in the corporate sector should also bode well for investment, which is still subdued. The housing crackdown since early October has once again set the stage for negative surprises. Home sales have already begun to slow, and the government appears determined to check housing demand. A key difference between now and previous rounds of housing crackdowns is that developers have been quite cautious throughout the current cycle1: confidence has been downbeat, and housing starts have remained quite weak. Consequently, housing inventories have been quickly depleted nationwide. The demand crackdown has dashed hopes for a housing-led growth recovery, but low inventories and sluggish housing construction has also reduced the risk of another housing-led investment bust, which has typically followed previous housing tightening campaigns. Chart 3Inventory Restocking Will ##br##Further Boost Production Inventory Restocking Will Further Boost Production Inventory Restocking Will Further Boost Production Chart 4Corporate Sector Recovery ##br## Also Helps Banks Corporate Sector Recovery Also Helps Banks Corporate Sector Recovery Also Helps Banks Our model shows that Chinese GDP growth likely accelerated notably in the final quarter of the year, and the momentum will probably carry forward into the first half of 2017, assuming no major external disruption (Chart 5). The inauguration of Donald Trump next week marks the biggest uncertainty for China's growth outlook in recent history due to his well-publicized anti-globalization stance, especially his proposed harsh anti-China trade policies. Chart 5Growth Should Continue To Improve Growth Should Continue To Improve Growth Should Continue To Improve The Trump Wildcard Speculation on President-elect Trump's forthcoming China policies run amok, ranging from pragmatic deal-making, simmering frictions and tit-for-tat retaliation, to the inevitability of a full-fledged trade war and even to a geo-strategic alliance with Russia against China. It is impossible to tell at the moment where reality will eventually end up, but what is clear is that trade tensions between the world's two largest economies will inevitably increase, the degree of which matters greatly for how the Chinese economy as well as the global economy perform in the medium to long term. Low-profile trade tensions and punitive barriers will prove damaging to specific sectors and industries, but should not have a major macro impact. Chinese products that are likely to be subject to American punitive tariffs are some heavy industries such as metals. The usual suspects that may fall victim to Chinese retaliation are American transportation equipment and agricultural products - two main American export items to China. At the macro level, however, China's export sector performance should improve on a cyclical basis, especially if "Trumponomics" successfully lifts U.S. economic growth this year (Chart 6). As one of the major beneficiaries of globalization, China stands to suffer if the broad globalization trend reverses. The saving grace is that exports as a share of the Chinese economy have already almost halved to below 20%, a level comparable to the early 2000s before China joined the World Trade Organization (Chart 7). In other words, China's "globalization dividends" have already diminished to some extent. Moreover, Chinese exports depend more on the U.S. market than the other way around. Therefore, it is in China's best interests to avoid an escalation of trade frictions with the U.S., simply because it has more to lose.2 Nonetheless, it goes without saying that no country gains in a trade war, and the world risks a deep economic recession if the two largest economies engage in an all-out trade battle. Geo-strategic containment of some kind further darkens the outlook for both China and the world. A "cold war" between China and the U.S. would mark a drastic break from the global environment of the past four decades that allowed China to focus solely on economic development. One can only hope that a "clash of the titans" will not drag the world into a self-destructive downward spiral. Chart 6Trumponomics Should Also ##br##Help Chinese Exports Trumponomics Should Also Help Chinese Exports Trumponomics Should Also Help Chinese Exports Chart 7Globalization Dividends ##br## Have Already Diminished Globalization Dividends Have Already Diminished Globalization Dividends Have Already Diminished In short, it is too early to evaluate the impact of America's new trade policy on China's growth outlook. We suspect the near-term impact should be limited, as it is unlikely that trade tensions will immediately erupt once Trump takes office. Nonetheless, the situation needs to be monitored closely going forward. Policy: Fiscal Takes The Helm We expect the Chinese authorities will further downplay the significance of the annual GDP growth target as a binding policy constraint. Growth recovery and improvement in labor market conditions reduce the need for further pump-priming, but the overall policy stance will stay accommodative to safeguard against potentially negative shocks from abroad. On the monetary policy front, the case for further interest rate cuts has diminished (Chart 8). The People's Bank of China (PBoC) recently reiterated that its monetary stance will stay decisively "neutral." In our view, this means the PBoC will continue to fine-tune interbank liquidity, but any symbolic policy move in either direction can be ruled out, unless the economic situation takes a sudden turn. In contrast, fiscal policy will be more stimulative. The annual budget deficit will likely be further increased in the March session of the People's Congress. Moreover, some high-profile investment plans have been released in recent weeks, meaning policy-led investment spending will remain elevated going forward. The country aims to invest RMB 2 trillion, or US$290 billion, in tourism between 2016 and 2020. This would translate into annual growth of more than 14% in direct investment in the industry. China's National Energy Administration (NEA) plans to invest RMB 2.5 trillion (US$360 billion) to develop the nation's energy sector over the next five years, with a focus on renewable resources. Installed renewable power capacity including wind, hydro, solar and nuclear is expected to contribute to about half of new electricity generation in five years, which will boost growth and reduce pollution. The government continues to promote private-public partnerships (PPPs) to build infrastructure. The published PPP proposals so far amount to a whopping RMB 12.5 trillion, with a heavy concentration on the transportation network and urban development (Chart 9). Chart 8Expect No Change In Policy Interest Rate Expect No Change In Policy Interest Rate Expect No Change In Policy Interest Rate Chart 9Fiscal Takes The Helm China: The 2017 Outlook, And The Trump Wildcard China: The 2017 Outlook, And The Trump Wildcard It is worth noting that recent growth improvement has been accompanied by a notable slowdown in fiscal spending, leaving room for reacceleration going forward (Chart 10). In short, fiscal spending and policy-led investment will remain the key tools for the Chinese government to stabilize the economy. Chart 10Fiscal Spending Is Set To Reaccelerate Fiscal Spending Is Set To Reaccelerate Fiscal Spending Is Set To Reaccelerate Chart 11Weak RMB Or Strong Dollar? Weak RMB Or Strong Dollar? Weak RMB Or Strong Dollar? The RMB: Which Way Will The Wind Blow? Since the New Year, offshore RMB (CNH) liquidity has tightened dramatically, which has led to a massive surge in the Hong Kong Interbank Offered Rate (HIBOR) of the RMB and a sharp rebound in the CNH/USD cross rate. This is widely viewed as a successful short squeeze engineered by the PBoC to punish speculators. It is certainly true that the authorities "allowed" offshore RMB liquidity to dry up, but the sharp spike in the HIBOR rate also closely resembles a classic emerging market currency crisis: speculative attacks on the exchange rate forces the monetary authorities to dramatically jack up interest rates to maintain exchange rate stability - a textbook example of the "Impossible Trinity" thesis at work. In China's case, however, the offshore HIBOR rate bears no relevance on the funding cost of the Chinese corporate sector. As such, the PBoC couldn't care less about periodic tightening in CNH liquidity, as it has no consequence on the domestic economy. This bodes poorly for the internationalization of the RMB, but is a low-cost tool for the PBoC to maintain control over the exchange rate. Two observations can be made from this episode: It is unlikely that the PBoC will completely give up control over the RMB exchange rate, especially in this politically charged year. Sharp depreciation in the RMB/USD may be viewed as a sign of systemic financial risk and economic weakness, a taboo ahead of the Party Congress later this year. Since the New Year, the Chinese authorities have further tightened capital account controls to restrict capital outflows - a reflection of the PBoC's determination to maintain exchange rate stability. There is now an almost universal consensus that the U.S. dollar will strengthen further this year, and that the RMB will decline. It is of course foolish to blindly bet against consensus, but it also means shorting the CNH/USD has already become a very crowded trade. The sharp rebound of the CNH/USD a few days ago is a classic example of a market stampede where investors rush to a narrow exit when conditions change. All this has made the risk-return profile of shorting the RMB against the dollar unfavorable, as the PBoC, with its formidable resources, could unexpectedly hit back at any time. Indeed, the performance of the CNH/USD cross rate has closely tracked the broad U.S. dollar index over the past two years, a situation unlikely to change going forward (Chart 11). The bottom line is that the dollar trend will continue to dictate the USD/RMB cross rate in the near term. The PBoC will continue to intervene heavily to prevent excessive currency weakness. For investors, shorting the CNH/USD is not much different from a direct bet on the dollar index. What To Do With Chinese Stocks? Chart 12Chinese Shares Valuation Perspective Chinese Shares Valuation Perspective Chinese Shares Valuation Perspective Chinese stocks will likely range-bound in the near term. The downside is limited by accommodative policy, stable/improving growth and depressed valuation, especially for H shares (Chart 12). The upside is capped by the ongoing macro concerns and brewing tension with the incoming U.S. administration. Chinese shares may also be vulnerable if the more frothy global bourses correct. Therefore, aggressive directional bet is not warranted in the near term. From a big picture point of view, however, we remain convinced that market concerns on China's macro conditions are overdone, and Chinese equities have been unduly punished. Investors with longer-term horizons should hold H shares. Strategically we favor Chinese equities over their global peers. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Housing Tightening: Now And 2010," dated October 13, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China-U.S. Trade Relations: The Big Picture," dated November 17, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights The U.S. dollar will likely overshoot. This is negative for EM. China by and large has a choice between two potential roadmaps: (1) short-term pain / long-term gain and (2) growth stagnation with mini-cycles around it. Regardless of which scenario transpires - so far the second scenario has been in effect - the medium-term outlook is downbeat. Given we are already advanced in this mini-cycle, the risk-reward for China plays in financial markets is negative. Feature Chart I-1Equity Investors Are ##br##Bullish With Minimum Hedges Equity Investors Are Bullish With Minimum Hedges Equity Investors Are Bullish With Minimum Hedges The U.S. dollar is overbought, but the primary trend remains up. A confluence of cyclical and structural economic forces, along with geopolitical and political risks, argue for further upside in the greenback. As the dollar grinds higher, emerging markets (EM) will suffer. EM stocks, currencies, and credit markets will not only underperform their developed market (DM) peers, but also relapse in absolute terms in the months ahead. Additional U.S. dollar strength and ongoing complacency in the U.S. equity market (Chart I-1) means that the 6-12 month outlook for global equity markets is poor. While momentum can carry DM markets higher in the very near term, EM share prices have already topped out, and the path of the least resistance is down. Dollar appreciation will be brought on by both global/EM and U.S. dynamics. Global Factors Supporting The U.S. Dollar The following global factors support the greenback's strength: Global demand for U.S. dollars is rising faster than the supply of U.S. dollars. We computed two measures of U.S. dollar liquidity. Measure 1 is the sum of the U.S. monetary base and U.S. Treasury securities held in custody for foreign official and international accounts. Measure 2 is the sum of the U.S. monetary base and U.S. Treasury securities held by all foreign residents (Chart I-2A and Chart I-2B). Chart I-2AU.S. Dollar Liquidity (Measure 2) U.S. Dollar Liquidity (Measure 1) U.S. Dollar Liquidity (Measure 1) Chart I-2BU.S. Dollar Liquidity (Measure 1) U.S. Dollar Liquidity (Measure 2) U.S. Dollar Liquidity (Measure 2) Notably, the U.S. monetary base and the amount of U.S. Treasury securities held by foreign official and international accounts are contracting, while the amount of U.S. Treasury securities held by all foreigners has stalled (Chart I-3). The monetary base shrinkage manifests the rise in reverse repos by the Fed, i.e., the Fed is siphoning in the banks' excess reserves (Chart I-3, bottom panel). The weakness in foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury securities is largely due to the selling of U.S. securities by EM central banks to provide U.S. dollars in order to meet strong dollar demand locally. China is the largest contributor to the surge in U.S. dollar demand as the depletion of its international reserves has been enormous. In short, the drop in U.S. dollar liquidity does not mean that U.S. dollar supply is shrinking. Instead, it implies that the demand for U.S. dollars is accelerating relative to its supply. When the pace of demand growth outpaces that of supply, the price of that commodity, good/service, or asset, rises. This will be the case for the greenback - it will appreciate further. Importantly, the RMB will remain under downward pressure, which will drag down other Asian currencies. China's unaccounted net capital outflows - measured by the balance of payment's net errors and omissions - have swelled to a record level of US$ 205 billion, or 2% of GDP (Chart I-4). Furthermore, the PBoC has been conducting full-out "reverse" sterilization of its U.S. dollar sales. By selling U.S. dollars to defend the RMB, the PBoC initially shrunk local currency liquidity. To preclude onshore interbank interest rates from spiking, the mainland monetary authorities have simultaneously re-injected RMB into the system via outright lending to banks and open-market operations (Chart I-5). Chart I-3Components Of U.S. Dollar Liquidity Components Of U.S. Dollar Liquidity Components Of U.S. Dollar Liquidity Chart I-4China: Unrecorded Capital Outflows China: Unrecorded Capital Outflows China: Unrecorded Capital Outflows Chart I-5The PBoC: The PBoC: "Reverse" Sterilization The PBoC: "Reverse" Sterilization By doing so, they have kept interest rates low, but the supply of high-powered money has been restored. It is reasonable to expect such RMB liquidity injections to continue. This, in turn, will allow commercial banks to continue creating money/credit/deposits out of thin air. As such, the mushrooming supply of yuan will weigh on the currency's value. We discussed these issues in detail in our November 23, 2016 Special Report, titled China: Money Creation Redux and RMB.1 U.S. dollar borrowing costs are rising: Not only have U.S. bond yields spiked but the LIBOR rate has also continued its unrelenting uptrend, especially when compared to the EURIBOR (Chart I-6). Higher borrowing costs and expectations for further U.S. dollar strength will make non-American debtors with U.S. dollar liabilities reluctant to keep their short dollar exposure. They will try to either repay U.S. dollar debt or hedge it. This will ultimately increase the demand for U.S. dollars in the months ahead. Importantly, EM countries (outside of China) have US$ 5 trillion of foreign currency debt outstanding. Thus, higher U.S. borrowing costs will raise the demand for U.S. dollars as debtors rush to repay or hedge their U.S. dollar liabilities. We published an extensive review of EM foreign currency debt on January 4 in our Weekly Report titled EM: Overview of External Debt.2 This report provides information about various categories of borrowers (government, nonfinancial companies and financials), types of debt (loans versus bonds) and debt maturity (short- versus long-term) for each individual developing economy. The report also ranks countries according to their foreign debt burdens and short-term funding pressures. This report can be accessed by clicking on the link on page 19. The yield differential between EM local bonds and U.S. Treasurys has narrowed (Chart I-7), as U.S. bond yields have risen more than duration-adjusted EM domestic bond yields. Such a compression in the spread has reduced the attractiveness of EM local bonds. As U.S. bond yields resume their ascent, odds are that inflows into EM local bonds will diminish, and EM bonds will sell off. Chart I-8 illustrates that the J.P. Morgan EMLI EM currency total return index (including carry) has failed to break above an important technical resistance. When such a technical profile transpires, it is often followed by a major breakdown. Chart I-6Rising LIBOR Will Hurt Debtors ##br##With U.S. Dollar Liabilities Rising LIBOR Will Hurt Debtors With U.S. Dollar Liabilities Rising LIBOR Will Hurt Debtors With U.S. Dollar Liabilities Chart I-7The EM-U.S. Bond Yield ##br##Gap Has Narrowed The EM-U.S. Bond Yield Gap Has Narrowed The EM-U.S. Bond Yield Gap Has Narrowed Chart I-8EM Currency Return With ##br##Carry: More Downside EM Currency Return With Carry: More Downside EM Currency Return With Carry: More Downside Trade protectionism is bound to rise. The proposed U.S. Border-Adjusted Corporate Tax and any potential U.S. import tariffs will lead many exporter countries to devalue their currencies substantially to offset the loss in exporter revenues in local- currency terms. For example, Chart I-9 shows that U.S. import prices from China have been deflating in U.S. dollar terms but have risen a lot in RMB terms. The latter is what matters to producers. Hence, China and many other exporters to the U.S. will seek to devalue their currencies further to offset import tariffs and the resulting drop in US. dollar revenues from their sales in America. Finally, the outlook for foreign capital inflows (both FDI and equity flows) into EM remains very poor. EM growth is weak and will remain so. The growth acceleration in advanced economies will not help EM economies much for reasons we discussed at length in our December 14, 2016 Weekly Report.3 Remarkably, the worsening trend in relative manufacturing PMIs between EM and DM suggests EM growth and share prices will continue to underperform DM (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Deflation In U.S. Dollars, Rising In RMB Terms Deflation In U.S. Dollars, Rising In RMB Terms Deflation In U.S. Dollars, Rising In RMB Terms Chart I-10EM Will Continue Underperforming DM EM Will Continue Underperforming DM EM Will Continue Underperforming DM Bottom Line: The current confluence of global economic forces and rising trade protectionism in the U.S. will propel the U.S. dollar higher. Domestic Underpinnings Of The U.S. Dollar Rising U.S. interest rate expectations will extend the U.S. dollar rally: The U.S. labor market is tight, and wage growth is accelerating (Chart I-11). This is what the Federal Reserve has been waiting for years, and the central bank will now gradually but steadily ramp up its hawkishness. This will push up U.S. interest rate expectations and prop up the dollar. The exchange rate appreciation will cool off the manufacturing sector at a time when the rest of the economy will be robust. In brief, a strong dollar will be needed to avoid overheating in the U.S. economy. While an overshoot in the dollar will certainly have a deflationary impact on the U.S. economy, especially its manufacturing sector, the negative impact will be somewhat offset because of potential trade protectionist measures introduced by the U.S. authorities. Remarkably, U.S. interest rates are still too low. In particular, 10-year TIPS yields are a mere 0.5%, and long-term bond yields are low relative to wage growth (Chart I-12). Chart I-11U.S. Labor Market Is Tight U.S. Labor Market Is Tight U.S. Labor Market Is Tight Chart I-12U.S. Bond Yields Are Low U.S. Bond Yields Are Low U.S. Bond Yields Are Low U.S. credit growth is strong and the real estate market is vibrant. There is no reason for U.S. interest rates to stay at emergency low levels that have prevailed since the Lehman crisis. Notably, potential fiscal stimulus from the incoming Trump administration warrants higher interest rates to avoid boom-bust cycles. The Fed will tighten policy sooner rather than later, as policymakers know that policy works with time lags and they will not wait for the economic impact of fiscal spending to works its way through the economy. We believe the 50 basis points hikes over the next 12 months currently priced into the U.S. fixed income market are too low, and interest rate expectations will climb by about 50 basis points in the months ahead. Finally, the U.S. dollar has not yet overshot. It is only modestly above its fair value, according to the real effective exchange rate based on unit labor costs. Typically, bull and bear markets do not end at fair value; financial markets tend to over- and under-shoot. We believe the U.S. dollar is primed to overshoot before this current bull run peters out. Bottom Line: Robust U.S. growth and tight labor market conditions put the U.S. in a unique global position to tolerate a stronger currency, for a while. We continue recommending short positions in a basket of the following EM currencies: KRW, IDR, MYR, TRY, ZAR, BRL, CLP and COP. We are also short the RMB via 12-month NDFs. China: Growth Revival And Hard Choices Ahead China's growth has revived, spurred by another round of credit and fiscal stimulus. However, BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team maintains that the latest improvement in growth will prove unsustainable and vulnerabilities abound. In particular: Despite improving economic data, the Chinese equity indexes have fared extremely poorly. China's MSCI Investable index was essentially flat during 2016, and domestic A-shares were down 20% in the U.S. dollar terms. This compares with 9.5%, 5.7% and 8.5% gains in the S&P 500, global, and EM share prices in U.S. dollar terms, respectively, over the course of 2016. The relative performance of the Chinese MSCI Investable index to the global stock index has rolled over after failing to break above its technical resistance (Chart I-13, top panel). The same is true for share prices in absolute terms (Chart I-13, bottom panel). These chart profiles hint that Chinese stocks have failed to enter a bull market, and downside is material. How do we explain the divergence between weak Chinese share prices and the rally in commodities prices and commodities stocks globally? Chart I-14 demonstrates that apart from the 2014-'15 bubble run in Chinese equities, the latter's relative performance versus global stocks has been a good forward-looking indicator for industrial metals prices. Chart I-13Chinese Stocks Have ##br##Failed To Break Out Chinese Stocks Have Failed To Break Out Chinese Stocks Have Failed To Break Out Chart I-14Underperformance Of Chinese ##br##Stocks Bodes Ill For Commodities Underperformance Of Chinese Stocks Bodes Ill For Commodities Underperformance Of Chinese Stocks Bodes Ill For Commodities Based on this chart and our qualitative analysis, our bias is to argue that the poor performance of Chinese share prices signals lingering downside risks in Chinese growth, and an associated drop in commodities prices and commodities related equities. Besides, the rally in both oil and metals can largely be explained by investor buying rather than by the real economy demand exceeding supply. Chart I-15 shows that net long positions of non-commercial traders (investors) in oil and copper are overextended. In addition, OECD oil product inventories continue their unrelenting uptrend, suggesting that supply is still exceeding consumption (Chart I-16). Following property market restrictions, China's home purchases have dived (Chart I-17). This will depress construction activity, which will weigh on demand for industrial goods/equipment and commodities over course of 2017. Chart I-15Traders Are Very Long Oil And Copper Traders Are Very Long Oil And Copper Traders Are Very Long Oil And Copper Chart I-16Global Oil Inventories Continue Rising Global Oil Inventories Continue Rising Global Oil Inventories Continue Rising Chart I-17China: Home Sales Have Plummeted China: Home Sales Have Plummeted China: Home Sales Have Plummeted Onshore bond yields, including corporate bond yields, have spiked, and the PBoC has allowed the repo rate for non-bank financial organizations to rise. This will, at a minimum, dampen non-bank (shadow) credit growth. Given that non-bank credit (entrusted loan, trusted loan, bank acceptance bill and net corporate bond issuance) accounts for 30% of total outstanding claims on companies and households, a deceleration in non-bank (shadow) credit will have a non-trivial impact on growth. Finally, there are considerable geopolitical and political risks in and around China. Many investors have become sanguine about China-related political risks, assuming the authorities will guarantee growth remains robust going into the fall 2017 Party Congress, which will decide on the leadership transition. However, a drop in perceived China-linked risks could be a sign of the calm before the storm. First off, the Chinese government might strive for economic stability ahead of this fall's Party Congress, but political volatility ahead of that time cannot be ruled out. It is an open secret that President Xi Jinping's aggressive consolidation of power and "non-collegial" decision-making has created opposition within the Communist party. The opposition cannot wait past the Party Congress when President Xi further strengthens his grip on power. The opposition, if it is able, will likely attempt to strike preemptively in order to prevent a further consolidation of power by President Xi. While it is impossible to know details or forecast the dynamics of the Communist Party's internal discourse, investors should not be complacent. Second, China will retaliate in some form against U.S. trade protectionist measures. It is difficult to know how this trade standoff between the U.S. and China will unfold, but our sense is that risks are underpriced in global financial markets. U.S.-China trade disputes could evolve into broader geopolitical tensions in Asia. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service has written about geopolitical risks in Asia at great length.4 In short, political and geopolitical risks abound in and around China. Remarkably, in recent years financial markets have been more preoccupied by political rather than economic developments. Examples include Brazil, Turkey, Malaysia, Russia, the Philippines, Mexico, and South Africa. In these countries, financial markets have been much more sensitive to political changes than economic fundamentals. This may be the case in China too. Growth could stay firm for a while, but the markets will sell off based on heightened political and geopolitical volatility and tensions. Apart from the above-mentioned downside risks, China's growth model is facing two major ways forward from a big-picture perspective: 1. Short-Term Pain / Long-Term Gain: If the authorities were to allow market forces to prevail, the state should withdraw meaningfully from the credit allocation process. In that case, credit markets will bring discipline to both debtors and creditors - in effect, an emerging perception of potential losses rather government-led bailouts will make creditors less willing to lend, and debtors less willing to borrow and expand. The result will be a considerable dampening in credit origination. In this scenario, it is very likely that credit growth slows from 12% currently to the level of potential nominal GDP growth of 7-8% or lower (Chart I-18), leading to a classic credit-driven economic downtrend (Chart I-19). In that case, cyclical growth will undershoot. Chart I-18China: Credit Is Outpacing GDP ##br##Growth By Wide Margin China: Credit Is Outpacing GDP Growth By Wide Margin China: Credit Is Outpacing GDP Growth By Wide Margin Capitalist-Style Credit-Driven Downtrend The U.S. Dollar's Uptrend And China's Options The U.S. Dollar's Uptrend And China's Options However, potential GDP growth (the red line in Chart I-19) - which has been falling in recent years - will stabilize and probably improve. The reason being that by allowing market forces to prevail in credit allocation and corporate restructuring/reorganization, China will ultimately improve its capital allocation and productivity. In brief, potential GDP growth - which equals productivity growth plus labor force growth - will stop falling and, in fact, could improve as productivity growth ameliorates. 2. No Short-Term Pain But Long-Term Stagnation: It is essential to differentiate cyclical growth drivers from structural ones. If the government does not allow credit growth to slow, cyclical growth will hold up. However, in this scenario, structural growth will tumble and China will embark on a path of economic stagnation. As we have argued in past reports,5 banks in any country can originate unlimited amounts of credit/money/deposits if and when the central bank accommodates them, and shareholders and regulators do not object. China has been following this model over the past several years. Yet, this model does not bring about lasting prosperity. On the contrary, it leads to economic stagnation. China would be no different in this scenario, though the growth deceleration would be gradual, as depicted in Chart I-20. Toward Socialism = Secular Stagnation The U.S. Dollar's Uptrend And China's Options The U.S. Dollar's Uptrend And China's Options A rising role of state and government officials in capital allocation and business decision-making guarantees suboptimal capital allocation, resulting in poor efficiency and declining productivity growth. Since China's labor force growth is projected to be flat-to-negative (Chart I-21), the sole source of potential GDP growth going forward will be productivity growth. If the authorities do not allow market forces to play a larger role in resource allocation, including credit, the former will contract. The bullish camp on China argues that the authorities have a firm grip and control over the economy, and that they will never allow it to slow by injecting an unlimited amount of credit and fiscal stimulus. While this may be true, policymakers can do that, it is not a reason to be bullish. Quite the opposite: it is a reason to be structurally bearish on Chinese growth. Unrelenting credit and fiscal stimulus, and a resurging role of government in resource allocation, corporate restructuring, and increasingly in business decision-making, means the economy is moving back toward its socialist bend. In socialist economies, productivity growth is weak or sometimes negative. China's success over the past 30 years was based on a move towards private enterprise, entrepreneurism, and transition toward a more market-based model, and not on government credit injections. As China refuses to give greater say to market forces, and state officials and bureaucrats gets even more involved in credit and resource allocation to prevent genuine deleveraging and bankruptcies, economic efficiency and productivity will suffer. If we assume China's productivity is now about 6% (which is already a very high number) (Chart I-22), and if the country embarks down this path, odds are that productivity growth might drop by 100 basis points in each of the following years. In five years or so, productivity growth would be only around 1%. Given that labor force growth will be zero, if not contracting, in five years' time, potential GDP will drop to 1% or so, as shown in Chart I-20 on page 14. Hence, this path is the ultimate recipe for economic stagnation in China. Chart I-21China: Labor Force Is Projected To Contract China: Labor Force Is Projected To Contract China: Labor Force Is Projected To Contract Chart I-22Socialist Put Will Depress Productivity Growth Socialist Put Will Depress Productivity Growth Socialist Put Will Depress Productivity Growth The only thing the authorities can do in this scenario is to boost growth from time to time via credit and fiscal stimulus. This will produce mini-recovery cycles around a falling primary growth trend. The latest acceleration in China's growth is probably the first mini-cycle. How can investors invest in this scenario? The mini-cycles depicted in Chart I-20 on page 14 look nice, because we drew them ourselves. In reality, they will not be symmetric or smooth. Besides, financial market swings for China-related plays will differ from the economy's growth mini-cycles because markets can be driven by factors other than growth like politics, geopolitics, credit events, and other global variables such as the U.S. dollar and bond yields. In short, this analysis explains why we have been and remain bearish on China-related financial markets despite the stimulus that has been injected about a year ago. Investing around economic mini-cycles is difficult because it assumes near-perfect timing. Without that, investors cannot make money. Bottom Line: China by and large has two potential roadmaps going forward: (1) Short-term pain / long-term gain and (2) growth stagnation with mini-cycles around it. Regardless of which scenario transpires - so far, the second scenario has been in effect - the medium-term outlook is negative. Given that we are already advanced in the mini-cycle, the risk-reward for China plays in financial markets is negative. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB," dated November 23, 2016, link available on page 19. 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "EM: Overview Of External Debt," dated January 4, 2017, link available on page 19. 3 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Key EM Issues Going Into 2017," dated December 14, 2016, link available on page 19. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016, and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB," dated November 23, 2016, links available on page 19. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Will inflation return in Europe & Japan? Can Trumponomics successfully boost U.S. economic growth? Will global market volatility remain this low? Can China avert a crisis and still be the engine of global growth? Feature With a New Year now upon us, fixed income investors are trying to determine what the next move is for global bond yields after the rapid rise at the end of 2016. While much has been made of the impact of the 2016 U.S. election result on the global bond rout, many other important factors will drive fixed income markets this year (Chart of the Week). In our first Weekly Report of the New Year, we present our list of the most important questions for global bond markets in 2017. Chart 1The Big Questions For 2017 The Big Questions For 2017 The Big Questions For 2017 Chart 2Taper Tantrum 2.0? Taper Tantrum 2.0? Taper Tantrum 2.0? Will Inflation Return In Europe & Japan? Extremely low inflation in the Euro Area and Japan over the past few years has forced both the European Central Bank (ECB) and Bank of Japan (BoJ) to pursue exceptionally accommodative monetary policies like negative interest rates and large scale quantitative easing (QE) programs - the latter acting to depress bond term premia among the major developed markets. Much of this decline in headline inflation in both regions was due to the 2014/15 collapse in oil prices and the previous strength in both the euro and yen (Chart 2), but core inflation and wage growth have also been subdued. If headline inflation were to move higher in either Europe or Japan, it could call into question the central banks' commitment to continue hyper-easy monetary stimulus programs. This could raise the threat of another "taper tantrum" in developed bond markets later in 2017. The recovery in global energy prices in 2016, combined with significant currency depreciations related to ECB/BoJ QE, have boosted the annual growth in the local currency price of oil to 72% in the Euro Area and 63% in Japan. Already, headline inflation measures have begun to move higher in response and, judging by past relationships, a move up to 2% headline inflation in both regions by year-end is possible. In Chart 3 & Chart 4, we present simulations for headline inflation in both the Euro Area and Japan assuming the only changes come from movements in oil prices, the euro and the yen. We show two scenarios where the Brent oil price rises to $65/bbl (the high end of the range expected by our commodity strategists in 2017) and $75/bbl (an extreme scenario). In both simulations, the euro and yen continue to weaken versus the U.S. dollar until mid-2017 before recovering to near current levels by year-end. Chart 3Euro Area Inflation Simulation Euro Area Inflation Simulation Euro Area Inflation Simulation Chart 4Japan Inflation Simulation Japan Inflation Simulation Japan Inflation Simulation Our simulations show that headline inflation in both the Euro Area and Japan could rise to at least the 2% level, and perhaps even higher, if oil prices continue to climb and both the yen and Euro weaken towards 125 and parity versus the U.S. dollar, respectively. Given our views on the likely path of interest rates in the U.S. - higher, as the Fed continues hiking rates - the U.S. dollar is likely to strengthen more in 2017. The oil price moves incorporated in our simulations are somewhat more bullish than our base case expectation, but not extraordinarily so. If there are any upside surprises to global growth this year, oil prices could show surprising strength given the production cutbacks occurring in many of the major oil exporting nations. Higher inflation would be welcome by both the ECB and BoJ, especially if it were accompanied by a rise in inflation expectations. Both central banks have acknowledged the role played by low realized inflation in recent years in depressing expected inflation, but the latter could move up surprisingly fast if the markets believe that either central bank will be slow to respond to the rise in realized inflation. That seems like more of a risk in Japan, where the BoJ is aiming for an overshoot of its 2% inflation target and is promising to keep the Japanese government bond (JGB) curve at current levels until that point is reached. The ECB would be much more likely to make the decision to begin tapering their bond purchases if Euro Area inflation approaches 2%. We see this as the biggest potential threat to global bond markets in 2017 - even more than the expected Fed rate hikes, which are already largely priced into the U.S. yield curve. The ECB was able to successfully kick the tapering can down the road last month by choosing to extend its QE program to the end of 2017, but a decision to defer tapering again will be much harder to make if Euro Area inflation is closer to 2%. If the ECB were to announce a taper later in 2017, this would be very damaging for the long ends of yield curves in the developed markets as bond term premia would begin to normalize - perhaps very rapidly. There is more room for adjustment for term premia in core Euro Area government bonds relative to U.S. Treasuries. An ECB taper announcement, or even just expectations of it, would mark the peak in the spread between U.S. Treasuries and German Bunds which is now at the highest levels in a quarter century. Given the busy upcoming election calendar in the Euro Area, the ECB will not want to even mention the word "taper" until later in the year. Until then, owning inflation protection in Europe, and Japan as well, is the best way to position for upside surprises in inflation in those regions. Bottom Line: Rising inflation in the Euro Area and Japan in 2017 will prompt a rethink of the hyper-easy monetary policies of both the ECB and BoJ, but only the former is likely to consider a taper of its bond purchase program this year. That decision would push global bond yields higher via wider term premia and cause Euro Area government bond markets to underperform U.S. Treasuries, but not until later in the year. Can Trumponomics Successfully Boost U.S. Economic Growth? After a long and divisive U.S. election campaign, the curtain is about to officially be raised on the Trump era on January 20. In anticipation of a more pro-growth agenda from the new president, investors have already bid up the valuations of assets sensitive to U.S. economic growth, like equities and corporate bonds, while also driving up both U.S. Treasury yields and the U.S. dollar. Chart 5Time To Spruce Up U.S. Infrastructure Time To Spruce Up U.S. Infrastructure Time To Spruce Up U.S. Infrastructure Markets are now discounting a fairly rosy scenario for a solid "Trump bump" to U.S. economic growth in 2017. This is to be expected, given that the president-elect won the White House on a platform full of promises to, among other things, boost government infrastructure spending, cut corporate taxes, tear down excess regulations on U.S. companies and adopt a more protectionist U.S. trade policy. In terms of a direct impact to U.S. GDP growth, there are three obvious places where the economic plan of Candidate Trump could turn into stronger growth this year for President Trump: government fixed investment, net exports and private capital expenditure. Trump's infrastructure plans have received much of the attention from those bullish on U.S. growth in 2017; unsurprising given the proposed size of the proposals ($550 billion). This stimulus would appear to be a source of low-hanging fruit to boost U.S. economic growth, as years of underinvestment has left America with an aging government infrastructure in need of an upgrade (Chart 5). Yet the boost to growth from government investment spending has historically not been large, adding between 0.25% and 0.5%, at most, over the past 40 years (bottom panel). Trump's proposed figure of $550 billion would fit right in with that experience, as it would represent 0.3% of the current $18.6 trillion U.S. economy. That assumes that all the proposed infrastructure spending occurs in a single year. Given the usual long lead times for big government infrastructure projects, and the discussions between the White House and the U.S. Congress over the scope and funding of any major government spending initiative, it is highly unlikely that the direct effect of more infrastructure spending will provide much of a boost to U.S. growth in 2017. That impact is more likely to be seen in 2018. A boost to growth from trade is also possible given Trump's fiery protectionist election rhetoric and his decision to nominate China hawks for major cabinet positions. It is unclear if Trump is willing to risk entering a trade war with China (or even Mexico) by raising import tariffs soon after taking office. It is even more uncertain if this will provide much of an immediate lift to U.S. net exports, if tariffs merely raise the cost of imports without any material substitution to domestically produced goods and services. Even if it did, trade has rarely contributed positively to real U.S. GDP growth outside of recessions since 1960. That leaves private fixed investment as the biggest potential source of new growth in the U.S. in 2017. Trump is proposing a cut in the U.S. corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%, while the Republican plan already set out by House Speaker Paul Ryan is calling for a cut to 25%. Both sides also are in favor of a lower "repatriation tax" on corporate profits held abroad, at a rate of 10-15%. So with all parts of the U.S. government in agreement, a move to cut corporate taxes appears to be a near certainty. In the past, efforts to initiate comprehensive tax reform have been not been done quickly in Washington. Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy, however, believe that a deal between the White House and Congress could happen in the first half of 2017. The details of the other major policy initiatives that Trump wants done early in his first term - repealing and replacing Obamacare, and the infrastructure spending program - will be much harder to iron out than a tax cut on which both Trump and the Republican Congress agree. Doing the tax reform first will be the easier choice for a new president.1 Cutting corporate taxes seems like a move that should help boost U.S. private investment spending, as it would raise the after-tax return on capital. However, investment spending has already been underperforming relative to after-tax cash flows since the 2008 Financial Crisis, and the effective tax rate paid by the U.S. corporate sector is already much lower than the 35% marginal tax rate (Chart 6). Something else besides tax levels has been weighing on U.S. corporate sentiment with regards to capital spending intentions. It may be that the burden of excess government regulations, which has soared during the years of the Obama administration (bottom panel), has dampened animal spirits in the U.S. corporate sector. On that front, Trump's proposals to slash regulations - none bigger than repealing Obamacare - could help boost business confidence and fuel an upturn in capital spending. Chart 6A Regulatory Burden, Not A Tax Burden A Regulatory Burden, Not A Tax Burden A Regulatory Burden, Not A Tax Burden Chart 7Making Corporate America Happy Again Making Corporate America Happy Again Making Corporate America Happy Again Some rebound in capex was likely to occur, Trump or no Trump, given the recent improvement in U.S. corporate profits (Chart 7, top panel). This is especially true in the Energy sector which generated the biggest drag on U.S. corporate investment spending after the collapse in oil prices in 2014/15. Since the election, however, there has been a noticeable improvement in confidence within the "C-suite" for American companies. The Duke University/CFO Magazine measure of optimism on the U.S. economy hit the highest level in over a decade (middle panel), while the Conference Board index of CEO optimism soared to the highest level in three years, at the end of 2016. Executive confidence at those levels would be consistent with a pace of capital spending that could add up to 1 full percentage point to U.S. real GDP growth, based on past relationships - (bottom panel). For both of these surveys, executives cited a more positive outlook on future growth after the U.S. election as a major reason for the increase in optimism. In sum, the biggest potential lift to U.S. economic growth in 2017 from Trumponomics will come from business investment and not government spending or exports, and likely by enough to boost overall U.S. GDP growth to an above-trend pace that will prompt the Fed to deliver at least 2-3 rate hikes by year-end. Bottom Line: A major boost to U.S. economic growth from government investment spending and net exports is unlikely in 2017. A pickup in corporate investment, however, seems far more likely given the boost to longer-term business confidence seen after the U.S. elections, coming at a time of improving global economic growth. Will Market Volatility Stay This Low? Given all the uncertainties over the latter half of 2016, from Brexit to Trump to Italy, it is surprising how low market volatility has been. Measures of implied volatility like the VIX index for U.S. equities have remained incredibly subdued, while even the uptick in MOVE index has been relatively modest considering the year-end carnage in the Treasury market (Chart 8). The fact that global risk assets can remain so relatively well-behaved, even after a surprising U.S election result and a Fed rate hike that has boosted the U.S. dollar, is a sign that the "Fed Policy Loop" - where a more hawkish U.S. monetary stance causes an unwanted surge in the U.S. dollar and a selloff in equity and credit markets - has been broken. As we discussed in our 2017 Outlook report, the Fed Policy Loop framework would not apply in an environment where non-U.S. economic growth was improving, as is the currently the case.2 This may be the most obvious explanation for why market volatilities are low, with developed market equities hitting cyclical highs and corporate credit spreads staying at cyclical lows. In other words, volatility is low because growth is accelerating and global central banks (most notably, the Fed) are not slamming on the brakes. Chart 8The Death Of The Fed Policy Loop? The Death Of The Fed Policy Loop? The Death Of The Fed Policy Loop? Chart 9U.S. Dollar Strength Will Persist In 2017 U.S. Dollar Strength Will Persist In 2017 U.S. Dollar Strength Will Persist In 2017 The strength of the U.S. dollar has been a function of the widening real interest rate differential between the U.S. and the rest of the world (Chart 9), which is likely to continue this year as the Fed delivers a few more rate hikes while U.S. inflation grinds slowly higher. We do not expect the Fed to be forced to shift to a more aggressive pace of tightening than currently implied by the FOMC forecasts. On the margin, this will help keep market volatility at subdued levels. A predictable Fed slowly tightening into an improving economy is not overly problematic for financial markets. That logic would be turned upside down if non-U.S. growth were to begin to slow sharply (not our base case) or if there were some non-U.S. source of uncertainty that could make markets jittery. Last year, political surprises ended up being the biggest shock for financial markets. Given the busy upcoming election schedule in Europe (Table 1), there is concern that a similar story could play out in 2017. Table 1Europe In 2017 Will Be A Headline Risk 4 Big Questions For Bond Markets In 2017 4 Big Questions For Bond Markets In 2017 The shock of Brexit and Trump have investors asking "where will the next populist uprising be?" France seems like the most obvious possibility, with the well-known right-wing (and anti-EU) populist Marine Le Pen running in this year's presidential election. French government debt has already priced in some modestly higher risk premium in recent months (Chart 10). Even in the bastion of stability, Germany, the rise of anti-immigration parties has some forecasting a difficult re-election campaign for Chancellor Angela Merkel later in the year. Our geopolitical strategists have long argued that there is not enough support for populist, anti-EU, anti-immigration parties in either Germany, France or the Netherlands (who also have an election this year) to win an election.3 The recent polling data strongly supports that view, with Le Pen's popularity on the decline for the past three years and with Merkel's popularity holding steady over the past year (Chart 11) - even as horrific terror incidents committed by "foreigners" have occurred on both French and German soil. Chart 10Not Worried About European Populism... Not Worried About European Populism... Not Worried About European Populism... Chart 11...For Good Reasons ...For Good Reasons ...For Good Reasons BCA's Chief Geopolitical Strategist, Marko Papic, believes that Italy remains the greatest political risk in Europe in 2017, with elections possible as early as the spring. With the Senate reforms defeated in the December referendum, the country needs to re-write its already complicated electoral laws. This will likely take time, pushing the potential election date to late spring or early summer. If an early election is not called, a new vote must be held by the expiry of the government's mandate in May 2018. Chart 12Italy Is The Biggest Political Risk In Europ Italy Is The Biggest Political Risk In Europ Italy Is The Biggest Political Risk In Europ Chart 13A Managed Renminbi Depreciation A Managed Renminbi Depreciation A Managed Renminbi Depreciation Given the lower support for the euro in Italy than the rest of the Euro Area (Chart 12), and given the strong showing in the polls for the anti-establishment, anti-EU Five Star Movement led by Beppe Grillo, an early Italian election could be the biggest potential political shock for markets in 2017. This likely will not be enough to cause a major flare-up of global market volatility, but it does suggest that investors should remain underweight Italian government debt. Bottom Line: Improving global growth will continue to support low market volatility during 2017, even with the Fed remaining in a tightening cycle. European political risk should not be a Brexit/Trump-type source of concern for investors outside of Italy. Can China Avert A Crisis And Still Be The Engine Of Global Growth? This is a question that we may be asking every year for the next decade, given China's high debt levels and decelerating potential economic growth. Periodic episodes of uncertainty over Chinese currency policy are always a threat to trigger capital outflows, as has occurred over the past year and half (Chart 13). The Chinese authorities have chosen to allow currency depreciation versus the U.S. dollar to help manage the pace of that outflow, particularly during the past year when interest rate differentials have moved in a more dollar-positive direction. With over US$3 trillion in foreign exchange reserves at the government's disposal, the odds remain low that a true economic crisis can unfold in China. Additional renminbi weakness versus the U.S. dollar is likely in 2017, but the recent actions to sharply raise offshore renminbi interest rates is an indication that Chinese authorities will not tolerate a rapidly weakening currency. The incoming Trump administration is obviously an unforecastable wild card here, and China could respond to a new trade war with the U.S. by allowing a more rapid pace of currency weakness versus the dollar. Having said that - if China-U.S. relations don't boil over, then the underlying story for China will be one of improving economic growth in 2017. The underlying growth indicators in our "China Checklist" unveiled late last year (Table 2) continue to improve (Chart 14), and we continue to see China as being a positive contributor to the global economic cycle in 2017 (Donald Trump and his band of China hawks notwithstanding). This is important, as the global upturn seen in 2016 began in China early in the year. This fed through into many other countries either directly via exports to China or indirectly through an improvement in the pricing power for commodity exporters that benefitted from faster Chinese demand. Table 2The GFIS China Checklist 4 Big Questions For Bond Markets In 2017 4 Big Questions For Bond Markets In 2017 Chart 14Chinese Growth Still Improving Chinese Growth Still Improving Chinese Growth Still Improving Bottom Line: China will likely remain a positive driver of the global economic upturn in 2017, with the biggest risk coming from increased tensions with the incoming Trump administration, not accelerating domestic capital outflows. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency", dated November 20th 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "How To Think About Global Bond Investing In 2017", dated December 20th 2016, available at gfis.bcarsearch.com 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook 2017, "5 Themes For 2017", dated December 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights The economy is near full employment, but betting on significant inflation is premature. Market-based inflation expectations have risen substantially in recent weeks but these moves are not corroborated by survey measures of inflation expectations. Consumer inflation expectations are very well anchored due to ongoing deflation in many frequently purchased goods and services. We are on high alert for a near-term equity pullback, with Chinese liquidity tightening as a potential catalyst. Feature Chart 1Market-Based Inflation ##br##Expectations Breaking Out Market-Based Inflation Expectations Breaking Out Market-Based Inflation Expectations Breaking Out After years of focusing on deflation, the possibility of inflation has made a comeback on investors' radars. The shift makes sense, given that the labor market is now operating near full employment. The December payroll report showed that payrolls increased by 156,000, slightly lower than the 3-month average of 165,000. But, average hourly earnings increased by 0.4%, suggesting that slightly weaker employment growth is not due to sluggish demand, and reflects a smaller available pool of workers. However, as we explain below, the potential for a major inflation surge is low in 2017 and is premature as an investment theme. We are on high alert for a near-term pullback to the equity bull market, given that valuation and sentiment are stretched. But as we outline, the threat to the equity market is less likely to be domestic inflation than an external event, such as the fallout from tightening liquidity in China (similar to what occurred in mid-2015 and early 2016). In the past few weeks, one-year inflation expectations have moved to their highest level since mid-2014, when oil prices were above $110/bbl. Long-run inflation expectations have also spiked since the U.S. election (Chart 1). The extent to which this trend is judged sustainable, and provides an accurate forecast for general inflation, has important investment implications. Our view is that, although TIPS could move a bit higher, the market move should not be interpreted as a harbinger for a broad-based inflation acceleration. Policymakers consider a range of inflation expectations measures, but in recent years, market-based measures have garnered a lot of attention. The 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate in particular is often viewed as the market's assessment of whether the Fed can successfully achieve its inflation target. According to the Minutes of the December FOMC meeting, the recent rise in market-based inflation expectations was discussed at length. On this basis, the rise in TIPS is important as it could have a significant role in setting monetary policy. Beyond that, we have argued for some time that a major challenge for firms this cycle will be to raise selling prices, i.e. a lack of pricing power will restrain profit margins and, ultimately, earnings growth. If the recent pick-up in market-based inflation expectations heralds a more robust rise in actual inflation, then profits could positively surprise this year. The Rise In TIPS Is Partially Energy-Driven... Since 2010, there has been a strong correlation between oil prices and TIPS (Chart 2). The correlation has somewhat confounded policymakers.1 In theory, any oil price shock, even if it is considered to be permanent, should not exert any lasting impact on long-dated forward measures of inflation expectations. The reason is that as long as the Fed is committed to its 2% inflation target, then the market should expect that monetary policy will prevent a one-time shock to oil prices from having any permanent effect on the overall inflation rate. This is why, in theory, the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate is a good indicator for policymakers. Chart 2Oil Prices And Breakevens Oil Prices And Breakevens Oil Prices And Breakevens As our fixed income team explained in a report last year,2 the main reason for the tight correlation between TIPS and oil prices stems from the market perception that monetary policy has been constrained. Prior to the financial crisis, oil prices rose from below $40 in 2003 to $140 in 2008. During that time, long-dated breakevens remained stable. One possible explanation for this lack of correlation is that the Fed tightened policy during this period, offsetting the inflationary impact from higher oil prices. But in 2015-2016, when oil prices fell from above $100 to below $40, breakevens plunged alongside. If the market perceives monetary policy to be constrained by the zero lower bound, then it could be the case that the cost of inflation compensation is highly sensitive to falling oil prices because the market perceives that the Fed has no ability to offset the deflationary shock. In other words, the 5-year/5-year TIPS breakeven rate has fallen because the zero lower bound is challenging the credibility of the Fed's inflation target. Our U.S. fixed income team forecasted that breakevens will head higher once oil prices move up and that the correlation between oil prices and breakevens will eventually weaken as the fed funds rate moves further away from the zero lower bound. The bottom line is that TIPS are most likely being unduly affected by energy price movements. ..And Only Thinly Corroborated By Alternative Inflation Indicators Despite our bias that the recent moves in market-based inflation expectations are exaggerated, TIPS are not the only gauge sending a more inflationary signal. This week's ISM manufacturing and non-manufacturing surveys both reported an uptick in prices paid (Chart 3). According to the manufacturing survey, 18 out of 21 recorded inputs were up in price over the past month. However, the bulk of these are commodities that have gone up in price alongside other financial market prices, and it is not clear the extent that the price rise is physical demand-driven, or financial demand-driven. In the non-manufacturing survey, the price rise was not quite as broad-based, but is nonetheless suggestive of upward price pressure. The NFIB small business survey also hinted at higher prices, although much more modestly than the ISM surveys (Chart 3). The Atlanta Fed's Business Inflation Expectations Survey has not broken out of the range that has held since 2011. There was no change in inflation expectations from the most recent survey of professional forecasters. Meanwhile, as we noted last week, consumers are not at all worried about inflation. In fact, according to the Conference Board survey, consumer inflation expectations are at a new cyclical low! At least part of the reason that consumers do not expect more inflation is likely due to their experience with frequently-purchased items. Table 1 shows inflation rates for selected high-frequency spending items, which account for about 30% of the total CPI basket. The table makes it easy to understand why perceptions about inflation are low: almost half of the items in the table are in deflation and only two are above the Fed's target of 2%. It may not matter that a good or service accounts for a small share of spending: if its price is going up/down at a steady pace, then there will be an impact on perceptions about inflation. Currently, very low or negative rates of inflation among frequently purchased items are likely pulling down consumers' perceptions of broad-based inflation. In this sense, one could argue that inflation expectations are very well-anchored. Chart 3Survey-Based Inflation ##br##Expectations More Mixed Survery-Based Inflation Expectations More Mixed Survery-Based Inflation Expectations More Mixed Table 1Inflation Rates For Selected ##br## High-Frequency Spending Items Inflation In 2017: An Idle Threat Inflation In 2017: An Idle Threat Actual Inflation Will Stay Subdued In 2017... Chart 4Only Mild Uptrend Likely In 2017 Only Mild Uptrend Likely In 2017 Only Mild Uptrend Likely In 2017 For many years, we have deconstructed core CPI and core PCE into their three major components to better understand and forecast the trend in consumer price inflation (Chart 4). Performing this exercise today continues to give a fairly benign forecast for inflation. Shelter, the largest component of core CPI, is mostly determined by rental vacancies which appear to be stabilizing just as market rents are rolling over. Our model suggests that shelter will not drive inflation higher in 2017. Core goods inflation (25% of core CPI) will also remain very low and possibly stay in deflationary territory. This component of inflation is most tightly correlated with the trade-weighted dollar (Chart 4, panel 3), and so will stay depressed as long as the bull market in the dollar remains intact. Wage growth is most tightly correlated with service sector inflation excluding shelter and medical care (Chart 4, bottom panel). This component, which accounts for 25% of core CPI, is the most likely source of inflation pressure now that wages are beginning to rise. But as we wrote in a Special Report on November 28, 2016, any wage inflation and pass-through is likely to be very gradual based on several structural headwinds at play this cycle. All in all, core PCE may converge on the Fed's target of 2% in the second half of 2017, but an inflation overshoot should not be a major driver of investment decision-making over the next six - twelve months. ...And Don't Blame Government Spending For Higher Inflation When It Does Come One missing ingredient from the above analysis is the likelihood that the political environment will become inflationary. This subject has been thoroughly covered by the financial press. Our own view has been that upcoming policies may not turn out to be particularly inflationary, at least not this year. For example, Trump's fiscal package may not boost aggregate demand by as much as the more optimistic estimates suggest. There simply are not enough marquee "shovel-ready" projects around that can make use of the public-private partnership structure that Trump's plan envisions in 2017. As for proposed personal tax cuts, the impact is likely to be modest, given that the benefits are tilted towards higher income groups that tend to save much of their earnings. Likewise, corporate tax cuts will have only an incremental effect on business capex, given that many companies are already flush with cash and effective tax rates are well below statutory levels. Our benign view about the impact of government spending on inflation is shared by researchers at the St Louis Federal Reserve. In a recent paper,3 researchers looked at periods when the central bank was not working to offset the potentially inflationary effects of fiscal policy, e.g. between 1959 and 1979, when the Fed followed a policy in which it accommodated increases in inflation. They found almost no effect of government spending on inflation. For example, a 10 percent increase in government spending during that period led to an 8 basis point decline in inflation. Note that this period covers years of when the economy was operating at full employment and below. As the researchers point out, this does not imply that countercyclical government spending is ineffective at boosting output, but it simply demonstrates that empirical evidence of inflation related to government spending is thin. The bottom line is that we view the likelihood of significant inflation pressure as low in 2017. The implication is that under this scenario, the Fed can afford to adjust their "dots" gradually, diminishing the risk for stocks and bonds of an aggressive adjustment to the policy backdrop. Equity Correction: Will China Be A Contributing Factor? Chart 5Is China Liquidity Tightening##br## A Repeat Threat To U.S. Equities? Is China Liquidity Tightening A Repeat Threat To U.S. Equities? Is China Liquidity Tightening A Repeat Threat To U.S. Equities? Over the past few weeks, we have argued that the odds of a meaningful equity correction are running high, given the aggressive rise in bond yields and exaggerated move in sentiment relative to only minor upside surprises in economic and earnings growth. We are still on high alert for this outcome and believe that one possible trigger is tighter liquidity conditions in China, which are aimed at supporting the renminbi. Indeed, just like the start of 2016, the Chinese renminbi is kicking off 2017 on a weak note. Chinese policymakers are again tightening rules to limit capital outflows: earlier this week, they adjusted the FX basket used to set the CNY's official daily fix. The new FX basket will include 24 currencies (up from 13). Consequently, the weight of the U.S. dollar drops from 26.4% to 22.4%. This will make it easier for the authorities to target a relatively stable renminbi versus the basket even as USD/CNY pushes higher. These attempts to support the renminbi is leading to tighter liquidity conditions and higher interbank interest rates. In Hong Kong, 3-month CNH Hibor has spiked to 10%. In the past, a combination of a weaker renminbi and rising interbank rates has spelled trouble for U.S. and global equities (Chart 5). There is no guarantee that history will repeat itself and one big difference with the sharp market sell-offs in mid-2015 and early 2016 is that the Chinese economy is not as weak as it was then. The PMIs released this week were generally firm. Overall, we are positive on equities and negative on bonds on a 12-month horizon but still see the risk of a correction to the Trump trade as elevated. Thus, investors should continue to stick close to benchmark tactically, looking to implement positions after a pullback in stock prices. Like in 2015 and early 2016, China could provide the trigger to that pullback if the authorities give up on capital controls and allow a sharp depreciation of the RMB. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.stlouisfed.org/~/media/Files/PDFs/Bullard/remarks/Bullard-N… 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report "A Tale Of Two Rallies", dated March 29, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2016/may/how-does-government-…

Feature China's corporate debt problem has been widely perceived as an alarming systemic risk - not only to China but also to the rest of the world. This has prompted a deep concern within the investment community, and has also become a major consideration in China's policy setting in recent years. This grand judgement, however, is almost entirely derived from observing the rapid increase in China's debt-to-GDP ratio. In our previous reports, we discussed various reasons behind China's rising debt-to-GDP ratio, with focus on looking beyond this widely scrutinized conventional indicator in search of the true leverage situation.1 This week, we further explore this path with bottom-up data-mining by looking at key leverage ratios of listed companies. Our latest findings confirm our previous conclusions that the Chinese corporate sector leverage situation is not as precarious as widely perceived both historically and in a global context. A "Bottom-Up" Glance From a bottom-up perspective, we gathered several key ratios to examine the leverage situation of Chinese-listed companies in comparison to their global peers. The ratios are broadly grouped into two categories to check leverage ratios and debt servicing capacity, respectively (Please refer to Appendix 1 for description of the ratios and indexes we used in our calculation). Leverage ratios include liability-to-assets, calculated as total liabilities to total assets and total debt-to-assets, which only includes interest-bearing debt on a company's balance sheet. Moreover, we also look at the cash-to-asset ratio to evaluate the "net debt" situation. Debt servicing ratios include net debt-to-EBITDA and interest coverage ratio, which is defined as EBITDA divided by interest expenses. A higher net debt-to-EBITDA ratio means higher debt obligations relative to profits, and is therefore an indication of more financial stress. Similarly, a lower interest coverage ratio implies more difficulties in honoring interest payment obligations, let alone principal, and is therefore an indication of higher vulnerability to default. Leverage Ratios Chinese-listed companies' median liability-to-asset ratio has increased marginally, from 55% prior to the global financial crisis to about 60% currently (Chart 1). This is roughly comparable to the ratio calculated by using the top-down data provided by the Chinese National Bureau of Statistics (NBS).2 Measuring only interest-bearing debt, the median debt-to-asset ratio is about 25%, rising in recent years but largely comparable to pre-crisis levels. Moreover, companies' holdings of cash and short-term investments make up 15% of total assets. As a result, the net debt-to-asset ratio is a mere 12%, according to our calculations. In all leverage ratios, the ones of Chinese firms do not look exceptionally high compared with other major markets (Chart 2). In fact, the Chinese ratios sit almost exactly in the middle of a global comparison (Please refer to Appendix 2 on page 8 for detailed historical data of other countries). Chinese companies' cash holdings appear high compared with other countries, ranking the second highest in our sample. This is probably because Chinese companies' access to bank loans or the commercial paper market is not as easy or reliable as in other countries where financial markets are more developed. Chinese regulators frequently change policies on bank loans, making companies' access to bank loans and other credit instruments unpredictable. Therefore, Chinese companies may have been forced to hoard large sums of cash to meet working capital needs. This is obviously suboptimal and inefficient, but also gives the corporate sector more flexibility in dealing with debt. Chart 1Chinese Leverage Ratios Chinese Leverage Ratios Chinese Leverage Ratios Chart 2Leverage Ratios In Global Context Rethinking Chinese Leverage, Part II Rethinking Chinese Leverage, Part II Net Debt-To-EBITDA Ratio The net debt-to-EBITDA ratio measures a company's debt obligations to its income-generating ability. Chinese firms' net debt-to-EBITDA ratio has increased in the past five years, which means their debt servicing capacity has indeed deteriorated (Chart 3, to panel). Moreover, with a median ratio of 1 and an average of 2, the ratio implies that larger firms, likely state-controlled in asset-heavy industries, have a more challenging debt-servicing problem, which is consistent with anecdotal evidence. Nonetheless, Chinese firms' net debt-to-EBITDA does not appear high compared with other markets (Chart 4 top panel). In fact, the median of Chinese firms' net debt-to-EBITDA ratio is among the lowest, according to our calculation. Conventional wisdom holds that a net debt-to-EBITDA ratio higher than 4 or 5 normally raises a red flag in terms of debt servicing issues. Using this measure, the debt situation of Chinese firms has indeed deteriorated significantly. Currently, about 30% of Chinese-listed companies have a net debt-to-EBITDA of higher than 4, up from 15% before the crisis (Chart 3, bottom panel). Nonetheless, similar deterioration has also been observed in almost all of our sample markets. The bottom panel of Chart 4 shows a similar percentage of firms in other countries with a net debt-to-EBITDA ratio over the threshold of 4. Chart 3Chinese Net Debt-To-EBITDA##br## Has Deteriorated... Chinese Net Debt-To-EBITDA Has Deteriorated... Chinese Net Debt-To-EBITDA Has Deteriorated... Chart 4...But Not Exceptional ##br## In Global Context Rethinking Chinese Leverage, Part II Rethinking Chinese Leverage, Part II Interest Coverage Ratio Interest Coverage ratio measures EBITDA relative to interest expenses, and therefore a lower reading indicates a greater probability of default and insolvency. The median interest coverage ratio of Chinese-listed companies has dropped from a peak of over 10 to about 6 in recent years, while the average has dropped even further - from 6 to 4 - both of which underscore a notable deterioration in debt servicing capacity (Chart 5, top panel). Similarly, the gap between the average and median interest coverage ratios of Chinese firms suggests that larger firms tend to have a worse debt situation than smaller ones. Chinese firms' interest coverage ratio is also right in the middle in our global comparison (Chart 6, top panel). Moreover, a key factor to consider is interest rates in these countries, as lower interest rates certainly help improve interest coverage, and vice versa. It is therefore not surprising that Japan, with its near-zero interest rates, has the higher interest coverage ratio, and Brazil the lowest. Companies with an EBITDA lower than interest expenses certainly are much more prone to default, and are sometimes regarded as "zombie" firms. Currently, over 6% of Chinese firms cannot cover interest expenses with current-year EBITDA, roughly unchanged in the past decade (Chart 5, bottom panel). Other markets also have a similar share "zombie" firms with an interest coverage ratio lower than 1, implying that Chinese firms do not look exceptional in a global context (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chart 5Chinese Interest Coverage Ratio ##br##Has Also Deteriorated... Chinese Interest Coverage Ratio Has Also Deteriorated... Chinese Interest Coverage Ratio Has Also Deteriorated... Chart 6...But Does Not Stand Out ##br##In Global Comparison Rethinking Chinese Leverage, Part II Rethinking Chinese Leverage, Part II Summary And Conclusions We remain skeptical about the widely held consensus that China's corporate sector leverage is dangerously high. At minimum, we believe it is inaccurate to solely rely on the debt-to-GDP ratio to reach such a crucial conclusion. Our extensive data exercise, both from the top down and the bottom up, suggest that China's leverage situation is comparable if not superior to its global peers. There are indeed signs of deterioration in leverage ratios and debt servicing capacity in recent years among Chinese firms, but the growth slowdown is at least partially to blame, as similar deterioration is also visible in other countries.3 From policymakers' point of view, boosting aggregate demand, lowering the cost of funding and improving operational efficiency should all be part of the solution to address the debt sustainability issue. From investors' perspective, we hold the view that Chinese equities, particularly H shares, have been unduly punished by macro concerns on corporate debt, and will be re-rated as this misperception unwinds. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com Sheng Kong, Research Assistant shengk@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Reports, "Chinese Deleveraging? What Deleveraging!" dated June 15, 2016, and "Rethinking Chinese Leverage," dated October 27, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Rethinking Chinese Leverage," dated October 27, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 A detailed study on U.S. corporate leverage situation was also conducted by BCA U.S. group. Please refer to "U.S. Corporate Health Gets A Failing Grade" dated January 28, 2016 published by The Bank Credit Analyst, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. Appendix 1 Table 1Indexes Used In Cross-Country Comparison Rethinking Chinese Leverage, Part II Rethinking Chinese Leverage, Part II Table 2Leverage Ratios Rethinking Chinese Leverage, Part II Rethinking Chinese Leverage, Part II Appendix 2 Chart 7 C7 C7 Chart 8 C8 C8 Chart 9 C9 C9 Chart 10 C10 C10 Chart 11 C11 C11 Chart 12 C12 C12 Chart 13 C13 C13 Chart 14 C14 C14 Chart 15 C15 C15 Chart 16 C16 C16 Chart 17 C17 C17 Chart 18 C18 C18 Chart 19 C19 C19 Chart 20 C20 C20 Chart 21 C21 C21 Chart 22 C22 C22 Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Dear Client, We are pleased to present our 2017 Outlook for Grains & Softs, covering corn, wheat, soybeans and rice in the grain markets, and cotton and sugar. This is our last regular Weekly Report for the year. You should have received BCA's annual "Mr. X" interview on December 20, and we trust you found it stimulating and insightful. We will resume regular publishing on January 5th with our annual Review and Outlook summarizing the performance of our market recommendations for 2016, with an eye on where we see value going into the New Year. As a preview, the average return on our recommendations this year was 33.1%, led by our Energy recommendations, which were up an average 95.1% in 2016. Please see page 15 of this week's report for a summary. The Commodity & Energy Strategy team wishes you and yours a wonderful holiday season and a prosperous New Year. Turning to the Ags, we believe there is a limited downside for grain prices in 2017. The downtrend since August 2012 may form a bottom next year under the assumption of normal weather conditions. However, the principal upside risk remains unfavorable weather in major grain-producing countries, which could send badly battered grain prices surging as they did in 2016H1. Among grains, we favor wheat and rice over corn and soybeans. Global soybean acreage is likely to expand as the crop provides higher returns than other grains. South American corn output will continue rising on favorable policies and weak currencies, adding further pressure to already-high U.S. corn inventories. Softs - cotton and sugar - likely will underperform grains in 2017, reversing their outperformance this year. We are tactically bearish cotton, as U.S. cotton acreage is likely to increase next spring. Strategically, we are neutral cotton. For the global sugar market, barring extremely unfavorable weather, we are tactically and strategically bearish. This year's extreme rally in prices may result in a small supply surplus in 2017. Our Ag strategies will continue to focus on relative-value investments. We have three investment strategies: We look to go long wheat versus cotton, long corn versus sugar, and long rice versus soybeans. Kindest regards, Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Chart 1Ag In 2017: A Reversal Of Grain ##br##Underperformance? bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c1 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c1 Feature Limited Downside For Grains; Softs ... Not So Much As of December 20, the CCI grain index had declined 0.3% since the beginning of this year. In comparison, sugar and cotton prices rallied 19.8% and 9.6% during the same period of time, respectively. For individual grains, soybean prices were up 15.4%, while corn, wheat and rice declined 2.4%, 14.2% and 18.2%, respectively. Cotton and sugar outperformed grains considerably this year (Chart 1, panel 1). Among grains, soybeans had the best run, while wheat and rice had the worst (Chart 1, panel 2). Going forward, the question is: Will these trends continue into 2017, or is a reversal likely to occur? For now, we cannot rule out the possibility of a continuation of these trends, but a reversal is possible, depending on weather conditions. We will tread water carefully and re-evaluate our calls next April when U.S. farmers' planting decisions are made, and the outlook for the South American soybean and sugar harvests become clearer. Grains In 2017: Likely Bottoming With Potential Upside We believe there is limited downside for grain prices in 2017. Four consecutive years of supply surpluses have driven grain prices down by more than 50% since August 2012, when grain prices reached all-time highs (Chart 2, panels 1 and 2). In the meantime, global grain inventories also rose to their highest levels since 2002 (Chart 2, panel 3). True, it is difficult to get bullish on such elevated inventories. Another year of supply surpluses obviously would send prices lower. Will that happen? No doubt, it could. But we believe the odds are fairly low. A Dissection Of This Year's Supply Increase Global grain output grew 5.2% this year, the second highest rate of growth since 2005. Yield growth, mainly due to extremely favorable weather, contributed 87% of the supply increase, while acreage expansion accounted for the rest (Chart 3, panels 1 and 2). Chart 2Grain: Too Much Supply In 2016... bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c2 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c2 Chart 3...Less Supply in 2017? bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c3 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c3 Now, with yields of corn, soybeans and wheat all at record highs, and rice yields near their record highs, grain yields are more likely to have a pullback than a continuation of growth in 2017. If global grain yields revert to their trend line as the third panel of Chart 3 suggests, global grain yields will decline 1.4% in 2017. This year, the world aggregate harvested grain acreage only grew 0.7%. Currently low grain prices are discouraging grain plantings, while new supportive policies in Argentina and a strengthening dollar are likely to encourage grain sowing in the southern hemisphere. Taking all related factors into account, we expect a 0.2 - 0.5% expansion in global grain acreage next year. Based on our analysis, we believe world grain output is likely to decline about 1% next year, assuming normal weather conditions. On the other side of the ledger, global grain demand has been growing steadily over the past 30 years (Chart 3, panel 4). Last year demand grew 3.4%. In 2017, low prices likely will boost consumption. Therefore, we expect similar growth in global grain demand next year. In the current crop year, the global grain market has a supply surplus of 55 million metric tons (mmt). Based on our calculations, given the assumptions we've outlined above, a 1% decline in global grain output coupled with 3.4% growth in global grain demand will swing the grain market into a supply deficit of 58 mmt. If we assume a more conservative scenario in which global grain output does not decline at all, a 2.2% rate of growth in global consumption still will send the global grain market into a supply deficit. The odds of seeing this scenario unfold are relatively high, given that the average growth in global grain consumption was 2.5% over the past 10 years, and 2.9% over the past four years, when grain prices were mired in a downtrend. We believe this would clearly be positive to global grain prices. Considering the elevated global grain inventories and the expected supply deficit we foresee, we believe, even if prices do not move to the upside, the downside for grain prices should be at least limited in 2017 as inventories are drawn down. In addition to the supply deficit, rising oil prices are supportive to grain prices as well. All else equal, higher oil prices will increase the production cost of grains. Bottom Line: We expect limited downside for grain prices next year. The 2017 Outlook For Individual Grains Corn, soybeans, wheat and rice prices are highly correlated with each other (Chart 4, panel 1). In terms of end consumption, they can all be consumed as either human food or animal feed. In terms of supply, farmers rotate among these crops depending on their profit outlook, soil conditions, and government policies. In 2017, we believe wheat and rice likely will outperform corn and soybeans, for two reasons: Crop-rotation economics and inventories. Chart 4Wheat & Rice May Outperform ##br##Corn & Soybeans In 2017 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c4 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c4 Firstly, global acreage rotation still favors soybeans most, then corn, over wheat and rice. If we rebase grain prices back to the beginning of 2006, corn and soybean prices are currently 62% and 67% higher than they were at the start of this interval. In comparison, wheat and rice prices are only 19% and 16% higher, respectively (Chart 4, panel 1). The U.S. is the world's biggest corn exporter, the second-largest soybean and wheat exporter. Informa Economics, a private consulting firm, projects 2017 soybean plantings will rise 6.2% to 88.862 million acres, while corn and winter wheat plantings will fall 4.6% and 8.1% to 90.151 million acres and 33.213 million acres, respectively. If these projections are realized, the 2017 U.S. winter wheat planted acreage will be the lowest since 1911. Winter wheat accounts for about 70% of U.S. total wheat production. Secondly, wheat and rice inventories ex-China declined, while corn and soybean inventories ex-China increased. Yes, it is true that the world wheat and rice stocks-to-use ratios rose to the highest since 2002 and 2003, respectively. (Chart 4, panel 2). But this does not show the full picture for these markets: 58% of global rice inventories and 44% of global wheat inventories are in China, even though that country accounts for only 12% of global rice imports and 2% of global wheat imports. China is unlikely to export these inventories to the world: the country tends to hold massive grain inventories, in order to prevent domestic food crises. This means that global wheat and rice importers outside China, which account for about 88% of the global rice trade and 98% of the global wheat trade, will compete for inventories outside China. The third panel of Chart 4 shows the rice stocks-to-use ratio for the ex-China world has already dropped to its lowest level since 2008, while the wheat stocks-to-use ratio ex-China already has declined for two years in a row. This is positive for wheat and rice prices. In comparison, the soybean and corn stocks-to-use ratios ex-China looks much less promising. Both ratios are at or near record highs (Chart 4, panel 3). China only accounts for 2% of the global corn trade, therefore corn importers outside China will have more abundant supplies available to them in 2017. China is the largest buyer of soybeans, accounting for 63% of the global soybean trade. The country will have more bargaining power, on the back of increasing competition among major soybean exporters (the U.S., Brazil and Argentina). In the meantime, China's central policy is currently focused on encouraging domestic soybean plantings mainly at the cost of corn, which is negative for global soybean prices and good for global corn prices. In 2016, the corn acreage in China fell for the first time since 2004 while its soybean acreage jumped 9.1% - the largest increase since 2001 (Chart 4, panel 4). Chart 5Downside Risks To Grains bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c5 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c5 Downside Risks To Our Grain View Grain prices could decline more than 10% from current levels next year, if favorable weather results in a slight drop (less than 1.4%) or even an increase in global grain yields. Also, if grain prices rise significantly in 2017H1 - for whatever reason - this likely would spur plantings and depress prices. If either of these events transpire, we will re-evaluate our grain view. A strengthening dollar is also a major risk to our view. BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy expects a further 5%-7% appreciation in U.S. dollar in 2017. We believe most of the negative effects of a strengthening dollar already are reflected in depressed grain prices, as the U.S. dollar has already appreciated 36% since July 2011. At the end of last week, the U.S. dollar was only 2% lower than all-time highs reached in February 2002 (Chart 5, panel 1). Another risk to watch is acreage expansion in Argentina, Brazil and the Former Soviet Union (FSU) region. All of these countries/regions had massive currency depreciations and supportive agricultural policies this year, especially in Argentina (Chart 5, panels 2, 3 and 4). However, our calculations show that for corn and wheat, acreage increases in these countries/regions are mostly offset by declines in the U.S. With an expectation of a continuing decline in U.S. wheat and corn plantings, we expect an insignificant growth in overall global wheat and corn acreage. For soybeans, however, the acreage expansion could pose a downside risk as all top three producers (the U.S., Brazil and Argentina) are likely to increase their plantings. We will re-evaluate the grain market at the end of March, when the U.S. posts its planting intentions for all major crops. Softs In 2017: Less Positive Than Grains Both cotton and sugar prices had strong rallies in 2016, following the second consecutive year of supply deficits (Chart 6). Global cotton acreage has declined 19% during the past five years when cotton prices fell significantly from peak prices in 2011. This is the main reason for the 18.3% decline in global cotton production during the same period of time and also for the two consecutive years of supply deficit in 2015 and 2016. For sugar, the El Niño phenomenon that ended this past summer hurt sugar plantings and crop development in major producing countries (Brazil, India, China and Thailand) in both 2015 and 2016, resulting in two years of supply deficit and a supercharged rally in 2016 sugar prices. Both cotton and sugar prices fell from their 2016 highs, with a 9.6% drop for cotton and a 23.4% decline for sugar. However, we are still tactically bearish on both commodities as speculators' net long positions are still crowed (Chart 7). Chart 6Cotton & Sugar: Supply Deficit in 2016 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c6 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c6 Chart 7Cotton & Sugar: Crowed Net Long Spec Positions bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c7 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c7 Strategically, we are neutral cotton and bearish sugar. For cotton, global demand will stay sluggish in 2017. Even though there has been no growth at all in global cotton demand for the past three years, the bad news is that there still are no signs of improvement in global textile demand (Chart 8). On the supply side, global cotton output may rise significantly next year, if farmers shift some of their grain acreage to cotton due to a better profit profile for cotton (Chart 9). We believe, barring extreme weather, the global cotton market will become more balanced next year, leaving us neutral in our price outlook. For sugar, with weather patterns back to normal and the extreme rally in prices this year, sugar output in India, Thailand, China and the EU (European Union) should receive a strong boost. In addition, a strengthening U.S. dollar will also encourage sugar production in those countries whose currency had massive depreciation like Brazil, Russia and India (Chart 10). Chart 8Cotton: Demand Does Not Look Good bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c8 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c8 Chart 9Cotton: Supply Will Increase In 2017 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c9 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c9 Chart 10Sugar Production Will Recover bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c10 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c10 On the demand side, average global sugar consumption growth was only 1.3% p.a. during 2013-2015, even though average sugar prices declined every year during that period. This year, global demand growth slowed to only 0.6%, as average sugar prices were 35% higher than last year. If sugar prices go sideways, the average prices will still be higher than this year, which may result in an even slower growth in global sugar demand. Given an extremely oversupplied corn market, cheaper corn syrup will replace sugar in its industrial uses. Chart 11Ag Investment Strategies: ##br##Focus On Relative-Value Trades bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c11 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_22_c11 Our calculations indicate the global sugar market is likely to have a supply surplus next year, which will be a big shift from this year's supply deficit. This likely will pressure sugar prices lower. Upside Risks To Our Softs View Both the cotton and sugar markets are still in supply deficits, which means any unfavorable weather in the major producing countries could send prices sharply higher. For sugar, Brazilian sugarcane mills could favor ethanol production instead of sugar in 2017 if the country keeps hiking gasoline prices and promotes ethanol consumption. So far, the sugar/ethanol price ratio in Brazil still favors sugar production. This can change quickly if ethanol prices in Brazil rise faster than sugar prices in 2017. We will monitor this risk closely. Investment Strategy Our Ag strategies continue to focus on relative-value investments. As such, we look to go long wheat versus cotton, long corn versus sugar, and long rice versus soybeans through the following recommendations: Long July/17 wheat vs. short July/17 cotton: We recommend putting this relative trade on if the wheat-to-cotton ratio drops to 5.75 (current: 6.14) (Chart 11, panel 1). Long July/17 corn vs. short July/17 sugar: We put a limit-buy order at 17 on this position on November 3, 2016. Since then, this ratio rose 12.8% and only declined to 17.47 on November 9. Now, we suggest initiating this position if the ratio falls back to 18.5 (Chart 11, panel 2). Long November/17 rice vs. short November/17 soybeans: We recommend putting this relative-value trade on if the ratio drops to 0.95 (current: 1.01) (Chart 11, panel 3). Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Closed Trades 2017 Commodity Outlook: Grains & Softs 2017 Commodity Outlook: Grains & Softs

Highlights 1.How Will The European Economy Cope With Higher Interest Rates? 2. How Will The European Stock Market Cope With Higher Interest Rates? 3. How Will The EU Respond To The Start Of Brexit? 4. Will The Bank of Japan's 0% Bond Yield Peg Undermine ECB Credibility? 5. What Does China's Debt Super Cycle Mean For Euro/Yuan? Feature Our strong sense is that the promised elixir of 'Trumponomics' has disoriented investors' concept of value. Suddenly thrown out of their comfort zone, long-term investors are struggling to assess: how much of Trumponomics is reality and how much is just fantasy? Chart of the WeekBrexit And Pound/Euro bca.eis_wr_2016_12_22_s1_c1 bca.eis_wr_2016_12_22_s1_c1 As rational and analytical long-term investors have become disoriented, emotional and impulsive short-term traders have been left unchecked to drive markets (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Markets Are Excessively Emotional Markets Are Excessively Emotional Markets Are Excessively Emotional Understand that the financial markets are an ecosystem in which long-term investors jostle with short-term traders. The stable equilibrium of this ecosystem relies on rationality and analysis ultimately checking emotion and impulse. And therein, perhaps, lies the essence of life itself. The descriptions "rationality and analysis" versus "emotion and impulse" are not judgements. They are simply the very different qualities needed to do very different jobs. Long-term investors must take time to rationalise and analyse the concept of fundamental value; whereas traders must use their immediate emotions and impulses to ride short-term market momentum. Therefore what happens in 2017 will depend on what the rational and analytical long-term investors conclude after their pause for reflection. This brings us to our five pressing questions for the coming year. 1. How Will The European Economy Cope With Higher Interest Rates? Now you could argue that the level of interest rates is very low by historical standards, even after last week's rate hike by the Federal Reserve. However, it is the change in interest rates that drives the change in credit growth (Chart I-3); and it is the change in credit growth that drives the change in GDP growth (Chart I-4). Chart I-3The Change In Bond Yield Drives##br## The Change In Credit Growth... bca.eis_wr_2016_12_22_s1_c3 bca.eis_wr_2016_12_22_s1_c3 Chart I-4...And The Change In Credit Growth Drives ##br##The Change In GDP Growth bca.eis_wr_2016_12_22_s1_c4 bca.eis_wr_2016_12_22_s1_c4 You could also argue that a 25bps hike in the Fed funds rate constitutes the tiniest of baby steps of monetary tightening. The problem is that bond yields have already jumped many multiples of this: the U.S. 15-year and 30-year bond yield and mortgage rate have spiked by over 75bps; the German 30-year bond yield is up 90bps; the Italian 30-year bond yield is up 100bps; and so on. It is these substantial increases in market interest rates that will weigh on credit-sensitive sectors and prospective 6-month GDP growth. Chart I-5Despite Dollar Strength, The Trade-Weighted##br## Euro Has Hardly Budged Despite Dollar Strength, The Trade-Weighted Euro Has Hardly Budged Despite Dollar Strength, The Trade-Weighted Euro Has Hardly Budged Another argument we hear is that higher bond yields are simply discounting better growth prospects ahead. The problem here is the inter-temporal distribution of growth. Higher market interest rates are a near-certain headwind to be felt within 3-6 months. Whereas Trumponomics is a very uncertain tailwind to be felt in 2018, or end 2017 at the earliest. Then there is the geographical distribution of growth. Trumponomics, at best, would boost U.S. growth. Yet market rates have also gone up aggressively in Europe, where there would be a minimal boost to growth. Bear in mind that despite dollar strength, the trade-weighted euro has depreciated just 3% from its October high (Chart I-5). Likewise, emerging market economies will see minimal growth benefits. Whereas higher dollar funding costs, stronger dollar-linked currencies, and the threat of protectionism constitute a meaningful headwind. The bigger question is: can a modern day King Canute1 single-handedly turn the tide of global deflation - the combined structural forces of over-indebtedness, demographics, technology, and globalization? There is much debate about this issue at BCA, but on balance this publication believes that the tide has not turned. 2. How Will The European Stock Market Cope With Higher Interest Rates? Trumponomics is not the structural game changer that the market seems to believe. But even if we are wrong on this, there is one over-arching relationship that will hold true irrespective: the relationship between stock market valuation and subsequent 10-year total nominal return (Chart I-6). This long-term relationship is independent of the economic backdrop: Keynesian, monetarist, neo-classical, deflationary, inflationary, or Trumponomics. Chart I-6Long-Term Returns Always Depend On Valuation Long-Term Returns Always Depend On Valuation Long-Term Returns Always Depend On Valuation The reason is that the 10-year total nominal stock market return comprises two components: the nominal income received through the next 10 years; and the terminal value of the market at the end of the 10 years. Crucially, an environment that boosts one component symmetrically depresses the second component, and vice-versa. For example, inflation boosts nominal income received, but depresses the terminal value (because the discount rate is then much higher). Deflation has the opposite effect. Therefore the relationship between valuation and subsequent 10-year total nominal return is environment-independent. Today, stock markets are priced to generate very low single-digit 10-year returns. But with the recent spike in long-term interest rates, investors can now obtain similar 10-year returns from bonds. In other words, the equity risk premium is dangerously compressed. Emotional and impulsive short-term traders do not care about this structural relationship, but rational and analytical long-term investors ultimately do. Bear in mind that the cross-asset and cross-sector moves over the past six weeks - whether in equity market, bond yield and dollar elevation, or bank outperformance, or yield-proxy and defensive underperformance - are all just various guises of the Trump reflation trade. We expect that rationality and analysis will conclude that Trumponomics is not the structural game changer that the market seems to believe right now. The trade: an unwinding of the various guises of the Trump reflation trade is likely, at least tactically. 3. How Will The EU Respond To The Start Of Brexit? Chart I-7Brexit Must Not Be A Gift To Le Pen Five Pressing Questions (And Four Trades) For 2017 Five Pressing Questions (And Four Trades) For 2017 The silence is deafening. While there is much daily noise from the U.K. about the type of Brexit it wants, the EU has been intentionally silent. Once the formal legal process of Brexit begins, it will be the EU that holds the balance of power on what Brexit ultimately looks like. The chatter from some U.K. government quarters is that it can negotiate advantageous Brexit terms. Good luck with that. Given the proximity of the French Presidential Election in April/May, the EU's opening position has to be uncompromising - so as to not hand Marine Le Pen any gifts (Chart I-7). The EU must make an example of the U.K. "pour encourager les autres". And if exiting the EU must come with a demonstrable cost, one casualty would be the pound. That said, 2017 will be an especially unpredictable year for U.K. politics and economics because Brexit creates a larger number of moving parts, complex interactions and feedback loops, both negative and positive. For example, if the Supreme Court grants the Scottish parliament a greater say in the terms of Brexit, it could compromise Theresa May's current strategy. The pound would rally on that tail-event possibility. The trade: the pound is unlikely to stay near today's €1.18. Expect a sharp move one way or the other (Chart of the Week). A good strategy might be to sell the middle of the distribution. There are many permutations of this but one example would be to short the pound and simultaneously buy call options at, say, €1.30. 4. Will The Bank of Japan's 0% Bond Yield Peg Undermine ECB Credibility? Chart I-8Pegs Get Broken bca.eis_wr_2016_12_22_s1_c8 bca.eis_wr_2016_12_22_s1_c8 2016 was the year when QE peaked. The ECB committed to lowering its monthly asset purchases. More significantly, the BoJ shifted its policy aim from targeting an amount of asset purchases to targeting a price (or yield) on the 10-year JGB. Thereby, the central bank policy experiment has moved into a more dangerous phase. As we explained in Dangers Of Linear-Thinking In A Non-Linear World 2 economies and markets are complex, non-linear systems. The inherent unpredictability of a non-linear system makes it futile and dangerous to aim for an over-precise point target in anything that we do. And that principle applies to central banks as much as to anybody else. Indeed, a 2% inflation target is a price target, albeit a price of a basket of goods and services, and the annual change of that price. The track record of any central bank achieving its self-imposed 2% inflation target in recent years is truly disastrous. Recall also that the Swiss National Bank had to break the franc's peg with the euro, one of the more recent in a long list of failed price pegs (Chart I-8). Our Fixed Income strategists believe the JGB 0% yield peg will hold. Nevertheless, the risk is underestimated that the BoJ will have to break the peg, in 2017 or beyond. The credibility of the ECB to suppress long-term bond yields would then be severely damaged. And the greatest danger would be to those euro area bond yields closest to zero. The trade: stay underweight French OATS. 5. What Does China's Debt Super Cycle Mean For Euro/Yuan? One defining feature of the last 40 years is a steady sequence of private sector credit booms which have inevitably turned to busts: notably, Japan in 1990, the Asian 'tigers' in 1998, the U.S. in 2007, and the U.K., Spain and other European countries in 2008 (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Credit Booms Sequentially Turned To Bust. Who's Next? Credit Booms Sequentially Turned To Bust. Who's Next? Credit Booms Sequentially Turned To Bust. Who's Next? In this defining feature, China's is the last of the major credit booms that hasn't turned to bust - yet. Admittedly, the ability of the Chinese authorities to 'extend and pretend' is probably greater than elsewhere in the world, and this might prevent another violent tipping point. Irrespective, the debt super cycle is over when the cost of malinvestment and misallocation of capital outweighs the benefit of good credit creation. With private sector indebtedness (including SOEs) now at, or beyond, the level where every other credit boom peaked, China appears to be approaching this point. One manifestation would be continued weakness in its currency against the major developed market crosses. The trade: go long euro/yuan. And with that, we are signing off for 2016. I do hope that this year's reports have provided some insight during particularly turbulent times, and that you might have even enjoyed the reading experience! It just remains for me to wish you a Merry Christmas and a successful and happy 2017. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 In fact, the story of King Canute has been misinterpreted. Rather than show that he could turn the tide, he wanted to show the opposite: that he was powerless against the tide. 2 Published on February 11, 2016 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* Pleasingly, two of our open trades hit their profit targets: long platinum / short palladium and short the Greek 10-year bond. Given the extended break, we are not opening any new trades over the Christmas and New Year holiday period. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 Long Platinum / Short Palladium Long Platinum / Short Palladium * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields bca.eis_wr_2016_12_22_s2_c1 bca.eis_wr_2016_12_22_s2_c1 Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields bca.eis_wr_2016_12_22_s2_c2 bca.eis_wr_2016_12_22_s2_c2 Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields bca.eis_wr_2016_12_22_s2_c3 bca.eis_wr_2016_12_22_s2_c3 Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields bca.eis_wr_2016_12_22_s2_c4 bca.eis_wr_2016_12_22_s2_c4 Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations bca.eis_wr_2016_12_22_s2_c5 bca.eis_wr_2016_12_22_s2_c5 Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations bca.eis_wr_2016_12_22_s2_c6 bca.eis_wr_2016_12_22_s2_c6 Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations bca.eis_wr_2016_12_22_s2_c7 bca.eis_wr_2016_12_22_s2_c7 Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations bca.eis_wr_2016_12_22_s2_c8 bca.eis_wr_2016_12_22_s2_c8

Dear Clients, This is the final publication for the year, in which we recap some of the key developments in 2016 and their long-term implications. We will resume our regular publishing schedule on January 5, 2017. The China Investment Strategy team wishes you a very happy holiday season and a prosperous New Year! Best regards, Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy Feature Senior Chinese policymakers conveyed in Beijing last week for their annual economic work conference - a high-profile gathering where top officials review the past year's economic performance and set the broad policy tone and development priorities for the coming year. The key messages from this year's meeting suggest that "stability and progress" remain a top priority, but that the importance of a GDP growth target appears less significant. Policymakers recognize the mounting challenges both globally and domestically, which suggests the policy environment will stay accommodative, especially on the fiscal front. Furthermore, the authorities intend to make material progress on "supply-side" reforms, which is both an admission of defeat in terms of progress this year and a pledge for more aggressive efforts going forward. We will be addressing China's policy orientation, growth outlook and asset prices in the New Year. As a year-end tradition, we dedicate this week's report to recapping some important developments of the past year and their long-term implications. A V-Shaped Recovery Under The Economic "New Normal" Chart 1V-Shaped Rebound##br## In The Economic New Normal bca.cis_wr_2016_12_22_c1 bca.cis_wr_2016_12_22_c1 The Chinese economy entered 2016 with worsening growth deceleration, but ended the year with a V-shaped rebound in industrial activity - even though GDP growth remained curiously stable1 (Chart 1). Destocking in the housing market and de-capacity in some industrial sectors were listed as two top priorities of the government for 2016, both of which were abruptly reversed as the year unfolded: strong home sales depleted housing inventories more quickly than expected, leading to a dramatic increase in home prices in major cities - prompting policymakers to re-impose restrictions on housing demand.2 Meanwhile, de-capacity in steel mills and coal mines greatly constrained domestic supply of related products, leading to both a massive increase in imports and a sharp rally in prices as demand improved. As a result, the authorities scrambled to remove some administrative constraints on domestic production on these two industries. The economy's V-shaped growth performance this year challenges some conventional thinking on China's growth fundamentals, particularly on the housing market and overcapacity. On housing, there is no doubt that some regions have abundant supply, which may take a long time to clear. On an aggregate level, however, the massive increase in home prices in some major cities suggest housing inventories may be much smaller than generally perceived.3 Similarly, overcapacity is widely regarded as a chronic feature of the Chinese economy inherent to its investment-heavy growth model - steelmakers and coalmines being two prime examples. However, the dramatic turnaround in these two industries this past year defies this widely held consensus.4 At minimum, China's overcapacity issue cannot be analyzed in isolation from a global context as well as from the current stage of the business cycle. Chart 2Monetary Conditions And ##br##Business Conditions Monetary Conditions And Business Conditions Monetary Conditions And Business Conditions Furthermore, while "supply-side" reforms were listed as a key theme for 2016, improvement in the industrial sector was to a large extent due to measures that boosted aggregate demand. Fiscal spending remained robust at the beginning of the year, following strong acceleration in 2015. More importantly, monetary conditions began to ease notably from the beginning of the year, leading to a notable improvement in business conditions among industrial enterprises (Chart 2). Nonetheless, the growth "new normal" envisioned by the Chinese leadership underlines the assumption of an "L-shaped" growth trajectory. Therefore, the V-shaped rebound in some key industrial indicators was both surprising and possibly unwelcome from the policymakers' point of view. The authorities will likely continue to switch priorities between supply side reforms and demand-side management going forward. Premature withdrawal of policy stimulus remains a key risk for the economy as well as financial markets. From Deflation To Inflation? 2016 marked a decisive end to Chinese producer price deflation, which lasted for more than four years. PPI, still falling at a 5% annual rate at the beginning of the year, turned up sharply toward the end of 2016, rising by over 3% in November, likely even higher this month. Investors' perception on Chinese producer prices and the broader inflation picture has also shifted dramatically. A mere few months ago China was widely blamed for exporting deflation to the rest of the world, which has quickly been replaced by a consensus that China is now exporting inflation. The sudden shift may have to some extent contributed to the bond market riot of late both globally and within China. The end of PPI deflation is a major positive development for the Chinese corporate sector, as it both improves its pricing power and also reduces its real cost of funding (Chart 3). Real bank lending rates deflated by PPI stayed at close to record highs early this year, and have since tumbled by a whopping 10 percentage points - largely due to easing deflation. This is a dramatic relief for some highly levered asset-heavy industries. Importantly, these industries were the biggest casualties in the growth slowdown and posed material risks to the banking sector due to their high debt levels. In this vein, rising PPI and easing financial stress among these firms also bodes well for the banking sector. Nonetheless, it is wrong to conclude that the end of PPI deflation in China means the country will export inflation going forward: Rising producer price inflation, measured as year-over-year growth, is to some extent due to the base effect. In terms of level, producer prices have clearly stopped falling, but gains have been rather mild and still remain at relatively low levels. It is too soon to worry about inflation (Chart 4, bottom panel). Easing deflation has also been attributable to the falling trade-weighted RMB this year (Chart 4, top panel), as producer prices typically follow exchange rate performance by about six months. While PPI may continue to follow the RMB higher in the coming several months, the trade-weighted RMB depreciation has already stalled, which may cap any additional upside in PPI. Unless the economy continues to recover strongly and/or the RMB resumes its depreciation, it is premature to expect PPI to continue to rise going forward. Chart 3Easing Deflation Helps Reduce##br## Real Interest Rates, Massively bca.cis_wr_2016_12_22_c3 bca.cis_wr_2016_12_22_c3 Chart 4PPI Inflation##br## In Perspective bca.cis_wr_2016_12_22_c4 bca.cis_wr_2016_12_22_c4 Domestic inflation does not necessarily lead to rising export prices, if a weaker RMB is the main factor to boost domestic prices (Chart 5). Indeed, rising Chinese domestic producer prices also means Chinese export prices in RMB terms have also been rising. Measured in U.S. dollar terms, however, Chinese export prices are still falling on a year-over-year basis. Similarly, U.S. import prices from China measured in RMB terms have been rising smartly, but in dollar terms are still been falling. This is positive for Chinese exporters' profitability, but is not inflating U.S. prices. Finally, a word on the sharp increase in Chinese bond yields. While growth improvement and easing deflation may have contributed to the sharp rebound in Chinese bond yields in recent weeks, global factors are likely more important. Chart 6 shows Chinese government bond yields have been increasingly synchronized with U.S. Treasurys in recent years, an interesting development considering China's still relatively closed capital markets. The rising correlation could be driven by economic fundamentals due to the tight connection between these two economies. Rising U.S. bond yields reflects changes in growth and inflation expectations in the U.S., which also impact the Chinese economy. Furthermore, the 123-basis-point spike in U.S. Treasurys since July 2016 has narrowed the yield gap with Chinese government bonds, which in turn has pushed up Chinese yields. This means that Chinese interest rates may remain under upward pressure should U.S. Treasury yields continue to grind higher. Chart 5End Of Chinese Deflation Does Not ##br## Necessarily Inflate The World bca.cis_wr_2016_12_22_c5 bca.cis_wr_2016_12_22_c5 Chart 6Chinese Bonds: ##br##The Global Connection bca.cis_wr_2016_12_22_c6 bca.cis_wr_2016_12_22_c6 Bottom Line: Easing deflation is good news for Chinese domestic firms, but it does not mean that China is about to export inflation to the rest of the world. Chinese government bond yields may have also made a cyclical low, and will likely continue to move higher along with global yields. The RMB's Bumpy Transition The RMB officially joined the Special Drawing Right (SDR) basket of the IMF in October, a historical moment marking an emerging country being admitted to the "elite currency" club. Joining the SDR helps promote the international status of the Chinese currency, which may offer some longer-term benefits.5 The immediate challenge for policymakers, however, is to fend off the constant downward pressure on the RMB against the dollar. More specifically, the People's Bank of China (PBoC) has clearly signaled its intention to allow the exchange rate to float, but has been deeply troubled by the potential of a downward spiral between capital outflows and outsized RMB depreciation. Overall, 2016 marks a tentative transition of the RMB exchange rate mechanism to a dirty float scheme. Indeed, the PBoC at the beginning of 2016 explicitly presented its formula of how the RMB's daily official fixing rate against the dollar is calculated. Strictly following this formula would lead to a largely stable trade-weighted RMB. In reality, however, the PBoC appears to have deliberately targeted a weaker exchange rate: the RMB was soft-pegged to the dollar whenever the dollar weakened against other currencies, and it was allowed to fall against the dollar whenever it strengthened broadly. As a result, the RMB depreciated by almost 10% in trade-weighted terms from its 2015 peak, which in no small part helped the economy reflate. However, this strategy also reinforced an already well-entrenched expectation of the RMB's one-way descent against the greenback. Shorting the RMB became a risk-free bet, which further encouraged capital outflows. There has been a rush to purchase foreign assets by the corporate sector, likely also incentivized by the RMB outlook.6 It is unclear how the PBoC will break this dilemma going forward. We expect the central bank will stay the course in further lowering the trade-weighted RMB, while at the same time tightening capital account controls to prevent capital flight.7 Its large current account surplus and official reserves should offer plenty of resources to maintain control. Its tight grip on the exchange rate may be progressively relaxed as it perceives the trade-weighted RMB to be "cheapened enough," which could generate two-way flows of capital. From this perspective, joining the SDR helps attract long-term foreign capital for Chinese risk-free assets. Bottom Line: Joining the SDR marks a historic milestone for the RMB, but the near-term significance is largely symbolic. The RMB's soft peg to the dollar is over. The PBoC is experimenting with a new exchange rate regime. Market Volatility And Financial Reforms Chart 7Policy Uncertainties And ##br##Equity Valuations bca.cis_wr_2016_12_22_c7 bca.cis_wr_2016_12_22_c7 The dramatic stock market rollercoaster ride in 2015 had already seriously damaged Chinese policymakers' credibility. The short-lived circuit-breaker system designed to curb market fluctuations in fact greatly exaggerated volatility at the beginning of the year, which further exposed the regulators' incompetency. Global investors' anxiety on China's macro situation has eased notably in recent months. However, Chinese stocks have ended the year largely flat, even though the industrial sector has staged a sharp recovery with strong earnings growth. Perceived high and rising policy uncertainty clearly dampens investors' appetite for Chinese assets, resulting in a large valuation discount to their global peers (Chart 7). Underneath, regulators' apparent policy blunders in the past two years represent a deeper and more systemic challenge than just incompetency. The country's rapidly developing financial system and capital markets have become increasingly complex, while the regulatory system lagged way behind. The current regulatory framework is poorly coordinated with sometimes conflicting priorities, leaving potentially systemically important developments falling through the cracks. The dramatic buildup of leverage in the stock market in 2015 outside of regulatory oversight was a prime example. This year, the leverage situation in commodities and bond markets has also been poorly scrutinized. A key reform initiative for the financial sector under the "reform blueprint" published a few years ago was to improve coordination among different regulators. The authorities plan to enhance supervision on systemically important financial institutions and systemically important financial infrastructure such as payment, clearing and custody systems to improve coordination of macro-prudential measures as well as collaboration on key financial statistics and information - all of which has yet to begin. The dramatic financial market volatility and policy blunders of late have created a pressing need to accelerate the process. In short, preventing financial risks has become an increasingly important priority of the government, and will remain a key task for 2017, as noted from last week's economic work conference. This necessarily involves fundamental reforms of the country's financial regulatory framework. We will follow up on these issues in the New Year. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Growth, Cyclical Risks And The Rally In Commodities," dated December 1, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Housing Tightening: Now And 2010," dated October 13, 2016 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Chinese Housing Market Conundrum," dated May 25, 2016 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Myth Of Chinese Overcapacity," dated October 6, 2016 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The RMB's Near-Term Dilemma And Long-Term Ambition," dated October 20, 2016 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Demystifying China's Foreign Assets," dated December 15, 2016 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "How Will China Manage The Impossible Trinity," dated December 8, 2016 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights The U.S. dollar will continue to appreciate while the RMB will depreciate further. This is a bad omen for EM risk assets, commodities, and global late cyclical equity sectors. Gold often leads oil and copper prices. Investors should heed the current downbeat message from gold. EM credit spreads have become detached from fundamentals and are unreasonably tight. Continue overweighting the Indian bourse within an EM equity portfolio. A new equity trade: long Indian software stocks / short the EM overall index. Feature There are several major discrepancies in financial markets that in our view are unsustainable. 1. The gap between EM equity breadth, USD, RMB and EM share prices One way to measure equity market breadth is to compare performance of equal-weighted versus market cap-weighted stock price indexes. Based on this measure, EM stock market breadth has been deteriorating. Poor breadth often heralds a major selloff (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Poor EM Equity Breadth Heralds A Major Selloff Poor EM Equity Breadth Heralds A Major Selloff Poor EM Equity Breadth Heralds A Major Selloff Remarkably, the same measure for the U.S. stock market shows improving breadth. The relative performance of equally-weighted EM stocks against U.S. equity indexes - a measure of breadth in relative performance - can also be a reliable marker for the relative performance of market cap-weighted indexes. It has plummeted to a new low pointing to new lows in EM versus U.S. relative share prices. In addition, a surging U.S. dollar has historically meant lower EM share prices (Chart I-2). We doubt this time is different. Finally, EM risk assets have decoupled from the RMB/USD exchange rate as well. The RMB has been depreciating and China's domestic corporate and government bond yields have spiked. As a result, the on-shore bond prices in RMB terms have plummeted (Chart I-3). Chart I-2A Rising U.S. Dollar Is ##br##A Bad Omen For EM A Rising U.S. Dollar Is A Bad Omen For EM A Rising U.S. Dollar Is A Bad Omen For EM Chart I-3China's On-Shore Corporate Bond##br## Prices Have Crashed bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c3 bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c3 Experiencing considerable losses on their favorite financial investment of the past year, bonds, Chinese investors, as well as households and companies, could opt to switch into U.S. dollars. The stampede into the U.S. dollar could start as early as January when the annual US$ 50,000 quota per person becomes available. It is hard to see what the government will do to preclude this rush and massive flight towards U.S. dollars. In China, households' and corporates' RMB deposits in the banking system amount to RMB 122 tn or US$17.5 tn. Hence, the PBoC's foreign exchange reserves including gold at US$ 3.2 tn are only equal to 18.5% of these deposits at the current exchange rate. Bottom Line: The U.S. dollar will appreciate and the RMB will depreciate. This is a bad omen for EM share prices and other risk assets. 2. Oil and copper prices deviating from gold prices Historically, when gold and oil prices have diverged, gold in most cases has proven more forward looking, with oil prices ultimately converging toward gold prices. Chart I-4A and Chart I-4B illustrate past episodes of gold and oil decoupling (in the 1980, 1990s and 2008), each of which were resolved via oil prices gravitating toward gold prices. Chart I-4AGold Led Oil Prices bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c4a bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c4a Chart I-4BGold Led Oil Prices Gold Led Oil Prices Gold Led Oil Prices In short, if history is any guide, the current gap between gold and oil prices will likely close via lower oil prices (Chart I-5, top panel). The same holds true for the recent divergence between gold and copper prices (Chart 5, bottom panel). We identified four historical periods when gold and copper prices diverged. In each case, it was copper prices that amended their trajectory and aligned with the direction of gold prices (Chart I-6A and 6B). Chart I-5Divergence Between Oil, Copper And Gold Divergence Between Oil, Copper And Gold Divergence Between Oil, Copper And Gold Chart I-6AGold Led Copper Prices Too bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c6a bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c6a Chart I-6BGold Led Copper Prices Too bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c6b bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c6b In sum, historically there have been a number of episodes when gold has led both oil and copper prices. Investors should heed the current downbeat message from gold. Chart I-7China: Dichotomies bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c7 bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c7 The underlying rationale could be that gold responds to monetary/liquidity conditions (gold is very sensitive to U.S. TIPS (real) yields) while oil and copper are more sensitive to growth conditions. Tightening in monetary/liquidity conditions often precedes a growth relapse. This could be the reason why gold has led oil and copper prices on several occasions in the past. 3. Dichotomies in China's industrial economy There are two types of dichotomies underway within China's industrial economy: The first is between industrial activity and industrial commodities prices. Commodities prices have surged, but the pace of manufacturing production has not improved at all (Chart I-7). There have been major discrepancies among various segments of China's industrial economy, with utilities surging and the technology sector remaining robust, and many others stagnating. The decoupling between industrial activity and industrial commodities prices can be explained by financial speculation and supply cutbacks. The former is unsustainable, while the latter is reversing as the government is gradually lifting restrictions on supply for coal and steel. The second is between the private- and state-owned parts of the industrial sector. The state-owned segment has experienced a meaningful improvement in output, while private companies in the industrial sector have seen their output growth weaken, albeit the growth rate is higher than in the SOE sector. (Chart I-7, bottom panel). As China's fiscal and credit impulses wane,1 activity in the state-owned industrial segment will relapse anew. 4. EM credit spreads diverging from EM currencies and credit fundamentals EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads (credit markets) are once again proving very resilient, despite the renewed selloff in EM currencies (Chart I-8). EM credit markets have defied deteriorating EM credit fundamentals in the past several years. Below we identify several divergences and anomalies within the EM credit space that give us confidence that EM credit markets have become detached from fundamentals, and that their risk-reward profile is poor. Chart I-8EM Credit Markets And EM Currencies:##br## A Widening Dichotomy EM Credit Markets And EM Currencies: A Widening Dichotomy EM Credit Markets And EM Currencies: A Widening Dichotomy Chart I-9EM Corporate Financial Health:##br## Not Much Improvement bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c9 bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s1_c9 The EM Corporate Financial Health (CFH) Indicator has stabilized, but remains at a very depressed level (Chart I-9, top panel). This amelioration is largely due to the profit margin component. The other three components have not improved (Chart I-9, second panel). The valuation model based on the EM CFH indicator shows that EM corporate spreads are far too tight (Chart I-10). Chart I-10EM Corporate Bonds Are Expensive EM Corporate Bonds Are Expensive EM Corporate Bonds Are Expensive The strong performance of EM credit markets in recent years has been justified by the persistence of low bond yields in developed markets (DM). Yet the latest spike in DM bond yields has so far not caused EM credit spreads to widen. We expect U.S./DM government bond yields to rise further, and the U.S. dollar to continue to strengthen. This, along with potential broad-based declines in commodities prices, should lead to material widening in EM sovereign and corporate credit spreads in early 2017. With respect to unsustainable discrepancies, the case in point is Brazil. The country's sovereign and corporate spreads have tightened a lot this year, even though economic activity continues to shrink. The country has had numerous boom-bust cycles in the past 100 years, yet this depression is the worst on record. In fact, the nation's economic growth and public debt dynamics are worse than at any time during the past 20 years. Yet, at 300 basis points, sovereign spreads are well below the 1000-2500 basis point trading range that prevailed in the second half of 1990s and early 2000s (Chart I-11). Remarkably, the economy's pace of contraction has lately intensified (Chart I-12). This will likely worsen government revenues and lead to further widening in the fiscal deficit - making debt dynamics unsustainable. Another absurd credit market divergence is between China's sovereign CDS and Chinese offshore corporate spreads. Sovereign CDS spreads have been widening, but corporate credit spreads remain very tight (Chart I-13). Chart I-11Brazil: Dichotomy Between Sovereign ##br##Spreads And Fundamentals Brazil: Dichotomy Between Sovereign Spreads And Fundamentals Brazil: Dichotomy Between Sovereign Spreads And Fundamentals Chart I-12Brazil's Economy: ##br##No Improvement At All Brazil's Economy: No Improvement At All Brazil's Economy: No Improvement At All Chart I-13Chinese Sovereign CDS And ##br##Off-Shore Corporate Spreads Chinese Sovereign CDS And Off-Shore Corporate Spreads Chinese Sovereign CDS And Off-Shore Corporate Spreads Yet there is much more risk in Chinese corporates than in government debt. The corporate sector commands record leverage of 165% of national GDP, while public debt stands at 46% of GDP. Besides, the central government in China will always have immediate access to domestic or foreign debt markets, while some corporations could lose access to financing if creditors question their creditworthiness and decide to tighten credit. There is no rational case to support the rise in sovereign CDS when corporate spreads are tame. The only feasible explanation is that investors - who are invested in Chinese corporate bonds, and are not interested in selling them - are buying sovereign CDS to tactically hedge their credit exposure. If and when market sentiment sours sufficiently, and credit spread widening is perceived durable and lasting, real money will sell corporate bonds, resulting in a major spike in corporate spreads. 5. Divergence between global late cyclicals and the U.S. dollar Another area where we detect that financial markets have lately become overly optimistic is in global late cyclicals - materials, machinery and energy stocks. Typically, the absolute share prices in these sectors correlate with the U.S. dollar exchange rate but they have lately diverged (Chart I-14). Furthermore, global machinery stocks in general, and Caterpillar's share price in particular, have lately staged significant gains, while their EPS and sales continue to plunge (Chart I-15). Notably, Caterpillar's sales have not improved, even on a rate-of-change basis. Chart I-14Global Late Cyclicals And The U.S. Dollar: ##br##Unsustainable Decoupling Global Late Cyclicals And The U.S. Dollar: Unsustainable Decoupling Global Late Cyclicals And The U.S. Dollar: Unsustainable Decoupling Chart I-15Global Machinery Sales And##br## Profits Continue Plunging Global Machinery Sales And Profits Continue Plunging Global Machinery Sales And Profits Continue Plunging EM including China capital spending in real terms is as large as the U.S. and EU capital spending combined (Chart I-16). If the EM and China capex cycle does not post a recovery, which is our baseline view, it will be hard for global late cyclical stocks to continue rallying based solely on the positive outlook for U.S. infrastructure spending and potential U.S. tax reforms. In short, global late cyclicals such as machinery, materials and energy stocks that performed quite well in 2016 are vulnerable to a major pullback as EM/Chinese capital spending disappoints on the back of credit growth deceleration. Notably, these global equity sectors have reached a major technical resistance that will likely become a ceiling for their share prices (Chart I-17). Chart I-16EM/China's Capex Is As Large As ##br##U.S. And Euro Area Combined EM/China's Capex Is As Large As U.S. And Euro Area Combined EM/China's Capex Is As Large As U.S. And Euro Area Combined Chart I-17Global Late Cyclicals Are ##br##Facing Technical Resistance Global Late Cyclicals Are Facing Technical Resistance Global Late Cyclicals Are Facing Technical Resistance 6. Decoupling between the South African rand and precious metals prices The South African rand's recent resilience - despite the considerable drop in precious metal prices - is unprecedented (Chart I-18, top panel). Similarly, the rand has also decoupled from the exchange rate of another major metals producer: Australia (Chart I-18, bottom panel). We cannot think of any reason why these discrepancies can or should persist. Rising global bond yields and a broadening selloff in commodities prices should hurt the rand. In fact, the trade-weighted rand is facing a major technical resistance (Chart I-19) and will likely relapse sooner than later. Chart I-18Rand, AUD And ##br##Precious Metals Rand, AUD And Precious Metals Rand, AUD And Precious Metals Chart I-19Trade-Weighted Rand Is ##br##Facing Technical Resistance Trade-Weighted Rand Is Facing Technical Resistance Trade-Weighted Rand Is Facing Technical Resistance We reiterate our structural short position in the rand versus the U.S. dollar, and on October 12, 2016 initiated a short ZAR / long MXN trade. Traders should consider putting on these trades. Investment Strategy Chart I-20EM Relative Equity Performance ##br##Is Heading To New Lows EM Relative Equity Performance Is Heading To New Lows EM Relative Equity Performance Is Heading To New Lows Emerging markets share prices and currencies have been doing poorly since October, despite U.S. equity shares breaking out to new highs. In fact, almost all relative outperformance has been wiped out (Chart I-20). BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team expects further declines in EM share prices and currencies, as well as a selloff in domestic bonds and a widening of sovereign and corporate spreads. Absolute return investors should stay put, while asset allocators should maintain underweight positions in EM risk assets within respective global portfolios. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com India: Demonetization And Opportunities In Equities On November 8, India launched a demonetization program with the goal of removing the two most used banknotes - the 500 INR and 1000 INR banknotes - from circulation. Both banknotes accounted for roughly 85% of currency in circulation, which itself accounts for 13% of India's broad money supply. Moreover, almost 90%2 of retail transactions in India are cash-reliant. While around INR 13 trillion of notes (US$ 190 billion) have been deposited in the banking system as of December 10, only INR 5 trillion of new notes have been issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). India is unlikely to turn cashless overnight. According to a Harvard Business Review article,3 less than 10% of Indians have ever used non-cash payment instruments. Likewise, less than 2% of Indians have used a cellular phone to receive a payment. This implies cash shortages could persist for a while and will have a significant impact on short-term economic activity. There are numerous reports that layoffs and business shutdowns have ensued in several industries, particularly in the informal economy (Chart II-1). The service sector PMI already dipped below 50 in November and the manufacturing PMI fell as well (Chart II-2). Chart II-1Very Weak Employment Outlook Very Weak Employment Outlook Very Weak Employment Outlook Chart II-2Indian PMIs Are Sinking Indian PMIs Are Sinking Indian PMIs Are Sinking Having boomed over the past year, motorcycle sales growth is now waning. Similarly, passenger and commercial vehicle sales - that have been anemic - will now dip. However, the consumption slowdown should not continue beyond the next couple of months. As more currency is supplied by the RBI, economic activity will rebound - particularly household spending. Pent-up demand will be unleashed as money circulation is restored. Nevertheless, investment expenditures are the key factors for improving productivity and, hence, as non-inflationary growth potential. Capital spending had been anemic in India well before the demonetization program was announced (Chart II-3). The reason for such lackluster investment expenditure lies in the fact that past investment projects taken on by highly leveraged Indian conglomerates have delivered poor performance. This translated into ever rising non-performing loans (NPLs) at state banks. Without debt restructuring and public bank recapitalization, a new capex cycle is unlikely in India. Consistently, credit to large industries is now contracting (Chart II-4) and foreign lending to Indian companies is declining. Chart II-3Indian Capex Is Anemic Indian Capex Is Anemic Indian Capex Is Anemic Chart II-4Banks Prefer Consumers bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s2_c4 bca.ems_wr_2016_12_21_s2_c4 We expect the demonetization program to hurt capital spending only mildly in the coming months, but do not expect a material bounce in investment afterward, unlike the one slated for household consumption. Indian share prices have more downside in absolute terms, as the market is still expensive and growth is slumping. Nevertheless, India will likely outperform the EM equity benchmark going forward (Chart II-5). Chart II-5Indian Share Prices: A Tapering Wedge Indian Share Prices: A Tapering Wedge Indian Share Prices: A Tapering Wedge The rationale for our overweight on Indian equities within the EM stock universe is due to the nation's much better macro fundamentals relative to those in many other EM. In particular, deleveraging and NPL write-offs are more advanced, the current account deficit is small, and India will benefit from potentially lower commodities prices. Within the Indian bourse, we recommend overweighting software stocks that will benefit from a revival in advanced economies' growth and a weaker currency. Besides, Indian software stocks are not exposed to the currently weak domestic consumption cycle and in fact might benefit from the push toward digitalization in banking. Bottom Line: Indian consumption will weaken in the coming three months or so, but will rebound thereafter. The capex cycle is weak and will remain subdued. Continue overweighting the Indian bourse within an EM equity portfolio. A new equity recommendation: long Indian software stocks / short the EM overall index. Ayman Kawtharani, Research Analyst aymank@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Key EM Issues Going Into 2017," dated December 14, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2 Chakravorti, B., Mazzotta, B., Bijapurkar, R., Shukla, R., Ramesha, K., Bapat, D., &Roy, D. (2013). The cost of cash in India. Institute of Business in the Global Context, Fletcher School, Tufts University. 3 Chakravorti, B. (2016, December 14). India's Botched War on Cash. Retrieved from https://hbr.org Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Mr. X is a long-time BCA client who visits our offices towards the end of each year to discuss the economic and financial market outlook. This report is an edited transcript of our recent conversation. Mr. X: What a year it has been. The Brexit vote in the U.K. and the U.S. election result took me completely by surprise and have added to an already uncertain economic environment. A year ago, you adopted the theme of "Stuck In A Rut" to describe the economic and financial market environment and that turned out to be quite appropriate. Consistent with that rut, many issues concerning me for some time have yet to be resolved. Global economic growth has stayed mediocre, debt levels remain elevated almost everywhere, the outlook for China continues to be shrouded in fog, and stimulative monetary policies are still distorting markets. And now we face political shifts that will have major economic and financial effects. Some big changes are underway and I fear that we are more likely to head in a negative rather than positive direction. Therefore, I am very interested to learn how you see things developing. You have recommended a cautious investment stance during the past year and I was happy to go along with that given all my concerns about the economic and policy environment. While stocks have done rather better than I expected, it has all been based on flimsy foundations in my opinion. I have never been comfortable buying an asset just because prices are being supported by excessively easy money policies. The question now is whether looming changes in the policy and economic environment and in global politics will fuel further gains in risk assets or whether a significant setback is in prospect. I hope our discussion will give some clarity on this but, before talking about the future, let's quickly review what you predicted a year ago. BCA: It has indeed been a momentous year and we do seem to be at important turning points in many areas. For example, changing attitudes toward free trade and fiscal policy do have important implications for economic growth and interest rates. And this is being reinforced by cyclical economic trends as labor markets tighten in the U.S. However, it is too soon to know the extent to which political and policy uncertainties will diminish in the U.S. and Europe. You seek clarity on the investment outlook, but that will remain as challenging an objective as ever. You asked to start with a review of last year's predictions and this is always a moment of some trepidation. A year ago, our key conclusions were as follows: The current global economic malaise of slow growth and deflationary pressures reflects more than just a temporary hangover from the 2007-09 balance sheet recession. Powerful structural forces are at work, the effects of which will linger for a long time. These include an ongoing overhang of debt, the peak in globalization, adverse demographics in most major economies, monetary policy exhaustion, and low financial asset returns. Investor expectations have yet to adjust to the fact that sub-par growth and low inflation are likely to persist for many years. The Debt Supercycle is over, but weak nominal GDP growth has made it virtually impossible to reduce debt burdens. Nonetheless, a debt crisis in the advanced economies is not in prospect any time soon because low interest rates are keeping a lid on debt servicing costs. Perhaps high inflation and debt monetization will be the end-point, but that is many years away and would be preceded by a deflationary downturn. Despite ongoing exciting technological advances, the IT boom has lost its edge in terms of boosting economic growth. Even if productivity is understated, the corollary is that inflation is overstated, suggesting that central bankers will continue to face a policy dilemma. The Fed will raise interest rates by less than implied by their current projections. And the European Central Bank and Bank of Japan may expand their QE programs. Yet, monetary policy has become ineffective in boosting growth. Fiscal policy needs to play a bigger role, but it will require another recession to force a shift in political attitudes toward more stimulus. The U.S. economy will remain stuck in sub-2.5% growth in 2016, with risks to the downside. The euro zone's performance has improved recently, but 2016 growth will fall short of the IMF's 1.9% forecast. Japan's growth will continue to disappoint as it will in most other developed economies. China will continue to avoid a hard landing but growth will likely average below 6% in 2016 and beyond. Other emerging economies face a difficult environment of weak commodity prices, declining global trade. Those with excessive foreign-currency debt face additional pressures with weak exchange rates preventing an easing in monetary policy. Bonds offer poor long-term returns from current yields, but sovereign bonds in the major developed countries offer a hedge against downside macro risks and we recommend benchmark weightings. The fundamental backdrop to corporate and EM bonds remain bearish and spreads have not yet reached a level that discounts all of the risks. A buying opportunity in high-yield securities could emerge in the coming year but, for the moment, stay underweight spread product. We have turned more cautious on equities given a deterioration in the earnings outlook and in some technical indicators. No more than benchmark weighting is warranted and we would not argue against a modest underweight. The typical warning signs of a bear market are not in place but risks have risen. The U.S. equity market is expected to underperform that of Europe and Japan. Continue to stay away from emerging equities and commodity-oriented bourses. We continue to favor a defensive sector stance, favoring consumer staples and health care over cyclical sectors such as materials, energy and industrials. The bear market in commodities is not over. The sharp drop in oil prices will eventually restore balance to that market by undermining non-OPEC production and supporting demand, but this could take until the third quarter of 2016. The oil price is expected to average around $50 a barrel for the 2016-2018 period. The strong dollar and deflationary environment create a headwind for gold, offsetting the benefits of negative real interest rates. But modest positions are a hedge against a spike in risk aversion. The dollar is likely to gain further against emerging and commodity-oriented currencies. But the upside against the euro and the yen will be limited given the potential for disappointments about the U.S. economy. As was the case a year ago, geopolitical risks are concentrated in the emerging world. Meanwhile, the new world order of multipolarity and an increased incidence of military conflicts is not yet priced into markets. We do not expect the U.S. elections to have any major adverse impact on financial markets. On the economic front, we suggested that economic risks would stay tilted to the downside and this turned out to be correct with global growth, once again, falling short of expectations. A year ago, the IMF forecast global growth of 3.6% in 2016 and this has since been downgraded to 3.1%, the weakest number since the recovery began (Table 1). The U.S. economy fell particularly short of expectations (1.6% versus 2.8%). The downgrading of growth forecasts continued a pattern that has been in place since the end of the 2007-09 downturn (Chart 1). We cannot recall any other time when economic forecasts have been so wrong for such an extended period. The two big disappointments regarding growth have been the lackluster performance of global trade and the ongoing reluctance of businesses to expand capital spending. Not surprisingly, inflation remained low, as we expected. Table 1IMF Economic Forecasts January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes Chart 1Persistent Growth Downgrades Persistent Growth Downgrades Persistent Growth Downgrades Given the disappointing economic performance, we were correct in predicting that the Federal Reserve would not raise interest rates by as much as their earlier forecasts implied. When we met last year, the Fed had just raised the funds rate from 0.25% to 0.5% and the median expectation of FOMC members was that it would reach 1.4% by end-2016 and 2.4% by end-2017. As we now know, the Fed is now targeting a funds rate of 0.5% to 0.75% and median FOMC projections are for 1.4% by end-2017 (Chart 2). Meanwhile, as we expected, both the ECB and Bank of Japan expanded their quantitative easing programs in an attempt to stimulate growth. Chart 2Changes In the Fed's Expectations Changes in the Fed's Expectations Changes in the Fed's Expectations Our concerns about the poor prospects for emerging economies were validated. The median 2016 growth rate for 152 emerging economies tracked by the IMF was only 3.1%, a notch below the 2015 pace and, barring 2009, the weakest number since the late 1990s Asia crisis. The official Chinese data overstate growth, but there was no hard landing, as many commentators continued to predict. Turning to the markets, there was considerable volatility during the year (Table 2). For example, U.S. bond yields fell sharply during the first half then rebounded strongly towards the end of the year, leaving them modestly higher over the 12 months. Yields in Europe and Japan followed a similar pattern - falling in the first half and then rebounding, but the level continued to be held down by central bank purchases. Japanese bonds outperformed in common currency terms and we had not expected that to occur, although there was a huge difference between the first and second halves of the year, with the yen unwinding its earlier strength in the closing months of the year. Table 2Market Performance January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes Our caution toward spread product - corporate and EM bonds - turned out to have been unjustified. Despite worsening fundamentals, most notably rising leverage, the search for yield remained a powerful force keeping spreads down and delivering solid returns for these securities. Spreads are back to very low levels, warning that further gains will be hard to achieve. Equity markets made moderate net gains over the course of the year, but it was a roller coaster journey. A nasty early-year downturn was followed by a rebound, an extended trading range and a late-year rally. While the all-country index delivered a total return of around 8% for the year in common currency terms, almost one-third of that was accounted for by the dividend yield. The price index rose by less than 6% in common currency and 7% in local currency. However, our recommendation to overweight Europe and Japan did not pan out. Once again, the U.S. was an outperformer with the financially-heavy European index weighed down by ongoing concerns about banks, and Japan held back by its lackluster economic performance. Oil prices moved much as we expected, with Brent averaging around $45 over the year. At this time in 2015, prices were below $40, but we argued that a gradual rebalancing would bring prices back into a $45-$60 range in the second half of 2016. We did not expect much of a rise in the gold price and it increased less than 7% over the year. However, we did not try to dissuade you from owning some gold given your long-standing attraction to the asset, subject to keeping the allocation to 5% or less of your portfolio. Industrial commodity prices have been much stronger than we predicted, benefiting from a weak dollar in the first half of the year and continued buoyant demand from China. Finally, the dollar moved up as we had predicted, with the gains concentrated in the second half of the year. The yen's first-half strength was a surprise, but this was largely unwound in the second half as U.S. bond yields climbed. Mr. X: Notably absent has been any mention of the two political shocks of 2016. BCA: We did tell you that the U.K. referendum on Brexit was the key risk facing Europe in 2016 and that the polls were too close to have a strong view. Yet, we did not anticipate that the vote to leave the EU would pass. And when you pushed us a year ago to pick a winner for the U.S. election we wrongly went with Clinton. Our Global Strategist, Peter Berezin, was on record predicting a Trump victory as long ago as September 2015. But it seemed such an outrageous idea that our consensus view stuck to the safer option of Clinton. Interestingly, during our discussion at the end of 2014, we did note that a retreat from globalization was one of the risks in the outlook and we re-emphasized that point last year, pointing to rising populist pressures. However, we underestimated the ability of Brexit campaigners and Donald Trump to capitalize on the anger of disaffected voters. Trade and immigration policies are not the only areas where policy appears to be at a turning point. For example, fiscal conservatism is giving way to stimulus in the U.S. and several other countries, inflation and interest rates are headed higher, at least temporarily, and 2017-2018 should finally arrest the multi-year spectacle of downgrades to global growth projections. Yet, markets have a tendency to overreact and that currently seems to be the case when it comes to discounting prospective changes in the economic environment for the coming year. Turning Points And Regime Shifts: How Much Will Really Change? Mr. X: The U.S. election result and Brexit vote obviously were seismic events with potentially major policy implications. But there seem to be more questions than answers in terms of how policies actually will evolve over the next few years and the extent to which they will be good or bad for growth. The markets are assuming that economic growth will get a big boost from changes in fiscal policy. Do you agree with that view? Chart 3Fiscal Austerity Ended In 2015 Fiscal Austerity Ended in 2015 Fiscal Austerity Ended in 2015 BCA: We need to begin by putting things into perspective. Fiscal austerity came to an end pretty much everywhere a couple of years ago. Data from the IMF show that the peak years for fiscal austerity in the advanced economies were 2011-2013, and the budget cutbacks in those years did not even fully offset the massive stimulus that occurred during the downturn in 2008-10. Since 2013, the fiscal drag on GDP has gradually diminished and policy shifts are estimated to have added to GDP in the U.S., euro area and Japan in 2016 (Chart 3). Nonetheless, with economic growth falling short of expectations and easy money losing its effectiveness, there have been widespread calls for fiscal policy to do more. President-elect Trump has made major tax cuts and increased spending an important part of his policy platform, so the issue is the extent to which he follows through on his plans. Inevitably, there are some challenges: The plan to boost U.S. infrastructure spending is welcome, but the intention seems to be to emphasize private/public partnerships rather than federally-funded projects. Setting up such agreements could take time. Meanwhile, although there is great scope to improve the infrastructure, it is far less clear that a number of "shovel-ready" projects are simply waiting for finance. The bottom line is that increased infrastructure spending is more a story for 2018 and beyond, rather than 2017. And the same also is true for defense, where it may take time to put new programs in place. Turning to the proposed tax cuts, history shows there can be a huge difference between election promises and what eventually is legislated. According to the Tax Policy Center, Trump's plans would add more than $6 trillion to outstanding federal debt over the next decade and more than $20 trillion over 20 years. And that excludes the impact of higher interest costs on the debt. Even if one were to take an optimistic view of a revenue boost from faster economic growth, there would still be a large increase in federal deficits and thus debt levels and this could be problematic for many Republicans. It seems inevitable that the tax plans will be watered down. An additional issue is the distributional impact of the proposed tax cuts. Eliminating the estate tax and proposed changes to marginal rates would disproportionally help the rich. Estimates show the lowest and second lowest quintile earners would receive a tax cut of less than 1% of income, compared to 6.5% for the top 1%. Given that the marginal propensity to consume is much higher for those with low incomes, this would dilute the economic impact. Moreover, there is again the issue of timing - the usual bargaining process means that tax changes will impact growth more in 2018 than 2017. Mr. X: You did not mention the plan to cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%. Surely that will be very good for growth? BCA: According to the OECD, the U.S. has a marginal corporate tax rate of 38.9% (including state and local corporate taxes), making it by far the highest in the industrialized world. The median rate for 34 other OECD economies is 24.6%. However, the actual rate that U.S. companies pay after all the various deductions is not so high. According to national accounts data, the effective tax rate for domestic non-financial companies averaged 25% in the four quarters ended 2016 Q2. Data from the IRS show an average rate of around 21% for all corporations. And for those companies with significant overseas operations, the rate is lower. There certainly is a good case for lowering the marginal rate and simplifying the system by removing deductions and closing loopholes. But special interests always make such reforms a tough battle. Even so, there is widespread support to reduce corporate taxes so some moves are inevitable and this should be good for profits and, hopefully, capital spending. The bottom line is that you should not expect a major direct boost to growth in 2017 from changes in U.S. fiscal policy. The impact will be greater in 2018, perhaps adding between 0.5% and 1% to growth. However, don't forget that there could be an offset from any moves to erect trade barriers. Mr. X: What about fiscal developments in other countries? Chart 4Japan Is A Fiscal Nightmare Japan Is A Fiscal Nightmare Japan Is A Fiscal Nightmare BCA: The Japanese government has boosted government spending again, but the IMF estimates that fiscal changes added only 0.3% to GDP in 2016, with an even smaller impact expected for 2017. And a renewed tightening is assumed to occur in 2018 as postponed efforts to reign in the deficit take hold. Of course, a sales tax hike could be delayed yet again if the economy continues to disappoint. But, with an overall budget deficit of 5% of GDP and gross government debt of more than 250% of GDP, Japan's room for additional stimulus is limited (Chart 4). Although the Bank of Japan owns around 40% of outstanding government debt, the authorities cannot openly admit that this will be written off. While more fiscal moves are possible in Japan, it is doubtful they would significantly alter the growth picture. The euro area peripheral countries have moved past the drastic fiscal austerity that was imposed on them a few years ago. Nevertheless, there is not much room for maneuver with regard to adopting an overtly reflationary stance. It is one thing to turn a blind eye to the fiscal constraints of the EU's Growth and Stability Pact and quite another to move aggressively in the opposite direction. Most of the region's economies have government debt-to-GDP ratios far above the 60% required under the Maastricht Treaty. In sum, a move to fiscal stimulus is not in the cards for the euro area. The U.K. is set to adopt more reflationary policies following the Brexit vote, but this would at most offset private sector retrenchment. In conclusion, looming shifts in fiscal policy will be positive for global growth in the next couple of years, but are unlikely to be game changers. Of course, fiscal policy is not the only thing that might change - especially in the U.S. There also are hopes that an easing in regulatory burdens will be very positive for growth. Mr. X: I am glad you raised that point. I have many business contacts in the U.S. who complain bitterly about regulatory overload and they are desperate for some relief. BCA: There certainly is a need for action on this front as regulatory burdens have increased dramatically in the U.S. in recent years. The monthly survey of small businesses carried out by the National Federation of Independent Business shows that rising health care costs, excessive regulation and income taxes are regarded as the top three problems. According to the Heritage Foundation, new regulations from the Obama administration have added more than $100 billion annually to costs for businesses and individuals since 2009. While the U.S. has a good score in the World Bank's Ease of Doing Business Index (8th best out of 190 countries), it is ranked 51st in the component that measures how easy it is to start a business, which puts it behind countries such as Jamaica, Mongolia and Albania. So we can hope that the new administration will act to improve that situation. We can be confident that there will be major reductions in regulations relating to energy and the environment. Other areas may be more challenging. It did not take long for Trump to back away from his pledge to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in its entirety. Returning to the previous status quo will not be politically acceptable and devising an alternative plan is no small task. The end result still will be a major modification of the ACA and this should ease health care costs for small businesses. With regard to the financial sector, it is no surprise that the pendulum swung massively toward increased regulation given the pre-crisis credit excesses. The economic and financial downturn of 2008-09 left a legacy of strong populist resentment of Wall Street and the banks, so a return to the previous laissez-faire model is not in the cards. At one stage, Trump indicated that he was in favor of replacing Dodd-Frank with a Glass-Steagall system, requiring commercial banks to divest themselves of their securities' businesses. The large banks would employ legions of lobbyists to prevent a new Glass-Steagall Act. The end result will be some watering down of the Dodd-Frank regulatory requirements, but again, a return to the pre-crisis status quo is not in the cards. The Retreat From Globalization Mr. X: You have challenged the consensus view that fiscal stimulus will deliver a meaningful boost to the global economy over the coming year. Having downplayed the main reason to be more positive about near-term growth, let's turn to global trade, the issue that causes most nervousness about the outlook. The Brexit vote in the U.K. was at least partly a vote against globalization and we are all familiar with Trump's threat to dramatically raise tariffs on imports from China and Mexico. What are the odds of an all-out trade war? BCA: At the risk of sounding complacent, we would give low odds to this. Again, there will be a large difference between campaign promises and actual outcomes. Let's start with China where the U.S. trade deficit ran at a $370 billion annual rate in the first nine months of 2016, up from around $230 billion a decade before (Chart 5). China now accounts for half of the total U.S. trade deficit compared to a 25% share a decade ago. On the face of it, the U.S. looks to have a good bargaining position, but the relationship is not one-sided. China has been a major financer of U.S. deficits and is the third largest importer of U.S. goods, after Canada and Mexico. Meanwhile, U.S. consumers have benefited enormously from the relative cheapness of imported Chinese goods. As for the threat to label China as a currency manipulator, it is interesting to note that its real effective exchange rate has increased by almost 20% since the mid-2000s, and since then, the country's current account surplus as a share of GDP has fallen from almost 10% to around 2.5% (Chart 6). The renminbi has fallen by around 10% against the dollar since mid-2015, but that has been due to the latter currency's broad-based rally, not Chinese manipulation. The fact that China's foreign-exchange reserves have declined in the past couple of years indicates that the country has intervened to hold its currency up, not push it down. Chart 5China-U.S. Trade: ##br##A Symbiotic Relationship? China-U.S. Trade: A Symbiotic Relationship? China-U.S. Trade: A Symbiotic Relationship? Chart 6China Has Not Manipulated ##br##Its Currency Downward China Has Not Manipulated Its Currency Downward China Has Not Manipulated Its Currency Downward Of course, facts may not be the guiding factor when it comes to U.S. trade policy, and we can expect some tough talk from the U.S. This could well involve the imposition of some tariffs and perhaps some concessions from China in the form of increased imports from the U.S. Overall, we are hopeful that rational behavior will prevail and that an all-out trade war will not occur. Mr. X: I also would like to believe that, but nothing in the U.S. election process made me think that rationality is guaranteed. BCA: Of course it is not guaranteed, and we will have to monitor the situation carefully. We should also talk about Mexico - the other main target of Trump's attacks. The U.S. trade deficit with Mexico accounts for less than 10% of the total U.S. deficit and has changed little in the past decade. More than 80% of the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico is related to vehicles and Trump clearly will put pressure on U.S. companies to move production back over the border. Within a week of the election, Ford announced that it had abandoned plans to shift production of its luxury Lincoln SUV from Kentucky to Mexico. And Trump subsequently browbeat Carrier Corporation into cancelling some job transfers across the border. If other companies follow suit, it could forestall major changes to NAFTA. Ironically, the Mexican peso has plunged by 10% against the dollar since the election, boosting the competitiveness of Mexico and offsetting some of the impact of any tariff increase. Not all the news on global trade is bad. After seven years of negotiation, the EU and Canada agreed a free trade deal. This has bolstered the U.K.'s hopes that it can arrange new trade deals after it leaves the EU. However, this will not be easy given the sheer number of bi-country deals that will be required. The time it took to negotiate the EU-Canada deal should be a salutary warning given that there was no particular animosity toward Canada within the EU. That will not be the case when it comes to negotiations with the U.K. Mr. X: Let's try and pull all this together. You have downplayed the risk of an all-out trade war and I hope that you are right. But do you expect trade developments to be a drag on economic activity, perhaps offsetting any positive impact from fiscal stimulus? Chart 7Only Modest Growth In World Trade Only Modest Growth In World Trade Only Modest Growth In World Trade BCA: You might think that trade is a zero-sum game for the global economy because one country's exports simply are another's imports. But expanding trade does confer net benefits to growth in terms of allowing a more efficient use of resources and boosting related activities such as transportation and wholesaling. Thus, the rapid expansion in trade after the fall of the Berlin Wall was very good for the global economy. Trade ceased to be a net contributor to world growth several years ago, highlighted by the fact that global export volumes have been growing at a slower pace than GDP (Chart 7). This has not been due to trade barriers but is more a reflection of China's shift away from less import-intensive growth. A return to import-intensive growth in China is not likely, and technological innovations such as 3-D printing could further undermine trade. If we also add the chances of some increase in protectionist barriers then it is reasonable to assume that trends in global trade are more likely to hinder growth than boost it over the coming couple of years. It really is too soon to make hard and fast predictions about this topic as we need to see exactly what actions the new U.S. administration will take. Nevertheless, we lean toward the optimistic side, and assume the economic impact of fiscal reflation will exceed any drag from trade restrictions. Again, this is a more of a story for 2018 than 2017. What we can say with some confidence is that the previous laissez-faire approach to globalization is no longer politically acceptable. Policymakers are being forced to respond to voter perceptions that the costs of free trade outweigh the benefits and that points to a more interventionist approach. This can take the form of overt protectionism or attempts to influence corporate behavior along the lines of president-elect Trump's exhortations to U.S. companies. Mr. X: What about the issue of immigration? Both the Brexit vote and the U.S. election result partly reflected voter rebellion against unrestrained immigration. And we know that nationalist sentiments also are rising in a number of other European countries. How big a problem is this? Chart 8Immigration's Rising Contribution ##br##To U.S. Population Growth Immigration's Rising Contribution To U.S. Population Growth Immigration's Rising Contribution To U.S. Population Growth BCA: In normal circumstances, immigration represents a win-win situation for all parties. The vast majority of immigrants are prepared to work hard to improve their economic position and in many cases take jobs that residents are not willing to accept. This all works well in a fast-growing economy, but difficulties arise when growth is weak: competition for jobs increases, especially among the unskilled, and the result is downward pressure on wages. The irony is that the U.S. and U.K. labor markets have tightened to the point where wage growth is accelerating. However, this all happened too late to affect the opinions of those who voted for tighter controls over immigration. There is an even more important issue from a big-picture perspective. As you know, an economy's potential growth rate comes from two sources: the growth in the labor force and productivity. According to the Census Bureau, U.S. population growth will average 0.8% a year over the next decade, slowing to 0.6% a year over the subsequent ten years. But more than half of this growth is assumed to come from net migration. Excluding net migration, population growth is predicted to slow to a mere 0.1% a year by the end of the 2030s (Chart 8). Thus, major curbs on immigration would directly lower potential GDP by a significant amount. In Europe, the demographic situation is even more precarious because birth rates are far below replacement levels. Europe desperately needs immigration to achieve even modest population increases. However, the migrant crisis is causing a backlash against cross-border population flows, again with negative implications for long-run economic growth. Even ignoring humanitarian considerations, major curbs on immigration would not be a good idea. Labor shortages would quickly become apparent in a number of industries. Some may welcome the resulting rise in wages, but the resulting pressure on inflation also would have adverse effects. So this is another area of policy that we will have to keep a close eye on. Inflation And Interest Rates Chart 9A Mixed U.S. Inflation Picture A Mixed U.S. Inflation Picture A Mixed U.S. Inflation Picture Mr. X: I am glad that you mentioned inflation. There are good reasons to think that an important inflection point in inflation has been reached. And bond investors seem to agree, judging by the recent spike in yields. If true, this would indeed represent a significant regime shift because falling inflation and bond yields have been such a dominant trend for several decades. Do you agree that the era of disinflation is over, along with the secular bull market in bonds? BCA: Inflation and bond yields in the U.S. have passed a cyclical turning point, but this does not mean that a sustained major uptrend is imminent. Let's start with inflation. A good portion of the rise in the underlying U.S. inflation rate has been due to a rise in housing rental costs, and, more recently, a spike in medical care costs. Neither of these trends should last: changes to the ACA should arrest the rising cost of medical care while increased housing construction will cap the rise in rent inflation. The rental vacancy rate looks to be stabilizing while rent inflation is rolling over. Meanwhile, the inflation rate for core goods has held at a low level and likely will be pushed lower as a result of the dollar's ascent (Chart 9). Of course, this all assumes that we do not end up with sharply higher import tariffs and a trade war. The main reason to expect a further near-term rise in underlying U.S. inflation is the tightening labor market and resulting firming in wage growth. With the economy likely to grow above a 2% pace in 2017, the labor market should continue to tighten, pushing wage inflation higher. So the core PCE inflation rate has a good chance of hitting the Federal Reserve's 2% target before the year is out. And bond investors have responded accordingly, with one-year inflation expectations moving to their highest level since mid-2014, when oil prices were above $110 a barrel (Chart 10). Long-run inflation expectations also have spiked since the U.S. election, perhaps reflecting the risk of higher import tariffs and the risks of political interference with the Fed. When it comes to other developed economies, with the exception of the U.K., there is less reason to expect underlying inflation to accelerate much over the next year. Sluggish growth in the euro area and Japan will continue to keep a lid on corporate pricing power and the markets seem to agree, judging by the still-modest level of one-year and long-run inflation expectations (Chart 11). The U.K. will see some pickup in inflation in response to the sharp drop in sterling and this shows up in a marked rise in market expectations. Chart 10U.S. Inflation Expectations Have Spiked U.S. Inflation Expectations Have Spiked U.S. Inflation Expectations Have Spiked Chart 11Inflation Expectations In Europe And Japan Inflation Expectations In Europe and Japan Inflation Expectations In Europe and Japan Turning back to the U.S., a key question regarding the longer-term inflation outlook is whether the supply side of the economy improves. If the new administration succeeds in boosting demand but there is no corresponding expansion in the supply capacity of the economy, then the result will be higher inflation. That will lead to continued monetary tightening and, as in past cycles, an eventual recession. But, if businesses respond to a demand boost with a marked increase in capital spending then the result hopefully would be faster productivity growth and a much more muted inflation response. Thus, it will be critical to monitor trends in business confidence and capital spending for signs that animal spirits are returning. Mr. X: So you don't think the Fed will be tempted to run a "hot" economy with inflation above the 2% target? BCA: That might have been a possibility if there was no prospect of fiscal stimulus, leaving all the economic risks on the downside. With easier fiscal policy on the horizon, the Fed can stick to a more orthodox policy approach. In other words, if the economy strengthens to the point where inflation appears to be headed sustainably above 2%, then the Fed will respond by raising rates. Unlike the situation a year ago, we do not have a strong disagreement with the Fed's rate hike expectations for the next couple of years. Nothing would please the Fed more than to return to a familiar world where the economy is behaving in a normal cyclical fashion, allowing a move away from unusually low interest rates. At the same time, the Fed believes, as we do, that the equilibrium real interest rate is far below historical levels and may be close to zero. Thus, interest rates may not need to rise that much to cool down the economy and ease inflationary pressures. This is especially true if the dollar continued to rise along with Fed tightening. Another potentially important issue is that the composition of the Federal Reserve Board could change dramatically in the next few years. There currently are two unfilled seats on the Board and it is very likely that both Janet Yellen and Stanley Fischer will leave in 2018 when their respective terms as Chair and Vice-Chair end (February 3 for Yellen and June 12 for Fischer). That means the incoming administration will be able to appoint four new Board members, and possibly more if other incumbents step down. Judging by the views of Trump's current economic advisers, he seems likely to choose people with a conservative approach to monetary policy. In sum, we do not rule out a rise in U.S. inflation to as much as 3%, but it would be a very short-lived blip. Steady Fed tightening would cap the rise, even at the cost of a renewed recession. Indeed, a recession would be quite likely because central banks typically overshoot on the side of restraint when trying to counter a late-cycle rise in inflation. Mr. X: I am more bearish than you on the inflation outlook. Central banks have been running what I regard as irresponsible policies for the past few years and we now also face some irresponsible fiscal policies in the U.S. That looks like a horrendously inflationary mix to me although I suppose inflation pressures would ease in the next recession. We can return to that possibility later when we discuss the economy in more detail. Where do you see U.S. short rates peaking in the current cycle and what does this mean for your view on long-term interest rates? To repeat my earlier question: is the secular bond bull market over? BCA: During the past 30 years, the fed funds rate tended to peak close to the level of nominal GDP growth (Chart 12). That would imply a fed funds rate of over 5% in the current cycle, assuming peak real GDP growth of around 3% and 2-3% inflation. However, that ignores the fact that debt burdens are higher than in the past and structural headwinds to growth are greater. Thus, the peak funds rate is likely to be well below 5%, perhaps not much above 3%. Chart 12The Fed Funds Rate And The Economic Cycle The Fed Funds Rate and the Economic Cycle The Fed Funds Rate and the Economic Cycle With regard to your question about the secular bull market in bonds, we believe it has ended, but the bottoming process likely will be protracted. We obviously are in the midst of a cyclical uptrend in U.S. yields that could last a couple of years. The combination of a modestly stronger economy, easier fiscal stance and monetary tightening are all consistent with rising bond yields. Although yields moved a lot in the second half of 2016, the level is still not especially high, so there is further upside. It would not be a surprise to see the 10-year Treasury yield reach 3% by this time next year. However, there could be a last-gasp renewed decline in yields at some point in the next few years. If the U.S. economy heads back into recession with the fed funds rate peaking at say 3.5%, then it is quite possible that long-term bond yields would revisit their 2016 lows - around 1.4% on the 10-year Treasury. There are no signs of recession at the moment, but a lot can change in the next three years. In any event, you should not be overly concerned with the secular outlook at this point. The cyclical outlook for yields is bearish and there should be plenty of advance notice if it is appropriate to switch direction. Update On The Debt Supercycle Mr. X: I would like to return to the issue of the Debt Supercycle - one of my favorite topics. You know that I have long regarded excessive debt levels as the biggest threat to economic and financial stability and nothing has occurred to ease my concerns. In the past, you noted that financial repression - keeping interest rates at very low levels - would be the policy response if faster economic growth could not achieve a reduction in debt burdens. But the recent rise in bond yields warns that governments cannot always control interest rate moves. Few people seem to worry anymore about high debt levels and I find that to be another reason for concern. BCA: You are correct that there has been very little progress in reducing debt burdens around the world. As we have noted in the past, it is extremely difficult for governments and the private sector to lower debt when economic activity and thus incomes are growing slowly. Debt-to-GDP ratios are at or close to all-time highs in virtually every region, even though debt growth itself has slowed (Chart 13A, Chart 13B). Chart 13ADebt Growth Slows, ##br##But Levels Remain High Debt Growth Slows, But Levels Remain High Debt Growth Slows, But Levels Remain High Chart 13BDebt Growth Slows, ##br##But Levels Remain High Debt Growth Slows, But Levels Remain High Debt Growth Slows, But Levels Remain High As a reminder, our End-of-Debt Supercycle thesis never meant that debt-to-GDP ratios would quickly decline. It reflected our belief that lenders and private sector borrowers had ended their love affair with debt and that we could no longer assume that strong credit growth would be a force boosting economic activity. And our view has not altered, even though government borrowing may show some acceleration. Chart 14The Credit Channel Is Impaired The Credit Channel Is Impaired The Credit Channel Is Impaired The failure of exceptionally low interest rates to trigger a vigorous rebound in private sector credit demand is consistent with our view. In the post-Debt Supercycle world, monetary policy has lost effectiveness because the credit channel - the key pillar of the monetary transmission process - is blocked. The drop in money multipliers and in the velocity of circulation is a stark reminder of the weakened money-credit-growth linkage (Chart 14). You always want to know what the end-point of higher debt levels will be, and we always give you a hedged answer. Nothing has changed on that front! A period of higher inflation may help bring down debt ratios for a while, but not to levels that would ease your concerns. This means that financial repression will be the fallback plan should markets rebel against debt levels. For the moment, there is still no problem because interest rates are still low and this is keeping debt-servicing costs at very low levels. If interest rates are rising simply because economic activity is strengthening, then that is not a serious concern. The danger time would be if rates were to rise while growth and inflation were weak. At that point, central banks would move aggressively to reduce market pressures with massive asset purchases. The ultimate end-point for dealing with excessive debt probably will be significantly higher inflation. But that is some time away. Central banks would not likely embrace a major sustained rise in inflation before we first suffered another serious deflationary downturn. At that point, attitudes toward inflation could change dramatically and a new generation of central bankers would probably be in charge with a very different view of the relative economic risks of inflation and deflation. However, it is premature to worry about a major sustained inflation rise if we must first go through a deflationary downturn. Mr. X: Perhaps you are right, but I won't stop worrying about debt. The buildup in debt was decades in the making and I am convinced that the consequences will extend beyond a few years of subdued economic growth. And central bank efforts to dampen the economic symptoms with unusually low interest rates have just created another set of problems in the form of distorted asset prices and an associated misallocation of capital. BCA: We agree that there may be a very unhappy ending to the debt excesses, but timing is everything. It has been wrong to bet against central banks during the past seven years and that will continue to be the case for a while longer. We will do our best to give you plenty of warning when we see signs that things are changing for the worse. Mr. X: I will hold you to that. Meanwhile, you talked earlier about the possibility of another recession in the U.S. Let's use that as a starting point to talk about the economic outlook in more detail. It seems strange to talk about the possibility of a recession in the U.S. when interest rates are still so low and we are about to get more fiscal stimulus. The Economic Outlook BCA: We do not expect a recession in the next year or two, absent some new major negative shock. But by the time we get to 2019, the recovery will be ten years old and normal late-cycle pressures should be increasingly apparent. The labor market already is quite tight, with wages growing at their fastest pace in eight years, according to the Atlanta Fed's wage tracker (Chart 15). Historically, most recessions were triggered by tight monetary policy with a flat or inverted yield curve being a reliable indicator (Chart 16). Obviously, that is extremely hard to achieve when short-term rates are at extremely low levels. However, if the Fed raises the funds rate to around 3% by the end of 2019, as it currently predicts, then it will be quite possible to again have a flat or inverted curve during that year. Chart 15U.S. Wage Growth In A Clear Uptrend U.S. Wage Growth In A Clear Uptrend U.S. Wage Growth In A Clear Uptrend Chart 16No Sign Of A U.S. Recession No Sign Of A U.S. Recession No Sign Of A U.S. Recession The recent environment of modest growth has kept inflation low and forced the Fed to maintain a highly accommodative stance. As spare capacity is absorbed, the Fed will be forced to tighten, raising the odds of a policy overshoot. And this is all without taking account of the potential threat of a trade war. Mr. X: I have never believed that the business cycle has been abolished so it would not surprise me at all to have a U.S. recession in the next few years, but the timing is critical to getting the markets right. What will determine the timing of the next economic downturn? BCA: As we mentioned earlier, the key to stretching out the cycle will be improving the supply side of the economy, thereby suppressing the cyclical pressures on inflation. That means getting productivity growth up which, in turn will depend on a combination of increased capital spending, global competition and technological innovations. Chart 17Companies Still ##br##Cautious Re: Capital Spending Companies Still Cautious Re: Capital Spending Companies Still Cautious Re: Capital Spending Thus far, there is no indication that U.S. companies are increasing their investment plans: the trend in capital goods orders remains very lackluster (Chart 17). Nonetheless, we have yet to see post-election data. The optimistic view is that the prospect of lower corporate taxes, reduced regulation and a repatriation of overseas earnings will all combine to revive the corporate sector's animal spirits and thus their willingness to invest. Only time will tell. The key point is that it is too soon for you to worry about a recession in the U.S. and for the next year or two, there is a good chance that near-term economic forecasts will be revised up rather than down. That will mark an important reversal of the experience of the past seven years when the economy persistently fell short of expectations. Mr. X: It would be indeed be a welcome change to have some positive rather than negative surprises on the economic front, but I remain somewhat skeptical. I suppose I can see some reasons to be more optimistic about the U.S., but the picture in most other countries seems as bleak as ever. The outlook for the U.K. has worsened following the Brexit vote, the euro area and Japan cannot seem to break out of a low-growth trap and China continues to skirt the edge of a precipice. BCA: The global economy still has lots of problems, and we are a long way from boom-like conditions. The IMF predicts that 2017 growth in the euro area and China will be below the 2016 level, and forecasts for the U.K. have been revised down sharply since the Brexit vote. On a more positive note, the firming in commodity prices should help some previously hard-hit emerging economies. Overall global growth may not pick up much over the coming year, but it would be a significant change for the better if we finally stop the cycle of endless forecast downgrades. Mr. X: Let's talk a bit more about the U.K. I know that it is too early to make strong predictions about the implications of Brexit, but where do you stand in terms of how damaging it will be? I am not convinced it will be that bad because I sympathize with the view that EU bureaucracy is a big drag on growth, and exiting the EU may force the U.K. government to pursue supply-side policies that ultimately will be very good for growth. BCA: The Brexit vote does not spell disaster for the U.K., but adds to downside risks at a time when the global economy is far from buoyant. The EU is not likely to cut a sweet deal for the U.K. To prevent copycat departures, the EU will demonstrate that exit comes with a clear cost. Perhaps, the U.K. can renegotiate new trade deals that do not leave it significantly worse off. But this will take time and, in the interlude, many businesses will put their plans on hold until new arrangements are made. Meanwhile, the financial sector - a big engine of growth in the past - could be adversely affected by a move of business away from London. Chart 18The U.K. Has A Twin Deficit Problem The U.K. Has A Twin Deficit Problem The U.K. Has A Twin Deficit Problem Of course, the government will not simply stand on the sidelines, and it has already announced increased infrastructure spending that will fill some of the hole created by weaker business capital spending. And the post-vote drop in sterling has provided a boost to U.K. competitiveness. Nevertheless, it seems inevitable that there will be a hit to growth over the next couple of years. The optimistic view is that the U.K. will use the opportunity of its EU departure to launch a raft of supply-side reforms and tax cuts with the aim of creating a much more dynamic economy that will be very attractive to overseas investors. Some have made the comparison with Singapore. This seems a bit of a stretch. In contrast to the pre-vote rhetoric, EU membership did not turn the U.K. into a highly-regulated economy. For example, the U.K. already is in 7th place out of 190 countries in the World Bank's Ease Doing Business Index and one of the least regulated developed economies according to the OECD. Thus, the scope to boost growth by sweeping away regulations probably is limited. At the same time, the U.K.'s ability to engage in major fiscal stimulus via tax cuts or increased spending is limited by the country's large balance-of-payments deficit and the poor state of its government finances (Chart 18). Overall, the U.K. should be able to avoid a major downturn in the next couple of years, but we don't disagree with the OECD's latest forecasts that growth will slow to round 1% in 2017 and 2018 after 2% in 2016. And that implies the risks of one or two quarters of negative growth within that period. Mr. X: I am not a fan of the EU so am inclined to think that the U.K. will do better than the consensus believes. But, I am less confident about the rest of Europe. Euro area banks are in a mess, weighed down by inadequate capital, a poor return on assets, an overhang of bad loans in Italy and elsewhere, and little prospect of much revival in credit demand. At the same time, the political situation looks fragile with voters just as disenchanted with the establishment status quo as were the ones in the U.K. and U.S. Against this background, I can't see why any companies would want to increase their capital spending in the region. Chart 19Euro Area Optimism Improves Euro Area Optimism Improves Euro Area Optimism Improves BCA: We agree that euro area growth is unlikely to accelerate much from here. The structural problems of poor demographics, a weak banking system and constrained fiscal policy represent major headwinds for growth. And the political uncertainties related to elections in a number of countries in the coming year give consumers and companies good reason to stay cautious. Yet, we should note that the latest data show a modest improvement in the business climate index, breaking slightly above the past year's trading range (Chart 19). There are some positive developments to consider. The nomination of François Fillon as the conservative candidate in France's Presidential election to be held on April 2017 is very significant. We expect him to beat Marine Le Pen and this means France will have a leader who believes in free markets and deregulation - a marked change from previous statist policies. This truly could represent a major regime shift for that country. Meanwhile, the ECB has confirmed that it will continue its QE program through 2017, albeit at a slightly reduced pace. This has costs in terms of market distortions, but will help put a floor under growth. Mr. X: You noted the fragile state of the region's banks. How do you see that playing out? BCA: Euro area banks have more than €1 trillion of non-performing loans (NPLs) and have provisioned for only about half of that amount. Nevertheless, most countries' banking sectors have enough equity capital to adequately absorb losses from these un-provisioned NPLs. On the other hand, the high level of NPLs is a protracted drag on profitability and thereby increases the banks' cost of capital. The shortage of capital constrains new lending. The biggest concern is Italy, which we estimate needs to recapitalize its banks by close to €100 billion. Complicating matters is that the EU rules on state aid for banks changed at the start of 2016. Now, a government bailout can happen only after a first-loss 'bail-in' of the bank's equity and bond holders. So if an undercapitalized bank cannot raise the necessary funds privately in the markets, there is a danger that its investors could suffer heavy losses before the government is allowed to step in. But once investors have been bailed-in, the authorities will do "whatever it takes" to prevent banking problems turning into a systemic crisis that threaten to push the economy into another recession. Mr. X: I would now like to shift our attention to Asia, most notably Japan and China. Starting with Japan, that economy seems to perfectly describe the world of secular stagnation. Despite two decades of short-term interest rates near zero and major fiscal stimulus, real growth has struggled to get above 1% and deflation rather than inflation has been the norm. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has made a big deal about his "three arrow" approach to getting the economy going again, but I don't see much evidence that it is working. Is there any prospect of breaking out of secular stagnation? BCA: Probably not. A big part of Japan's problem is demographics - an unfortunate combination of a declining labor force and a rapidly aging population. While this means that per capita GDP growth looks a lot better than the headline figures, it is not a growth-friendly situation. Twenty years ago there were 4.6 people of working age for everyone above 64. This has since dropped to 2.2 and within another 20 years it will be down to 1.6. That falling ratio of taxpayers to pensioners and major consumers of health care is horrendous for government finances. And an aging population typically is not a dynamic one which shows up in Japan's poor productivity performance relative to that of the U.S. (Chart 20). Of course, Japan can "solve" its public finances problem by having the Bank of Japan cancel its large holdings of JGBs. Yet that does nothing to deal with the underlying demographics issue and ongoing large budget deficits. Japan desperately needs a combination of increased immigration and major supply-side reforms, but we do not hold out much prospect of either changing by enough to dramatically alter the long-run growth picture. Mr. X: I will not disagree with you as I have not been positive about Japan for a long time. We should now turn to China. It is very suspicious that the economy continues to hum along at a 6% to 7% pace, despite all the excesses and imbalances that have developed. I really don't trust the data. We talked about China at our mid-2016 meeting and, if I remember correctly, you described China as like a tightrope walker, wobbling from time to time, but never quite falling off. Yet it would only take a gust of wind for that to change. I liked that description so my question is: are wind gusts likely to strengthen over the coming year? BCA: You are right to be suspicious of the official Chinese data, but it seems that the economy is expanding by at least a 5% pace. However, it continues to be propped up by unhealthy and unsustainable growth in credit. The increase in China's debt-to-GDP ratio over the past few years dwarves that during the ultimately disastrous credit booms of Japan in the 1980s and the U.S. in the 2000s (Chart 21). The debt increase has been matched by an even larger rise in assets, but the problem is that asset values can drop, while the value of the debt does not. Chart 20Japan's Structural Headwinds Japan's Structural Headwinds Japan's Structural Headwinds Chart 21China's Remarkable Credit Boom January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes The government would like to rein in credit growth, but it fears the potential for a major economic slowdown, so it is trapped. The fact that the banking system is largely under state control does provide some comfort because it will be easy for the government to recapitalize the banks should problems occur. This means that a U.S.-style credit freeze is unlikely to develop. Of course, the dark side of that is that credit excesses never really get unwound. You asked whether wind gusts will increase, threating to blow the economy off its tightrope. One potential gust that we already talked about is the potential for trade fights with the new U.S. administration. As we mentioned earlier, we are hopeful that nothing serious will occur, but all we can do is carefully monitor the situation. Trends in China's real estate sector represent a good bellwether for the overall economic situation. The massive reflation of 2008-09 unleashed a powerful real estate boom, accompanied by major speculative excesses. The authorities eventually leaned against this with a tightening in lending standards and the sector cooled off. Policy then eased again in 2015/16 as worries about an excessive economic slowdown developed, unleashing yet another real estate revival. The stop-go environment has continued with policy now throttling back to try and cool things off again. It is not a sensible way to run an economy and we need to keep a close watch on the real estate sector as a leading indicator of any renewed policy shifts. Over time, the Chinese economy should gradually become less dependent on construction and other credit-intensive activities. However, in the near-term, there is no escaping the fact that the economy will remain unbalanced, creating challenges for policymakers and a fragile environment for the country's currency and asset markets. Fortunately, the authorities have enough room to maneuver that a hard landing remains unlikely over the next year or two. There are fewer grounds for optimism about the long-run unless the government can move away from its stop-go policy and pursue more supply-side reforms. Mr. X: What about other emerging economies? Are there any developments particularly worth noting? BCA: Emerging economies in general will not return to the rapid growth conditions of the first half of the 2000s. Slower growth in China has dampened export opportunities for other EM countries and global capital will no longer pour into these economies in its previous, indiscriminate way. Nevertheless, the growth outlook is stabilizing and 2017 should be a modestly better year than 2016 for most countries. Chart 22India Has A Long Way To Go India Has A Long Way To Go India Has A Long Way To Go The rebound in oil and other commodity prices has clearly been positive for Russia, Brazil and other resource-dependent countries. Commodity prices will struggle to rise further from current elevated levels but average 2017 prices should exceed those of 2016. On the negative side, a firm dollar and trade uncertainty will represent a headwind for capital flows to the EM universe. The bottom line is that the growth deceleration in emerging economies has run its course but a major new boom is not in prospect. The Indian economy grew by around 7½% in 2016, making it, by far, the star EM performer. Growth will take a hit from the government's recent decision to withdraw high-denomination bank notes from circulation - a move designed to combat corruption. Fortunately, the impact should be relatively short-lived and growth should return to the 7% area during the coming year. Still, India has a long way to go to catch up with China. In 1990, India's economy was almost 90% as big as China's in PPP terms, but 20 years later, it was only 40% as large. Even though India is expected to keep growing faster than China, its relative size will only climb to 45% within the next five years, according to the IMF (Chart 22). Mr. X: Let me try and summarize your economic views before we move on to talk about the markets. The growth benefit from fiscal stimulus in the U.S. is more a story for 2018 than 2017. Nevertheless, a modest improvement in global growth is likely over the coming year, following several years of economic disappointments. The key risks relate to increased trade protectionism and increased inflation in the U.S. if the rise in demand is not matched by an increase in the economy's supply-side capacity. In that event, tighter monetary policy could trigger a recession in 2019. You do not expect any major changes in the underlying economic picture for Europe, Japan or China, although political shifts in Europe represent another downside risk. BCA: That captures our views quite well. Going back to our broad theme of regime shifts, it is important to re-emphasize that shifting attitudes toward fiscal policy and trade in the U.S. raise a red flag over the longer-term inflation outlook. And this of course feeds into the outlook for interest rates. Bond Market Prospects Mr. X: That is the perfect segue for us to shift the discussion to the investment outlook, starting with bonds. You already noted that you believe the secular bull market in bonds has ended, albeit with a drawn-out bottoming process. Given my concerns about the long-run inflation outlook, I am happy to agree with that view. Yet, yields have risen a lot recently and I am wondering if this represents a short-term buying opportunity. BCA: The late-2016 sell-off in bonds was violent and yields rose too far, too fast. So we recently shifted our tactical bond recommendation from underweight (short duration) to neutral. But obviously that is not the same as telling you to buy. The underlying story for bonds - especially in the U.S. - is bearish. The prospect of fiscal stimulus, rising short rates and a pickup in inflation suggests that U.S. yields will be higher over the next 12 months. Although yields may decline somewhat in the very near-term, we doubt the move will be significant enough or last long enough to warrant an overweight position. The outlook is not quite so bad in the euro zone given the ECB's ongoing bond purchases and a continued benign inflation outlook. But, even there, the market will remain highly correlated with trends in U.S. Treasurys so yields are more likely to rise than fall over the coming year. The story is different in Japan given the central bank's new policy of pegging the 10-year yield at zero. That will be a static market for some time. Although global yields may have bottomed from a secular perspective, the upturn will be gradual in the years ahead. A post-Debt Supercycle environment implies that private sector credit growth will remain subdued, and during 2018, the market may start to attach growing odds of a U.S. recession within a year or two. A more powerful bear trend in bonds awaits the more significant upturn in inflation that likely will follow the next economic downturn. Chart 23Treasurys Are High Yielders Treasurys Are High Yielders Treasurys Are High Yielders Mr. X: I am somewhat surprised at how much the spread between U.S. and euro area bonds has widened - it is now at the highest level since the late 1980s. Obviously, a positive spread makes sense given the relative stance of monetary policy and economic outlook. Yet, it is quite amazing how investors have benefited from both higher yields in the U.S. and a stronger dollar. If the dollar stays firm in 2017, will the spread remain at current high levels? BCA: Most of the increased spread during the past year can be attributed to a widening gap in inflation expectations, although the spread in real yields also spiked after the U.S. election, reflecting the prospects for fiscal stimulus (Chart 23). While the spread is indeed at historical highs, the backdrop of a massive divergence in relative monetary and fiscal policies is not going to change any time soon. We are not expecting the spread to narrow over the next year. You might think that Japanese bonds would be a good place to hide from a global bond bear market given BoJ's policy to cap the 10-year yield at zero percent. Indeed, JGBs with a maturity of 10-years or less are likely to outperform Treasurys and bunds in local currency terms over the coming year. However, this means locking in a negative yield unless you are willing to move to the ultra-long end of the curve, where there is no BoJ support. Moreover, there is more upside for bond prices in the U.S. and Eurozone in the event of a counter-trend global bond rally, simply because there is not much room for JGB yields to decline. Mr. X: O.K., I get the message loud and clear - government bonds will remain an unattractive investment. As I need to own some bonds, should I focus on spread product? I know that value looks poor, but that was the case at the beginning of 2016 and, as you showed earlier, returns ended up being surprisingly good. Will corporate bonds remain a good investment in 2017, despite the value problem? BCA: This a tricky question to answer. On the one hand, you are right that value is not great. Corporate spreads are low in the U.S. at a time when balance sheet fundamentals have deteriorated, according to our Corporate Health Monitor (Chart 24). After adjusting the U.S. high-yield index for expected defaults, option-adjusted spreads are about 165 basis points. In the past, excess returns (i.e. returns relative to Treasurys) typically were barely positive when spreads were at this level. Valuation is also less than compelling for U.S. investment-grade bonds. One risk is that a significant amount of corporate bonds are held by "weak hands," such as retail investors who are not accustomed to seeing losses in their fixed-income portfolios. At some point, this could trigger some panic selling into illiquid markets, resulting in a sharp yield spike. On a more positive note, the search for yield that propped up the market in 2016 could remain a powerful force in 2017. The pressure to stretch for yield was intense in part because the supply of government bonds in the major markets available to the private sector shrank by around $547 billion in 2016 because so much was purchased by central banks and foreign official institutions (Chart 25). The stock will likely contract by another $754 billion in 2017, forcing investors to continue shifting into riskier assets such as corporate bonds. Chart 24U.S. Corporate Health Has Deteriorated U.S. Corporate Health Has Deteriorated U.S. Corporate Health Has Deteriorated Chart 25Government Bonds In Short Supply Government Bonds In Short Supply Government Bonds In Short Supply Weighing the poor valuation and deteriorating credit quality trend against the ongoing pressure to search for yield, we recommend no more than a benchmark weighting in U.S. corporate investment-grade bonds and a modestly underweight position in high-yield. There are better relative opportunities in euro area corporates, where credit quality is improving and the ECB's asset purchase program is providing a nice tailwind. We are slightly overweight in both investment-grade and high-yield euro area corporates. Finally, we should mention emerging market bonds, although we do not have much good to say. The prospect of further declines in EM currencies versus the dollar is a major problem for these securities. There is a big risk that global dollar funding will dry up as the dollar moves higher along with U.S. bond yields, creating problems for EM economies running current account and fiscal deficits. You should stay clear of EM bonds. Mr. X: None of this is helping me much with my bond investments. Can you point to anything that will give me positive returns? Chart 26Real Yields Remain Exceptionally Low Real Yields Remain Exceptionally Low Real Yields Remain Exceptionally Low BCA: Not in the fixed-income market. Your concerns about inflation might lead you to think that inflation-indexed bonds are a good place to be, but prices in that market have already adjusted. Moreover, the case for expecting higher inflation rests a lot on the assumption that economic growth is going to strengthen and that should imply a rise in real yields, which obviously is bad for inflation-indexed bonds. Real yields currently are still very low by historical standards (Chart 26). A world of stagflation - weak real growth and rising inflation - would be a good environment for these securities, but such conditions are not likely in the next couple of years. Mr. X: After what you have told me, I suppose I will concentrate my fixed-income holdings in short-term Treasurys. But I do worry more than you about stagflation so will hold on to my inflation-indexed bonds. At the same time, I do understand that bonds will represent a hedge against downside risks rather than providing positive returns. So let's talk about the stock market as a more attractive place to invest. Equity Market Outlook Mr. X: I like to invest in equities when the market offers good value, there is too much pessimism about earnings and investor sentiment is gloomy. That is not the picture at the moment in the case of the U.S. market. I must confess that the recent rally has taken me by surprise, but it looks to me like a major overshoot. As we discussed earlier, the new U.S. administration's fiscal platform should be good for 2018 economic growth but the U.S. equity market is not cheap and it seems to me that there is more euphoria than caution about the outlook. So I fear that the big surprise will be that the market does much worse than generally expected. BCA: Obviously, the current market environment is nothing like the situation that exists after a big sell-off. You are correct that valuations are not very appealing and there is too much optimism about the outlook for earnings and thus future returns. Analysts' expectations of long-run earnings growth for the S&P 500 universe have risen to 12%, which is at the high end of its range over the past decade (Chart 27). And, as you suggested, surveys show an elevated level of optimism on the part of investors and traders. The outlook for earnings is the most critical issue when it comes to the long-run outlook for stocks. Low interest rates provide an important base of support, but as we noted earlier, rates are more likely to rise than fall over the next couple of years, possibly reaching a level that precipitates a recession in 2019. Investors are excited about the prospect that U.S. earnings will benefit from both faster economic growth and a drop in corporate tax rates. We don't disagree that those trends would be positive, but there is another important issue to consider. One of the defining characteristics of the past several years has been the extraordinary performance of profit margins which have averaged record levels, despite the weak economic recovery (Chart 28). The roots of this rise lay in the fact that businesses rather than employees were able to capture most of the benefits of rising productivity. This showed up in the growing gap between real employee compensation and productivity. As a result, the owners of capital benefited, while the labor share of income - previously a very mean-reverting series - dropped to extremely low levels. The causes of this divergence are complex but include the impact of globalization, technology and a more competitive labor market. Chart 27Too Much Optimism On Wall Street? Too Much Optimism On Wall Street? Too Much Optimism On Wall Street? Chart 28Profit Margins: Another Regme Shift Underway? Profit Margins: Another Regme Shift Underway? Profit Margins: Another Regme Shift Underway? With the U.S. unemployment back close to full-employment levels, the tide is now turning in favor of labor. The labor share of income is rising and this trend likely will continue as the economy strengthens. And any moves by the incoming administration to erect barriers to trade and/or immigration would underpin the trend. The implication is that profit margins are more likely to compress than expand in the coming years, suggesting that analysts are far too optimistic about earnings. Long-term growth will be closer to 5% than 12%. The turnaround in the corporate income shares going to labor versus capital represents another important element of our theme of regime changes. None of this means that the stock market faces an imminent plunge. Poor value and over-optimism about earnings raises a red flag over long-term return prospects, but says little about near-term moves. As we all know, market overshoots can move to much greater extremes and last for much longer than one can rationally predict. And the fact remains that the conditions for an overshoot could well persist for another 12 months or even longer. Optimism about the economic benefits of the new administration's policies should last for a while as proposals for tax cuts and increased fiscal spending get debated. Meanwhile, although the Fed plans to raise rates again over the next year, the level of interest rates will remain low by historical standards, sustaining the incentive to put money into stocks rather than interest-bearing assets. Mr. X: So are you telling me to buy U.S. stocks right now? BCA: No we are not. The stock market is vulnerable to a near-term setback following recent strong gains, so this is not a great time to increase exposure. However, we do expect prices to be higher in a year's time, so you could use setbacks as a buying opportunity. Of course, this is with the caveat that long-run returns are likely to be poor from current levels and we have the worry about a bear market some time in 2018 if recession risks are building. Playing market overshoots can be very profitable, but it is critical to remember that the fundamental foundations are weak and you need to be highly sensitive to signs that conditions are deteriorating. Mr. X: I am very well aware of the opportunities and risks of playing market overshoots. I completely underestimated the extent of the tech-driven overshoot in the second half of the 1990s and remained on the sidelines while the NASDAQ soared by 130% between end-1998 and March 2000. But my caution was validated when the market subsequently collapsed and it was not until 2006 that the market finally broke above its end-1998 level. I accept that the U.S. market is not in a crazy 1990s-style bubble, but I am inclined to focus on markets where the fundamentals are more supportive. BCA: The U.S. market is only modestly overvalued, based on an average of different measures. It is expensive based on both trailing and forward earnings and relative to book value, but cheap compared to interest rates and bond yields. A composite valuation index based on five components suggests that the S&P 500 currently is only modestly above its 60-year average (Chart 29). Valuation is not an impediment to further significant gains in U.S. equities over the coming year although it is more attractive in other markets. Chart 29The U.S. Market Is Modestly Expensive The U.S. Market Is Modestly Expensive The U.S. Market Is Modestly Expensive If we use the cyclically-adjusted price-earnings ratio for non-financial stocks as our metric, then Japan and a number of European markets are trading at valuations below their historical averages (Chart 30). The picture for Japan is muddied by the fact that the historical average is biased upwards by the extreme valuations that existed during the bubble years and in the aftermath when earnings were exceptionally weak. Nonetheless, even on a price-to-book basis, Japan is trading far below non-bubble historical averages (Chart 31). Chart 30Valuation Ranking Of Developed Equity Markets January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes Chart 31Japan Looks Like A Cheap Market Japan Looks Like A Cheap Market Japan Looks Like A Cheap Market With regard to Europe, the good value is found in the euro area periphery, rather than in the core countries of Germany, France and the Netherlands. In fact, these core countries are trading more expensively than the U.S., relative to their own history. As you know, valuation is not the only consideration when it comes to investing. Nonetheless, the direction of monetary policy also would support a better outlook for Japan and the euro area given that the Fed is raising rates while the ECB and BoJ are still implementing QE policies. Exchange rate moves complicate things a bit because further gains in the dollar would neutralize some of the relative outperformance when expressed in common currency. Even so, we would expect the euro area and Japan to outperform the U.S. over the next 12 months. The one important qualification is that we assume no new major political shocks come from Europe. A resurgence of political uncertainty in the euro area would poses the greatest threat to the peripheral countries, which partly explains why they are trading at more attractive valuations than the core. Mr. X: There seem to be political risks everywhere these days. It is a very long time since I could buy stocks when they offered great value and I felt very confident about the economic and political outlook. I agree that value looks better outside the U.S., but I do worry about political instability in the euro area and Brexit in the U.K. I know Japan looks cheap, but that has been a difficult and disappointing market for a long time and, as we already discussed, the structural outlook for the economy is very troubling. Turning to the emerging markets, you have not backed away from your bearish stance. The long-run underperformance of emerging markets relative to the U.S. and other developed bourses has been quite staggering and I am glad that I have followed your advice. Are you expecting to shift your negative stance any time soon? BCA: The global underperformance of EM has lasted for six years and may be close to ending. But the experience of the previous cycle of underperformance suggests we could have a drawn-out bottoming process rather than a quick rebound (Chart 32). Emerging equities look like decent value on the simple basis of relative price-earnings ratios (PER), but the comparison continues to be flattered by the valuations of just two sectors - materials and financials. Valuations are less compelling if you look at relative PERs on the basis of equally-weighted sectors (Chart 33). Chart 32A Long Period Of EM Underperformance A Long Period Of EM Underperformance A Long Period Of EM Underperformance Chart 33EM Fundamentals Still Poor EM Fundamentals Still Poor EM Fundamentals Still Poor More importantly, the cyclical and structural issues undermining EM equities have yet to be resolved. The deleveraging cycle is still at an early stage, the return on equity remains extremely low, and earnings revisions are still negative. The failure of the past year's rebound in non-oil commodity prices to be matched by strong gains in EM equities highlights the drag from more fundamental forces. In sum, we expect EM equities to underperform DM markets for a while longer. If you want to have some EM exposure then our favored markets are Korea, Taiwan, China, India, Thailand and Russia. We would avoid Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, Brazil and Peru. Mr. X: None of this makes very keen to invest in any equity market. However, even in poor markets, there usually are some areas that perform well. Do you have any strong sector views? Chart 34Cyclical Stocks Have Overshot Cyclical Stocks Have Overshot Cyclical Stocks Have Overshot BCA: Our near-term sector views reflect the expectation of a pullback in the broad equity market. The abrupt jump in the price of global cyclicals (industrials, materials & energy) versus defensives (health care, consumer staples & telecom services) has been driven solely by external forces - i.e. the sell-off in the bond market, rather than a shift in underlying profit drivers. For instance, emerging markets and the global cyclicals/defensives price ratio have tended to move hand-in-hand. The former is pro-cyclical, and outperforms when economic growth prospects are perceived to be improving. Recent sharp EM underperformance has created a large negative divergence with the cyclical/defensive price ratio. The surging U.S. dollar is a growth impediment for many developing countries with large foreign debts. Meanwhile, the growth impetus required to support profit outperformance for deep cyclicals may be elusive. As a result, we expect re-convergence to occur via a rebound in defensive relative to cyclical sectors (Chart 34). On a longer-term basis, one likely long-lasting effect of the retreat from globalization is that "small is beautiful." Companies with large global footprints will suffer relative to domestically focused firms. One way to position for this change is to emphasize small caps at the expense of large caps, a strategy applicable in almost every region. Small caps are traditionally domestically geared irrespective of their domicile. In the U.S. specifically, small caps face a potential additional benefit. If the new administration follows through with promised corporate tax cuts, then small caps will benefit disproportionately given that the effective tax rate of multinationals is already low. Moreover, small companies would benefit most from any cuts in regulations. When it comes to specifics, our overweight sectors in the U.S. are consumer discretionary, telecoms, consumer staples and health care. We would underweight industrials, technology and materials. For Europe, we also like health care and would overweight German real estate. We would stay away from European banks even though they are trading at historically cheap levels. Commodities And Currencies Mr. X: A year ago, you predicted that oil prices would average $50/bbl over the 2016-18 period. As that is where prices have now settled, do you still stick with that prediction? Chart 35Oil Market Trends Oil Market Trends Oil Market Trends BCA: We have moved our forecast up to an average of $55/bbl following the recent 1.8 million b/d production cuts agreed between OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia, and non-OPEC, led by Russia. The economic pain from the drop in prices finally forced Saudi Arabia to blink and abandon its previous strategy of maintaining output despite falling prices. Of course, OPEC has a very spotty record of sticking with its plans and we expect that we will end up with a more modest 1.1 to 1.2 million b/d in actual output reductions. Yet, given global demand growth of around 1.3 million b/d and weakness in other non-OPEC output, these cuts will be enough to require a drawdown in inventories from current record levels. Even with the lower level of cuts that we expect, OECD oil inventories could drop by around 300 million barrels by late 2017, enough to bring down stocks roughly to their five-year average level (Chart 35). That is the stated goal of Saudi Arabia and the odds are good that the level of compliance to the cuts will be better than the market expects. Mr. X: How does shale production factor into your analysis? What are the odds that a resurgence of U.S. shale production will undermine your price forecast? BCA: We expect U.S. shale-oil production to bottom in the first quarter of 2017, followed by a production increase of around 200,000 b/d in the second half. However, that will not be enough to drive prices back down. The bigger risk to oil prices over the next year or two is for a rise, not a decline given the industry's massive cutbacks in capital spending. More than $1 trillion of planned capex has been cut for the next several years, which translates into more than seven million b/d of oil-equivalent (oil and natural gas) production that will not be developed. And increased shale production cannot fully offset that. In addition to meeting demand growth, new production also must offset natural decline rates, which amount to 8% to 10% of production annually. Replacing these losses becomes more difficult as shale-oil output increases, given its very high decline rates. Shale technology appears to be gaining traction in Russia, which could end up significantly boosting production but capex cuts will constrain the global supply outlook until after 2018. Mr. X: Non-oil commodity prices have shown surprising strength recently, with copper surging almost 30% in the space of a few weeks. Is that just Chinese speculation, or is something more fundamental at work? You have had a cautious long-term view of commodities on the grounds that changing technology and reduced Chinese demand would keep a lid on prices. Do you see any reason to change that view? BCA: Developments in China remain critical for non-oil commodity prices. China's reflationary policies significantly boosted real estate and infrastructure spending and that was the main driver of the rally in metals prices in 2016. As we discussed earlier, China has eased back on reflation and that will take the edge off the commodity price boom. Indeed, given the speed and magnitude of the price increases in copper and other metals, it would not be surprising to see some near-term retrenchment. For the year as a whole, we expect a trading range for non-oil commodities. Longer-run, we would not bet against the long-term downtrend in real commodity prices and it really is a story about technology (Chart 36). Real estate booms notwithstanding, economies are shifting away from commodity-sensitive activities. Human capital is becoming more important relative to physical capital and price rises for resources encourages both conservation and the development of cheaper alternatives. In the post-WWII period, the pattern seems to have been for 10-year bull markets (1972 to 1982 and 2002 to 2012) and 20-year bear markets (1952 to 1972 and 1982 to 2002). The current bear phase is only six years old so it would be early to call an end to the downtrend from a long-term perspective. Chart 36The Long-Term Trend In Real Commodity Prices Is Down The Long-Term Trend in Real Commodity Prices Is Down The Long-Term Trend in Real Commodity Prices Is Down Mr. X: You know that I can't leave without asking you about gold. I continue to believe that bullion provides a good hedge at a time of extreme monetary policies, political uncertainty and, now, the prospect of fiscal reflation. Can you see bullion at least matching its past year's performance over the coming 12 months? Chart 37A Strong Dollar Hurts Bullion A Strong Dollar Hurts Bullion A Strong Dollar Hurts Bullion BCA: It is still a gold-friendly environment. The combination of political uncertainty, rising inflation expectations and continued easy money policies should provide support to bullion prices over the next year. The main negative is the potential for a further rise in the dollar: the strengthening of the dollar clearly was a factor undermining the gold price in the second half of 2016 (Chart 37). Nevertheless, a modest position in gold - no more than 5% of your portfolio - will give you some protection in what is likely to remain a very unsettled geopolitical environment. Mr. X: You mentioned the dollar so let me now delve into your currency views in more detail. The dollar has been appreciating for a few years and it seems quite a consensus view to be bullish on the currency. I know the U.S. economy is growing faster than most other developed economies but it surprises me that markets are ignoring the negatives: an ongoing large trade deficit, a looming rise in the fiscal deficit and uncertainty about the policies of the incoming administration. BCA: It is true that if you just looked at the U.S. economic and financial situation in isolation, you would not be very bullish on the currency. As you noted, the current account remains in large deficit, an increased federal deficit seems inevitable given the new administration's policy platform, and the level of short-rates is very low, despite the Fed's recent move. However, currencies are all about relative positions, and, despite its problems, the U.S. looks in better shape than other countries. The optimism toward the dollar is a near-term concern and suggests that the currency is ripe for a pullback. However, it will not require a major sell-off to unwind current overbought conditions. The main reasons to stay positive on the dollar on a cyclical basis are the relative stance of monetary policy and the potential for positive U.S. economic surprises relative to other countries. Ironically, if the administration follows up on its threat to impose trade barriers, that also would be positive for the currency, at least for a while. Longer-run it would be dollar bearish, because the U.S. probably would lose competiveness via higher inflation. The dollar is enjoying its third major upcycle since the era of floating rates began in the early 1970s (Chart 38). There are similarities in all three cases. Policy divergences and thus real interest-rate differentials were in the dollar's favor and there was general optimism about the U.S. economy relative to its competitors. In the first half of the 1980s, the optimism reflected President Reagan's pro-growth supply-side platform, in the second half of the 1990s it was the tech bubble, and this time it is the poor state of other economies that makes the U.S. look relatively attractive. Chart 38The Dollar Bull Market In Perspective January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes The bull market in the first half of the 1980s was the strongest of the three but was cut short by the 1985 Plaza Accord when the leading industrial economies agreed to coordinated intervention to push the dollar back down in order to forestall a U.S. protectionist response to its soaring trade deficit. The second upturn ended when the tech bubble burst. There is no prospect of intervention to end the current cycle and policy divergences will widen not narrow over the next year. Thus, the dollar should continue to appreciate over the next 12 months, perhaps by around 5% on a trade-weighted basis. The fiscal policies being promoted by the Trump team promise to widen the U.S. trade deficit but that will not stand in the way of a dollar ascent. The problems will occur if, as we discussed earlier, an overheating economy in 2018 and a resulting Fed response trigger a recession in 2019. At that point, the dollar probably would plunge. But it is far too soon to worry about that possibility. Mr. X: I was very surprised with the yen's strength in the first half of 2016 given Japan's hyper-easy policy stance. What was driving that? Also, I would be interested in your views on sterling and commodity and emerging currencies. BCA: The yen often acts as a safe-haven at times of great economic and political uncertainty and that worked in the yen's favor for much of the year. However, it lost ground when U.S. bond yields headed higher. Also, the U.S. election result did not help because Japan would be a big loser if the U.S. imposed trade restrictions. The policy settings in Japan are indeed negative for the yen and while the currency is oversold in the very short run, we expect the structural bear market to persist in 2017 (Chart 39). Sterling's trade-weighted index fell to an all-time low after the Brexit vote so it does offer good value by historical standards. However, with so much uncertainty about how Brexit negotiations will proceed, we remain cautious on the currency. The economy has performed quite well since the vote, but it is far too soon to judge the long-term consequences of EU departure. And the prospect of increased government spending when the country already has a large trade deficit and high public debt poses an additional risk. Turning to the commodity currencies, the rebound in oil and metals prices has stabilized the Canadian and Australian dollars (Chart 40). With resource prices not expected to make much further headway over the next year, these currencies likely will be range bound, albeit with risks to the downside, especially versus the U.S. dollar. Chart 39More Downside In The Yen More Downside In The Yen More Downside In The Yen Chart 40Commodity Currencies Have Stabilized Commodity Currencies Have Stabilized Commodity Currencies Have Stabilized Finally, we remain bearish on emerging currencies given relatively poor economic fundamentals. And this is particularly true for those countries with chronically high inflation and/or large current account deficits, largely outside of Asia. Mr. X: What about the Chinese currency? The renminbi has dropped by 13% against the dollar over the past three years and president-elect Trump has threatened to label China as a currency manipulator. You already noted that the Chinese authorities have intervened to prop the currency up, but this does not seem to be working. Chart 41Renminbi Weakness Renminbi Weakness Renminbi Weakness BCA: The trend in the USD/RMB rate exaggerates the weakness of the Chinese currency. On a trade-weighted basis, the currency has depreciated more modestly over the past year, and the recent trend has been up, in both real and nominal terms (Chart 41). In other words, a good part of the currency's move has reflected across-the-board strength in the dollar. The Chinese authorities are sensitive to U.S. pressures and have taken some measures to contain private capital outflows. The next step would be to raise interest rates but this would be a last resort. With the dollar expected to rise further in 2017, the RMB will drift lower, but policy interventions should limit the decline and we doubt the U.S. will follow through with its threat to label China as a manipulator. Geopolitics Mr. X: Last, but certainly not least, we must talk about geopolitics. In addition to the new political order in the U.S. we have a very unstable political situation in Europe, most notably in Italy. We cannot rule out an anti-euro party taking power in Italy which would presumably trigger massive volatility in the markets. With elections also due in France, Germany and the Netherlands, 2017 will be a crucial year for determining the future of the single currency and the EU. What is your take on the outlook? Chart 42Europeans Still Support The EU Europeans Still Support The EU Europeans Still Support The EU BCA: Europe's electoral calendar is indeed ominously packed with four of the euro area's five largest economies likely to have elections in 2017. Another election could occur if Spain's shaky minority government collapses. While we expect elevated uncertainty and lots of headline risk, we do not believe the elections in 2017 will transform Europe's future. As BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has argued since 2011, global multipolarity increases the logic for European integration. Crises such as Russian assertiveness, Islamic terrorism, and the migration wave are easier to deal with when countries act together rather than individually. Thus far, it appears that Europeans agree with this assessment: polling suggests that few are genuinely antagonistic towards the euro or the EU (Chart 42). Despite all of its problems, the single currency should hold together, at least over the next five years. Take the recent Spanish and Austrian elections. In Spain, Mariano Rajoy's right-wing People's Party managed to hold onto power despite four years of painful internal devaluations and supply-side reforms. In Austria, the more-establishment candidate for president, Alexander Van der Bellen, won the election despite fears to the contrary. In both cases, the centrist candidates survived because voters hesitated when confronted with an anti-establishment choice. We expect more of the same in the three crucial elections in the Netherlands, France, and Germany. Mr. X: What about Italy? BCA: The country certainly has its problems: it has lagged badly in implementing structural reforms and support for the euro is low compared to the euro area average. Yet, if elections were held today, polls show that the ruling Democratic Party would gain a narrow victory. There are three key points to consider regarding Italy: The December constitutional referendum was not a vote on the euro and thus cannot serve as a proxy for a future referendum. The market will punish Italy the moment it sniffs out even a whiff of a potential "Itexit" referendum. This will bring forward the future pain of redenomination, influencing voters' choices. Benefits of EU membership for Italy are considerable, especially as it allows the country to integrate its unproductive, poor, and expensive southern regions. Outside the EU, the Mezzogiorno is Rome's problem, and it is a big one. The larger question is whether other euro area countries will be content for Italy to remain mired in its fragile and troubling status quo. We think the answer is yes, given that Italy is the definition of "too-big-to-fail." Mr. X: During the past few years you have emphasized the importance of the shift from a unipolar to multipolar world, reflecting the growing power of China, renewed Russian activism and a decline in U.S. influence. How does the policy platform of the incoming Trump administration affect your view of the outlook? It seems as if the U.S. may end up antagonizing China at the same time as it tries to improve relations with Russia. How would that play out? Chart 43Asia Sells, America Rules Asia Sells, America Rules Asia Sells, America Rules BCA: The media is overemphasizing the role of president-elect Trump in Sino-American relations. Tensions have been building between the two countries for several years. The two countries have fundamental, structural, problems and Trump has just catalyzed what, in our mind, has been an inevitable conflict. The Asian state-led economic model was underpinned by the Pax Americana. Two factors were instrumental: America's commitment to free trade and its military supremacy. China was not technically an ally, like Japan and Korea, but after 1979 it sure looked like one in terms of trade surpluses and military spending (Chart 43). For the sake of containing the Soviet Union, the U.S. wrapped East Asia under its umbrella. Japan's economic model and large trade surpluses led it into a confrontation with the U.S. in the 1980s. President Ronald Reagan's economic team forced Japan to reform, but the result ultimately was a financial crisis as the artificial supports of its economic model fell away. Many investors have long suspected that a similar fate awaited China. It is unsustainable for China to seize ever greater market share and drive down manufacturing prices without reforming its economy to match G7 standards, especially if it hinders U.S. access to its vast consumer market. There is a critical difference between the "Japan bashing" of the 1980s and the increasingly potent "China bashing" of today. In the 1980s, the U.S. had already achieved strategic supremacy over Japan as a result of WWII, but that is not the case for the U.S. and China in 2017. Unlike Japan, Korea, or any of the other Asian tigers, China cannot trust the U.S. to preserve its security. Far from it - China has no greater security threat than the U.S. The American navy threatens Chinese access to critical commodities and export markets via the South China Sea. In a world that is evolving into a zero-sum game, these things suddenly matter. That means that when the Trump administration tries to "get tough" on long-standing American demands, these demands will not be taken as well-intentioned or trustworthy. Sino-American rivalry will be the chief geopolitical risk to investors in 2017. Mr. X: Are there any other geopolitical issues that might affect financial markets during the coming year? BCA: Investors are underestimating the risks that the defeat of the Islamic State Caliphate in the Middle East will pose. While the obvious consequence is a spread of terrorism as militants return home, the bigger question is what happens to the regional disequilibrium. In particular, we fear that Turkey will become embroiled in a conflict in both Syria and Iraq, potentially in a proxy war with Iran and Russia. The defeat of Islamic State will create a vacuum in the Middle East that the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds are most likely to fill. This is unacceptable to Turkey, which has intervened militarily to counter Kurdish gains and may do so in the future. The Turkish foray into the Middle East poses the chief risk of a shooting war that could impact global markets in 2017. While there are much greater geopolitical games afoot - such as increasing Sino-American tensions - this one is the most likely to produce military conflict between serious powers. It would be disastrous for Turkey. Conclusions Mr. X: I think we should end our discussions here before you make me more depressed. A year ago, I was very troubled about the economic and financial outlook, and you did not say very much at that time to ease my concerns. And I feel in a similar situation again this year. I do not believe we are at the edge of a major economic or financial crisis, so that is not the issue. The problem for me is that policymakers continue to distort things with excessively easy monetary policies. And now we face fiscal expansion in the U.S., even though the economy is approaching full employment and wages are picking up. Meanwhile, nobody seems worried about debt anymore despite debt-to-GDP ratios that are at all-time highs throughout the world. And if that was not enough, we face the most uncertain political environment that I can remember, both in the U.S. and Europe. It would not be so bad if markets were cheap to compensate for the various risks and uncertainties that we face. But, as we discussed, that is not the case. So I am left with the same dilemma as last year: where to invest when most assets are fully valued. I am sure that you are right when you say that stock prices are well placed to overshoot over the coming year, but that is not a game I like to play. So I am inclined to stay with a cautious investment stance for a while longer, hoping for a better entry point into equities and other risk assets. BCA: We understand your caution, but you risk missing out on some decent gains in equities over the coming year if you remain on the sidelines. The equity market is due for a near-term pullback, but we would use that as a buying opportunity. Markets are not expensive everywhere and the policy backdrop will remain supportive of risk assets. And although we talked about an overshoot, there is plenty of upside before we need to be concerned that valuations have become a major constraint. We are certainly not trying to persuade you to throw caution to the wind. We have not changed our view that long-term returns from financial assets will be a pale shadow of their historical performance. The past 33 years have delivered compound returns of 10.3% a year from a balanced portfolio and we cannot find any comparable period in history that comes even close (Table 3). As we discussed at length in the past, these excellent returns reflected a powerful combination of several largely interrelated forces: falling inflation and interest rates, rising profit margins, a starting point of cheap valuations and strong credit growth. None of these conditions exist now: inflation and interest rates are headed up, profit margins are likely to compress, valuations are not cheap, and in a post-Debt Supercycle world, the days of rapid credit growth are over. Thus, that same balanced portfolio is likely to deliver compound returns of only 4% over the coming decade. Table 3The Past Is Not A Guide To The Future January 2017 - Shifting Regimes January 2017 - Shifting Regimes The bottom line is that the economic and policy regime that delivered exceptional markets is shifting. The end of the Debt Supercycle a few years ago represented one element of regime shift and now we face several other elements such as the end of the era of falling inflation and interest rates, a rebalancing of the income shares going to labor and capital, and politically, in attitudes and thus policies regarding globalization. A world of modest returns is one where it is very important to get the right country and sector allocation, and ideally, catch shorter-term market swings. Of course, that is much more challenging than simply enjoying a rising tide that lifts all boats. As the year progresses, we will update you with our latest thinking on market trends and investment ideas. Mr. X: I am sure we are about to have a very interesting year and I will rely on your research to highlight investment opportunities and to keep me out of trouble. Once again, many thanks for spending the time to take me through your views and let's end with a summary of your main views. BCA: That will be our pleasure. The key points are as follows: A number of important regime shifts will impact the economic and investment outlook over the next few years. These include the end of the era of falling inflation and interest rates, a move away from fiscal conservatism, a policy pushback against globalization, and a rise in the labor share of income at the expense of profit margins. Together with an earlier regime shift when the Debt Supercycle ended, these trends are consistent with very modest returns from financial assets over the next decade. The failure of low interest rates to trigger a vigorous rebound in private credit growth is consistent with our end-of-Debt Supercycle thesis. The end-point for dealing with high debt levels may ultimately be sharply higher inflation, but only after the next downturn triggers a new deflationary scare. The potential for trade restrictions by the incoming U.S. administration poses a threat to the outlook, but the odds of a global trade war are low. Time-lags in implementing policy mean that the fiscal plans of president-elect Trump will boost U.S. growth in 2018 more than 2017. This raises the risk of an overheated economy in 2018 leading to a monetary squeeze and recession in 2019. They key issue will be whether the supply side of the economy expands alongside increased demand and it will be critical to monitor business capital spending. Lingering structural problems will prevent any growth acceleration outside the U.S. The euro area and emerging economies are still in the midst of a deleveraging cycle and demographics remain a headwind for Japan. Not many countries will follow the U.S. example of fiscal stimulus. Nevertheless, for the first time since the recovery began, global growth forecasts are likely to avoid a downgrade over the next couple of years. China remains an unbalanced and fragile economy but the authorities have enough policy flexibility to avoid a hard landing, at least over the year or two. The longer-run outlook is more bearish unless the government moves away from its stop-go policy approach and pursues more supply-side reforms. Inflation has bottomed in the U.S., but the upturn will be gradual in 2017 and it will stay subdued in the euro area and Japan. Divergences in monetary policy between the U.S. and other developed economies will continue to build in 2017 as the Fed tightens and other central banks stay on hold. Unlike a year ago, the Fed's rate expectations look reasonable. Bond yields in the U.S. may fall in the near run after their recent sharp rise, but the cyclical trend is up against a backdrop of monetary tightening, fiscal stimulus and rising inflation. Yields in the euro area will be held down by ongoing QE, while the 10-year yield will stay capped at zero in Japan. The secular bull market in bonds is over although yields could retest their recent lows in the next downturn. The search for yield will remain an important investment theme, but rich valuations dictate only a neutral weighting in investment-grade corporate bonds and a modest underweight in high-yielders. The U.S. equity market is modestly overvalued but the conditions are ripe for an overshoot in 2017 given optimism about a boost to profits from the new administration's policies. Earnings expectations are far too high and ignore the likelihood that rising labor costs will squeeze margins. Nevertheless, that need not preclude equity prices moving higher. There is a good chance of a sell-off in early 2017 and that would be a buying opportunity. Valuations are better in Japan and several European markets than in the U.S. and relative monetary conditions also favor these markets. We expect the U.S. to underperform in 2017. We expect emerging markets to underperform developed markets. The oil price should average around $55 a barrel over the next one or two years, with some risk to the upside. Although shale production should increase, the cutbacks in oil industry capital spending and planned production cuts by OPEC and some other producers will ensure that inventories will have to be drawn down in the second half of 2017. Non-oil commodity prices will stay in a trading range after healthy gains in 2016, but the long-run outlook is still bearish. The dollar bull market should stay intact over the coming year with the trade-weighted index rising by around 5%. Relative policy stances and economic trends should all stay supportive of the dollar. The outlook for the yen is especially gloomy. A stabilization in resource prices will keep commodity prices in a range. We remain bearish on EM currencies. The biggest geopolitical risks relate to U.S.-China relations, especially given president-elect Trump's inclination to engage in China-bashing. Meanwhile, the defeat of ISIS could create a power vacuum in the Middle East that could draw Turkey into a disastrous conflict with the Kurds and Iran/Russia. The coming year is important for elections in Europe but we do not expect any serious threat to the EU or single currency to emerge. Let us take this opportunity to wish you and all of our clients a very peaceful, healthy and prosperous New Year. The Editors December 20, 2016