Currencies

Highlights Clinton has a 65% chance of victory. She wins the election with 334 electoral votes. Trump has low odds of winning key swing states Virginia and Colorado. A Trump win requires a shock; it is not impossible by the historical record. A Clinton win is initially bullish and could bring some compromise. However, the median voter is moving to the left. The 1990s are gone. Feature BCA's Geopolitical Strategy made its initial U.S. general election forecast thirteen months ago in September 2015.1 We argued that the two most likely outcomes were: GOP Sweep Scenario: a Republican sweep (presidency and Congress) with a moderate candidate at the head of the party ticket; Democratic President / GOP Sweep of Congress: a Democrat win in the White House and a GOP that holds onto the House and Senate. Both outcomes would be positive for the markets given that (1) a GOP sweep would entail pro-market reforms (corporate taxes, de-regulation, entitlement reform, and modest fiscal spending) and (2) a divided government has historically produced a market-positive outcome. In December, we updated our forecast with a call that Hillary Clinton was a clear frontrunner given that a Trump nomination would greatly reduce the probability of a GOP sweep.2 Our reasoning then was that an anti-establishment Republican would fail to gather enough votes in the ideological middle of the American electorate. Although Trump has given Clinton a hardly believable run for her money, we continue to believe that misogynistic, racist, and narcissistic rhetoric are off-putting to the median American voter and distract from Trump's policy message (such as it is).3 In this final extended forecasting effort ahead of the election, our intention is to add value on three fronts: Get the final forecast right. Introduce the investment implications of our forecast. Ask what we have learned from this election so far. Quant Election Model: Trump Is A Red Herring Until very recently, the electoral polls showed a close race between Secretary Hillary Clinton and Mr. Donald Trump (Chart 1). However, our "Polls-plus" model, built using historical macroeconomic and election data since 1980, has been projecting a strong Clinton victory for some time. Based on our latest forecast, Hillary Clinton will win the 2016 presidential election in a landslide, with a projected electoral vote count of 334 (Chart 2). bca.gps_mp_2016_10_12_s2_c1 bca.gps_mp_2016_10_12_s2_c1 King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution In the following section, we introduce our model, its results, and explain why the predicted Clinton victory is so comfortable. To be clear, our model has favored Clinton well before the most recent series of gaffes by Mr. Trump. Part I: Structural Econometric Model Our econometric work combines state-level election and economic data as well as trends in national politics and opinion. The model's dependent variable is the difference in the share of the vote received by the Republicans and Democrats in each state. The explanatory variables break down into the following categories: Voting Patterns: Each state's previous election results, back to 1980, are computed as the differential between Republican and Democratic vote share, and used to gauge voter predisposition. We also include a momentum variable which measures the change in the differential between the two previous elections. Economic Variables: We use changes in state and national economic conditions prior to the elections to capture the macroeconomic context. These include national GDP, oil prices, and state-level disposable income. Political Intangibles: We include three different qualitative variables to capture political attitudes. "Polarization" is computed to factor in the likelihood that the incumbent party will be voted out after staying in power for multiple terms. The "alternative choice" measures the presence of a prominent third party. We also include current presidential approval ratings. Using these variables, and strictly avoiding any advantage of hindsight, our model correctly predicted the winner of every election since 1984 (Table 1 and Appendix 1): King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution 2012 - Obama v. Romney: The model slightly overestimated President Obama's support in West Virginia, Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, and Tennessee. 2008 - Obama v. McCain: The model produced an accurate forecast on an aggregate level, but again underestimated Obama's support. It misallocated electoral votes in 7 states. 2004 - Bush v. Kerry: Our analysis was only off by giving two extra electoral votes to Bush, but once more misallocated votes in 7 states. The Third Party Vote In 1992, 1996, and 2000: The model accurately predicted the winner in each contest but produced more volatile results as our sample started to shrink. In addition, the strong third-party candidacy in 1992 and 1996 distorted the results. These two elections were a key bellwether for the success of our model in 2016, as this year also features prominent third-party choices. Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party is currently polling around 6.3%. 1984 and 1988: Our earliest set of elections produced results that were quite close to reality despite a limited sample size. Although this is somewhat surprising, it is to be expected given the landslide victories that occurred in both instances. Part II: Econometric Modeling Meets Polls Most of the components from our econometric model are slow-moving structural factors. Opinion polls, on the other hand, change based on periodical surveys. They are more volatile, but provide a good indication of the day-to-day pulse of the electorate. For this reason, we created an augmented version of our econometric model using probabilities constructed from polls. First, we transformed our econometric forecasts into probabilities by using two scenarios and the historical volatility of our estimates. The two scenarios are based on the potential impact of the third parties: one in which they gather 5-10% of the popular vote, and the other in which they fail to reach that threshold. From there, we calculated the historical standard deviations for each scenario, getting the lower and upper limits of the election forecasts. Giving the two limits equal chances of occurring, we calculated the GOP's chances to win each state. We then added opinion polls to this model. We used the election probabilities from FiveThirtyEight, which are computed using simulations from a collection of weighted and adjusted polls, to add a shorter-term dimension to our forecast.4 We give a 60% weight to the probabilities from the polls and 40% to our structural econometric model to ensure that we capture the momentum effect. Part III: 2016 Election - All Hype, No Fight Our polls-plus model suggests that Clinton has a 65.4% chance of winning the election (Table 2). This is somewhat lower than the probability derived by other polls-plus models - such as FiveThirtyEight and the New York Times. Further, our model shows that Clinton already has 279 electoral votes in states where she has more than a 70% chance of winning (Chart 3). By the same standards, Trump has secured only 170 votes. These results mean that even under the unlikely scenario where the GOP wins all the remaining swing states (North Carolina, Arizona, Florida, Ohio, and Iowa), if all else stays the same, the Democrats still win with 279 electoral votes. King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution Intriguingly, our "White Hype" model back in March produced the same result using an entirely different method (it asked simply what share of the white vote Trump needed to win the swing states). At that time we argued that Trump had a very good chance to win Florida, Ohio, and Iowa, but that it would still be insufficient to win the election.5 In other words, our White Hype model correctly forecast in March the ultimate probabilities that our polls-plus model is now gauging from the combination of econometric results and opinion polls in October. Put differently, after winning the swing states (North Carolina, Arizona, Florida, Ohio, and Iowa), where the odds of winning are between 32% and 57%, the GOP would still need to steal the electoral votes in Virginia or Colorado (the latter in combination with Nevada or New Hampshire), away from the Democrats, where they are favored to win at 71.6% and 79.7%, respectively.6 This remains as unlikely now as it was in March.7 Bottom Line: Given the structural economic and political dynamics currently in place, our quantitative estimates show that Clinton is the clear favorite. Clinton has a 65.4% chance of winning the 2016 election, with an expected 334 electoral votes. Qualitative Election Model: Time To Dump Trump Thanks largely to the analysis of our colleague Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist of the BCA Global Investment Strategy, we took Donald Trump seriously long before most.8 We analyzed his electoral strategy - boosting the share of the white vote accruing to the GOP and away from the Democratic Party - and concluded that Trump did have a path to victory, albeit a very narrow one. Our research showed that Trump's strategy of increasing the Republican share of the white vote was mathematically the correct strategy for a GOP candidate to pursue, at least in 2016 when the white share of the total population remained large enough. We specifically showed that Trump would only need to increase white voters' support by 1.7% and 2.9% in Florida and Ohio, respectively, to flip those states, which seems quite reasonable and feasible.9 We also pointed out that getting a 5.7% swing in Iowa could be feasible. On the other hand, we showed that "flipping" Midwest states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin would require a very large swing of white voters in Trump's favor: 13.9%, 7.8%, and 8.1% respectively. At those numbers, Trump would have to win nearly 70% of Michigan's white voters, 65% of Pennsylvania's, and 58% of Wisconsin's. Of the three, Wisconsin looks the most feasible. On the other hand, the GOP only managed to pick up 52% of the state's white share in 2004, the last time a Republican candidate for president won an actual majority of the popular vote since 1988. So, getting to 58% is a high bar given Wisconsin's recent electoral history. How did our model hold up in terms of state-by-state polling? It did quite well! As we predicted, Trump has been doing relatively well in Iowa, Florida, and Ohio (Chart 4). In Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, Clinton's lead has remained higher than 5% through most of the election cycle and even through the periods where the media narrative shifted against her (Chart 5). bca.gps_mp_2016_10_12_s2_c4 bca.gps_mp_2016_10_12_s2_c4 bca.gps_mp_2016_10_12_s2_c5 bca.gps_mp_2016_10_12_s2_c5 Bottom Line: Despite a narrowing in the polls in mid-September - particularly following Clinton's September 11 health scare - we still concluded in our September Monthly Report that "the presidential race is Clinton's to lose."10 This is because both our quant (polls-plus) and qualitative (White Hype) models have correctly predicted that Trump's path to victory is extremely narrow. He would have to hold all of the swing-states where the White Hype model makes him competitive, and then also win either Virginia or Colorado plus Nevada, where he has struggled in the polls. Risks To Our View - A Trump Surprise! What scenario could occur between now and November 8 that throws off our forecast of a Hillary Clinton victory? As we have claimed from the beginning of the contest, Trump requires an exogenous factor to push him over the finish line. Given that Clinton's lead is now 6% in the polls, and that Trump is running out of time, he may need an act of God. That said, Trump has come a lot closer to winning the election than our polls-plus model suggests. Were it not for his idiosyncratic personality, the Democrats would have been a lot more vulnerable in 2016 than our predicted election outcome indicates. Why? Research by Professor Allan Lichtman, who has accurately predicted every U.S. presidential election since 1984, is instructive. Lichtman has called the election for Trump.11 His so-called "Keys" method - first outlined in a 1981 article and in his 1990 book, The Thirteen Keys To The Presidency - is a simple true or false quiz with thirteen propositions. If six or more of the answers are "false," the incumbent party loses the Oval Office (Table 3). King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution For instance, if it is true that the average GDP growth per capita is higher in the past four years than the preceding four years, then that fact favors the incumbent. Today, this "long-term economic key" favors Hillary (Chart 6). bca.gps_mp_2016_10_12_s2_c6 bca.gps_mp_2016_10_12_s2_c6 In 2016, at least five of Lichtman's keys clearly favor the GOP: In the House of Representatives, the incumbent Democrats lost seats in the 2014 midterm elections, relative to the 2010 midterms (Chart 7). The Democrats do not have an incumbent candidate advantage. Obama achieved no major policy initiative in the second term. There was nothing comparable in effect to the Affordable Care Act, his signature legislation (Chart 8). Obama achieved no major foreign policy success. The Iran nuclear deal is too controversial to satisfy this key, although we suspect that history will judge it as a major success. Instead, the public focus has been on the disastrous intervention in Libya and the dithering in Syria. Hillary Clinton is not charismatic, which is an understatement (Chart 9). In addition, Gary Johnson, of the Libertarian Party, is a third-party candidate who could garner more than 5% of the vote (Chart 10). Under Lichtman's methodology, this is a key that hurts the incumbent. Of course, Libertarians may suck more votes away from Trump than Clinton. But Lichtman has signaled this issue as a crux of the election, and thinks it favors Trump. King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution bca.gps_mp_2016_10_12_s2_c10 bca.gps_mp_2016_10_12_s2_c10 Moreover, in our view, Lichtman's keys could predict an even worse outcome for Clinton than Lichtman himself admits. Lichtman is very forthright about the fact that the keys require subjective judgment of the sort that professional historians make all the time. We would note, first, that the contest in the Democratic primary was serious. Sanders performed nearly as well as Clinton herself did in 2008, and better than other second-rank Democratic contenders going back to 1984 (Chart 11). Second, social unrest has likely risen in Obama's second term, or at least is perceived to have done so (Chart 12). King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution Thus the primary contest and social unrest could trigger two more strikes against the incumbent party, without even debating whether Obama administration scandals or Trump's charisma qualify as keys against the Democrats.12 We think that Lichtman's model speaks volumes about the built-in vulnerability that the Democratic Party has faced throughout 2016. It also supports our initial September 2015 forecast, which gave largely even odds to both a moderate GOP presidential candidate and Hillary Clinton. As such, Trump's defeat will be a disaster for the Republican Party and will initiate a period of introspection - if not civil war - within the organization. Bottom Line: Trump does have good odds of winning the election if Clinton's lead in the polls drops below 3% between now and Election Day. If Trump gets back within striking distance, it will suggest that Clinton cannot shake him even after the media narrative and GOP establishment turned against him. With a 3% gap in the polls, the "turnout thesis" would become a lot more cogent. This is the thesis that Clinton will struggle to get members of the "Obama coalition" (millennials and minorities) to come out and vote, while Trump will motivate the registered but non-voting white population to turn out for him. At this point in the cycle, however, we doubt that Trump will re-test this level of competitiveness. Investment Implications: More Bullish Than Priced-In A Trump surprise would trigger a correction in equity markets, which is already due based on valuations, earnings, and other factors. We would expect the USD, as a key safe haven, to rally sharply both on Trump policy uncertainty and heightened geopolitical risk. We would also expect bond yields to fall initially, as part of a broad risk-off move, but then sell off due to the implication of more inflationary fiscal policies. Trump's policy proposals suggest a budget deficit blowout at least comparable to that under George W. Bush, which went from 2% to almost -4% of GDP. A combination of more spending and less tax revenue would blow the top off the bond market. What about the expected Clinton victory? First, markets love divided government (Table 4). Why? Because spending remains in check and no new onerous policies are likely. This will likely be the case if the GOP keeps the House of Representatives. However, we also think a Republican House could be conducive to dealing with Clinton, particularly on a modest fiscal stimulus: King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution Clinton is not Obama: She will enter the Oval Office unpopular and without a strong mandate. She may not win over 50% of the popular vote. The Senate is in play, with polls at RealClearPolitics suggesting that the Democrats would win at least the four seats they need (leaving Vice-President Tim Kaine to cast the tie-breaking vote on legislation). The House is unlikely to be in play. Thus, unlike Obama in 2009, she will have a slim Senate majority at best (not filibuster-proof) and a GOP-held House. She will have to cut deals to advance her agenda. The Grand Coalition Lives: In the past few years, Congress has passed a number of important bills because establishment Republicans voted alongside Democrats (Chart 13). This coalition would remain in place, cemented by the populist threat to both camps represented by Trump and Sanders. The Knives Will Be Out For The Tea Party: Trump's rise and fall would be seen as an infamous debacle that cost the Republicans a highly significant election well within their reach. The Republican establishment will be determined to regain the reins of the party apparatus and brand. The Tea Party and other populist or anti-establishment Republicans will be blamed not only for giving Clinton the keys to the White House but also for giving the Democrats the advantage on the Supreme Court for a generation. True, Republicans could take away a narrow reading of the election results. They could blame the entire loss on Trump, not the party, given that Trump and the party had a bad relationship and Trump endorsed various positions at odds with conservative platforms and principles. They could therefore draw the conclusion that the correct strategy for the future is not to change policies or compromise with Democrats, but simply avoid running inexperienced, flamboyant mavericks for president. This view would be supported by the fact that, with a Clinton victory, moderate Republicans in more competitive districts, not arch-conservatives in bright red ones, are more likely to lose seats in the House. Ironically, this means that House Republicans could be just as zealous in opposition as they were under Obama, or more, and thus poised to resume the game of obstruction. This is possible, but we think the anti-establishment will be on the defensive, at least initially. Clinton will receive some kind of honeymoon period after dealing a devastating blow to the GOP. There will be Republicans ready to compromise, under the leadership of Paul Ryan, who did not accept the House speakership in order not to compromise. And the far-right will have at least some waverers in their midst. As such, we can see the potential for modest corporate tax reform (broadening the tax base without lowering the effective corporate tax rate). Even though such reform is not extraordinary, it should boost economic growth by helping small and medium-sized businesses grow. We can also see the GOP under Paul Ryan agreeing to modest increases in fiscal spending in return. Our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou, Chief Strategist of BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy, cogently argues that fiscal spending only comes amidst recessions. Chart 14 shows that mentions of "fiscal stimulus" in the news media are positively correlated with junk bonds and VIX, and negatively correlated with the yield curve. As such, fiscal stimulus only begins being contemplated when the pain of a recession hits. King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution bca.gps_mp_2016_10_12_s2_c14 bca.gps_mp_2016_10_12_s2_c14 Could this time be different? Yes. 55% of Americans think the economy has not recovered from the Great Recession, and some polls suggest that over half think the U.S. is still in recession. As such, while a recession may not be occurring in reality, it may as well be as far as politicians are concerned. Moreover, the public apparently cares less about the deficit and debt than in the recent past: the number of Americans naming deficits as the "top priority" has fallen from 72% to 56% in the past few years. And again, the populist groundswell will reinforce the need to lift growth through policy. Beyond an immediate relief rally, we would fade any idea that Clinton's victory means a return to the Bill Clinton-environment for corporate profits and stock performance. A structural shift to the left is underway in American politics, both generational and economic, as we argued in June.13 Clinton will not be able to betray her pledges to Bernie Sanders supporters if she wants to be a two-term president. Thus, on a sectoral basis, we would expect Clinton to have quite a few negatives (Table 5). First, she would portend greater state involvement in healthcare, especially Big Pharma, despite the idea that repealing the Affordable Care Act would cause more uncertainty than keeping and changing it. We also would not expect her to be as favorable to the financial community as her list of donors suggests, given the challenges she faces on her left regarding financial regulation. On energy, she will benefit renewable energy companies more so than conventional ones, given her commitment to turning the U.S. into a "twenty-first century clean energy superpower." King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution King Dollar: The Agent Of Righteous Retribution We would expect her to be good for defense stocks, both because she has a lifetime of foreign policy hawkishness and because of the global trend of multipolarity, which increases both the number of global conflicts and the risks of additional conflicts.14 For Trump, there is little reason to speculate - he has no experience governing, has flip-flopped on many policy stances, and is generally unorthodox and impossible to predict (e.g. his healthcare "plan"). If we had to venture a guess, we would say that, like Clinton, he will be positive for defense stocks. His aggressively anti-regulatory positions on the financial and energy sectors should be a boon for both. A critical thing to remember is that recent American presidents do not have a bad track record of getting what they want (Box 1). Like all leaders, they are at the mercy of constraints and structural factors, whether political, military, economic, or social. Yet they also command a powerful (and increasingly so) executive branch of government in the world's most powerful country. If Clinton wants higher taxes on the wealthy and a stronger state hand in healthcare, she will most likely get them. If Trump wants tougher border security and deep corporate tax cuts, he will likely get those as well. Congress is a check, but only that. BOX 1 U.S. Presidents: Promises And Performance Over the past 28 years, each new president has generally succeeded in passing the signature items on his agenda. George Bush Sr. is the major exception. He took office in 1988 with a pledge of keeping growth rates constant, creating 30 million new jobs over eight years, keeping the peace abroad, and improving the budget deficit without raising taxes. Instead, after only one year in office, he faced a recession that caused a 1.2 percentage point drop in the growth rate from Reagan's average, resulting in only 2.6 million increase in the civilian labor force his first term, 12.4 million wide of the mark. He was famously forced to raise taxes, despite saying "read my lips: no new taxes," and the budget deficit expanded from 2.7% to 4.5%. Finally, Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait drew him into the Gulf War. Bill Clinton got luckier. His chief pledge was to raise wages, shift government investment from defense to the domestic economy, make healthcare more affordable, and reform welfare. He failed in healthcare, but generally succeeded in other initiatives. Wages admit of some debate - average earnings grew faster than under Reagan-Bush, though median earnings did not. Still, Clinton presided over a longer more stable period of wage growth than his predecessors (Chart 1). Non-defense investment rose 19% (defense barely grew) and its share in federal spending rose from 10% to 12%. The participation rate in cash assistance and food stamp programs declined sharply, as did the length of time on the dole. George W. Bush came to power on the promise of reforming social policy - health, education, social security - and essentially transferring the Clinton budget surplus to voters through tax cuts. He succeeded in taxes, education (No Child Left Behind Act), and health (Medicare expansion), aided by Republican majorities and popular support after the September 11 attacks. He failed to partially privatize social security, however. Barack Obama promised to make the tax code more progressive, make healthcare accessible and affordable, reduce energy dependency on the Middle East, and phase out the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has generally achieved these goals: the number of uninsured adults fell from 18% to 11%, healthcare price inflation has slowed from about 4% under Clinton and Bush to 3% per year, and U.S. energy imports have fallen from 33% to 25% of total consumption. However, while Obama succeeded broadly in withdrawing troops from the Middle East (Chart 2), he has failed to "finish" the war in Afghanistan. bca.gps_mp_2016_10_12_s2_c15 bca.gps_mp_2016_10_12_s2_c15 bca.gps_mp_2016_10_12_s2_c16 bca.gps_mp_2016_10_12_s2_c16 There are three chief takeaways: First, circumstances can overrule any president's plans, as occurred with George Bush Sr. Second, winning an election in reaction to a recession, as did Clinton and Obama, or suffering a crisis early in one's term, like Bush Jr., provides a tailwind for a president's initiatives. The flipside is that inheriting strong economic growth on the coattails of a popular two-term president may put an administration at risk of a cyclical downturn or general failure to meet expectations. (Warning for a Hillary Clinton administration!) Third, Congress can block some but probably not all of a president's plans. Clinton, Bush, and Obama each began with their own party controlling the legislature, which gave an early advantage that was later reversed. Clinton lost on healthcare but achieved bipartisan welfare reform. For Obama, legislative obstructionism halted various initiatives, but his core objectives were either already met (healthcare), not reliant on Congress (foreign policy), or achieved through compromise after his reelection (expiration of Bush tax cuts for upper income levels). For Bush Jr., the legislature switched after six years of his administration, yet social security had already proved to be the "third rail" of politics that he feared - he failed to reform it despite his own party's control of Congress. Final Thoughts: Lessons From 2016 The 2016 election has taught us some critical lessons. First, the world never would have believed, in the immediate aftermath of the global financial crisis, that populism would be more disruptive in the Anglo-Saxon countries than in continental Europe. But that is what has happened. The United States and the United Kingdom have both seen an explosion of pent-up forces as a result of decades - particularly the past 16 years in the U.S. - of declining middle classes, rising inequality, and weak median incomes.15 The consequences are only just beginning to be felt, and are of far greater global significance coming from the U.S. than the relatively small U.K. The chief of these is that, in the U.S., the median voter has clearly moved to the left on economic policy. Trump's victory over an army of seasoned, relatively orthodox GOP contenders in the primary exposed the fact that the party's grassroot voters no longer care deeply about fiscal austerity and no longer wish to tolerate the corporate incentive for importing cheap labor. Rather, they want government to give them more goodies and protections. This fact, taken along with the demographic trends favoring millennials and minorities (who tend to vote left on economic policies), portends a shift by which the GOP attempts to capture left-leaning voters in a way that Bill Clinton and the "New Democrats" shifted to capture right-leaning centrist voters in the wake of Ronald Reagan and the collapse of the USSR. Part of this process will involve a political alignment in the U.S., now that the GOP's deep fractures have been exposed for all the world to see. Trump's candidacy could never have occurred if there had not first been a power vacuum at the center of the party. If Trump wins, it will be a veritable revolution for both parties. Fiscal conservatism (and social conservatism, for that matter) will have little to show by way of official party machinery. The global consequences will be highly disruptive as well since the executive branch has extensive power over all actions of the federal bureaucracy, trade, and foreign policy, and since the GOP will not obstruct Trump initially (whatever happens in the aftermath of any radical policy changes). If Trump loses, as mentioned above, the anti-establishment trend in the Republican Party will suffer the brunt of the blame - whether Tea Party or other. Though messy, this result could in fact be bullish for the U.S. in the long run, since it would discredit populism in the party and give a boost to reformers who seek to re-brand and redesign the party to respond to changes in the electorate. Thus, in 2020, either Clinton's policies will be working and Americans will not be demanding change, or they will not be working, and Americans will have a reformed GOP as an alternative. Alternatively, Trump's loss could fuel populism by showing the way for a similar candidate with similar policies yet who does not lack in charisma, oratory, and party backing. Trump's strategy of boosting white support for the GOP is demographically and mathematically possible at least until 2024. Or perhaps a different kind of Republican (or Democratic) candidate could attempt to capture aspects of Trumpism, given his left-tilt on economic policy, while appealing to the Democratic coalition of women, millennials, and minorities. The GOP shakeup should be watched closely. Lastly, the 2016 election has amplified a point that we have long emphasized: the news media works in narratives. These narratives work as a filter that preempts and distorts the presentation and, to some extent, reception of facts. This phenomenon was influential in Trump's rise - the first "Twitter" candidacy - as well as his recent decline. Similarly, it made the race competitive when Clinton's various scandals were "trending." As a result, investors cannot be too wary of what the mainstream press or financial "smart money" says about any particular political trend or event. It is essential to separate the wheat from the chaff by using empirics and looking at macro and structural factors to identify the constraints rather than the preferences of candidates or politicians. Trump's constraints, as we have contended, are too high. Appendix 1 shows the state-by state performance of the econometric model (without polls) for each of the past 8 elections. It compares the model's forecast (no hindsight bias) with actual results. APPENDIX 1 Back-testing GPS's Econometric Election Model Image Image Image Image 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election - Forecast & Investment Implications," dated September 9, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Bank Credit Analyst Strategic Outlook, "Stuck In A Rut," dated December 17, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 #shocker. 4 For a more detailed explanation of FiveThirtyEight's methodology, please see "A User's Guide To FiveThirtyEight's 2016 General Election Forecast," dated June 29, 2016, available at http://www.fivethirtyeight.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcareseach.com. 6 The Democrats' probability of winning Nevada and New Hampshire are 74.4% and 80% respectively. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "U.S. Election: Is The Election Over?" in Monthly Report, "Who's Afraid Of Big Bad Trump?" dated August 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 9 The assumption being that the turnout, non-white vote share, and white turnout do not change from 2012. In other words, our model only focuses on the white share of the vote for the Republican candidate. We assume that Clinton will not benefit from an anti-Trump tailwind among minorities, which is a big assumption given the pernicious effects of the "White Hype" strategy on the minority support of a Republican candidate. On the other hand, we also do not change the white voter turnout, which is unfair to Trump as he would likely be able to boost the white turnout as he increases the GOP share of the vote. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "U.S. Election Update - The Home Stretch," in Monthly Report, "Transformative Vs. Transactional Leadership," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see our book review below for a discussion of Lichtman's latest book. See also Peter W. Stevenson, "Trump Is Headed For A Win, Says Professor Who Has Predicted 30 Years Of Presidential Outcomes Correctly," Washington Post, September 23, 2016, available at www.washingtonpost.com. 12 Lichtman addresses the issues of Sanders, scandals, and Trump's charisma in Peter W. Stevenson, "This Professor Has Predicted Every Presidential Election Since 1984. He's Still Trying To Figure Out 2016," Washington Post, May 12, 2016, available at www.washingtonpost.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, and "Annus Horribilis," dated January 20, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Dear Client, This week, I am currently on the road visiting clients across Europe. We are sending you an abbreviated weekly report as well as a Special Report from our Geopolitical Strategy team entitled “U.S. Election: Final Forecast & Implications”. Not only does this report encompass a detailed analysis of the upcoming U.S. presidential election and its implications for the future of U.S. politics, it also introduces GPS’s poll-plus model, a model which currently forecasts a Clinton victory. I trust you will find this piece very informative. Best regards, Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy Highlights The U.S. dollar is consolidating its recent gains, but it offers more upside in the months ahead A Trump victory would supercharge any dollar strength, but is likely to hurt the dollar in the long-term. In Japan, no more fiscal drag and a tightening in the labor market will ultimately result in a lower yen, courtesy of higher inflation expectations and falling real rates. The Australian labor market points to weaknesses in the domestic economy. Any EM turmoil could launch an AUD bear phase. Feature The U.S. dollar continues to consolidate its recent gains. While the dollar is expensive, it still offers upside potential. Monetary divergences remain in favor of the U.S. economy. U.S. labor market slack is disappearing and the rising share of salaries and wages in the national income pie is likely to further support consumption. Shifting the distribution of economic gains toward workers signifies that the middle class is gaining ground relative to households at the summit of the income ladder. This process should help consumption because the middle class has a much higher marginal propensity to consume than the top 1% (Chart I-1). If consumption growth remains healthy, job creation is likely to fan additional wage pressures, creating a virtuous circle for U.S. households and consumption. This virtuous cycle is likely to help the Fed increase rates over the next two years, providing a source of support for the dollar (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Shifting Income To The Middle Class Will Support Consumption bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s1_c1 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s1_c1 Chart I-2A Virtuous Cycle For The Dollar A Virtuous Cycle For The Dollar A Virtuous Cycle For The Dollar In terms of the presidential election outcome, the shift of the median voter to the left signifies that redistributionist policies are likely to become an ever growing part of the U.S. political discourse. This reality is likely to provide another source of support for the U.S. dollar, at least for now. While a Clinton victory will not halt these trends, a Trump victory would likely supercharge any dollar bull market. While vague in details, Trump's economic plan involves much more infrastructure spending financed with debt issuance, i.e. a large amount of fiscal stimulus that would remove the need for any dovish tilt to the Fed's stance. Moreover, by raising the specter of protectionism, a Trump victory could revive inflationary forces in the U.S. economy. Protectionism, while negative for profits, would decrease the trade deficit, temporarily lifting U.S. GDP. Since the supply side of the economy has been hampered by tepid levels of investment (Chart I-3), we could see a situation where demand is in excess of supply. This would prompt an even more hawkish Fed. However, although a Trump victory would be a dream for dollar bulls, caution is warranted. In the long-term, a Trump administration implies a falling fair value for the dollar. For one, by lifting inflation, a Trump victory would hurt the PPP value of the greenback. Second, a Trump victory would also ultimately lead to a degradation of the USD's role as the global reserve currency, making the -40% of GDP net international investment position of the U.S. more difficult to sustain (Chart I-4). Finally, by shielding the economy from the competitive pressures of globalization, a Trump victory would likely result in a deterioration of U.S. productivity vis-à-vis the rest of the world. Chart I-3Low Capital Stock Growth Would Crystalize The##br## Inflationary Effect Of A Trump Presidency bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s1_c3 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s1_c3 Chart I-4The Dollar Needs Its ##br##Reserve-Currency Status bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s1_c4 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s1_c4 Yen Signs pointing toward a strong wave of yen weakness are slowly coming together. In recent years, the yen has closely followed real rates differentials (Chart I-5). With the BoJ guaranteeing a limit on the upside for nominal rates, any improvement in the economy is likely to cause inflation expectations to increase, and thus real rates, to fall. What are the signals pointing toward higher inflation expectations and a lower yen? First, the labor market is tightening. The job-opening-to-applicants ratio is at a 15 year high and employment growth remains healthy (Chart I-6). Meanwhile, the participation rate of women in the labor force is at all-time highs, and at 73.5%, the employment-to-population ratio for prime-age women is already above U.S. levels. In fact, it is at similar levels to those experienced in the U.S. during the boom years of the late 1990s. Thus, the declining likelihood that more women will enter the labor force eliminates a wage-suppressing factor. Chart I-5USD/JPY: A Function Of##br## Real Rate Differentials USD/JPY: A Function Of Real Rate Differentials USD/JPY: A Function Of Real Rate Differentials Chart I-6Japan: Female Labor Participation Now Exceeds ##br##The U.S. Japanese Wages Can Now Rise bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s1_c6 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s1_c6 Second, the Japanese shipment-to-inventory ratio is improving. Thanks to lean-inventory techniques, this ratio tends to be most elevated at the bottom of economic slowdowns, reflecting depressed sales rather than bloated inventories. Historically, growing shipments relative to inventories are associated with rising inflation expectations (Chart I-7). Third, the drag from fiscal policy is dissipating. Budget tightening is leveling off, lifting a big brake on domestic demand (Chart I-8). Moreover, we expect fiscal stimulus to gather momentum in 2017, especially in the form of wage policy. This provides an additional support for Japanese inflation expectations. If no further fiscal stimulus comes to fruition in Japan, we expect USD/JPY to rally toward 110-115 in the next 18-months. If aggressive fiscal stimulus and a wage policy are implemented, the upside for USD/JPY could be much greater, in the order of 120 or more. Chart I-7Japanese Shipment-To-Inventory##br## Ratio And CPI Expectations Japanese Shipment-To-Inventory Ratio And CPI Expectations Japanese Shipment-To-Inventory Ratio And CPI Expectations Chart I-8The Dissipating Japanese ##br##Fiscal Drag USD, JPY, AUD: Where Do We Stand? USD, JPY, AUD: Where Do We Stand? Yet, while the cyclical outlook for the yen is bearish, the shorter-term outlook is more nuanced. Any EM-selloff triggered by tightening global liquidity conditions could prompt downward pressures on Japanese inflation expectations. This would mechanically lift Japanese real rates and the yen. Hence, we recommend investors sell the yen on a long-term basis but hedge this position by buying JPY volatility over the next 3-6 months. Australian Dollar The Australian dollar is at a tricky spot. Technically, the AUD has been forming a tapering wedge, a pattern that often heralds a large move in this currency. How will this pattern resolve itself? We expect a bearish outcome. The domestic economy is displaying some worrying signs. Not only is full-time employment contracting, but so are total hours worked (Chart I-9). This is likely to weigh on household income and on consumption. This is especially problematic as Australian gross fixed capital formation continues to contract at a 4.5% annual pace. The result is that inflationary pressures in Australia will be kept at bay. In the process, the RBA could adopt a more dovish bias. Chart I-9Australian Domestic Conditions ##br##Are Deteriorating bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s1_c9 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s1_c9 Chart I-10Australian Exports To ##br##China Are Still Falling... Australian Exports To China Are Still Falling... Australian Exports To China Are Still Falling... Additionally, despite a stabilization in Chinese growth, Chinese imports from Australia continue to contract (Chart I-10). Not only has this happened as iron ore prices have rebounded, but also, as economic conditions have improved in EMs that are highly levered to the Chinese cycle (Chart I-11). Our expectation is that the Chinese industrial sector is likely to experience a slowdown in the months ahead, courtesy of a falling fiscal impulse (Chart I-12), which begs a question: What does the future hold for Australian exports? Chart I-11...Despite Rising Taiwanese##br## Industrial Production bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s1_c11 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s1_c11 Chart I-12Tightening Global Liquidity Is A Headwind##br## For EM Financial Conditions And Growth Tightening Global Liquidity Is A Headwind For EM Financial Conditions And Growth Tightening Global Liquidity Is A Headwind For EM Financial Conditions And Growth Finally, our bullish U.S. dollar stance is a tough hurdle for commodity prices to overcome (Chart I-13). Weakness in commodities would represent a negative terms-of-trade shock for Australia and the AUD. Moreover, the PBOC continues to use a lower RMB as an engine of reflation, and we stand by our bearish JPY forecast. Because of these two developments KRW, SGD, and TWD, are very likely to experience further downside. Historically, Asian currency weakness correlates closely with a weak AUD (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Commodities And The Dollar:##br## Joined At The Hip bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s1_c13 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s1_c13 Chart I-14AUD Performs Poorly When ##br##Asian Currencies Sell Off bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s1_c14 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s1_c14 We are already shorting AUD/USD in the context of a short commodity currencies trade. We are considering buying EUR/AUD, as the euro is less sensitive to the dollar, EM spreads, and commodity prices versus the AUD. Also, EUR/AUD is more attractive from a valuation perspective, trading 5% below its PPP fair value. This cross is also supported by a favorable balance-of-payments backdrop, with the euro area registering a 7.7% of GDP current-account differential relative to Australia. Buying EUR/AUD represents a way for investors to bet on a weaker AUD while decreasing their exposure to the U.S. dollar risk factor. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c1 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c2 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c2 Policy Commentary: "There are risks of hanging around zero too long. And if the economy can withstand [a hike], I think it's appropriate to move" - Philadelphia Fed President Patrick Harker (October 26, 2016) Report Links: Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c3 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c3 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c4 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c4 Policy Commentary: "In the euro area, we have a long way to go before we exhaust the productivity improvements that have already taken place in the U.S" - ECB President Mario Draghi (October 25, 2016) Report Links: Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c5 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c5 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c6 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c6 Policy Commentary: "Since the employment situation has continued to improve, no further easing of monetary policy may be necessary... at any rate, I would like to discuss this thoroughly with other board members at our monetary policy meeting" - BoJ Board Member Yutaka Harada (October 12, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c7 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c7 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c8 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c8 Policy Commentary: "Our judgment in the summer was that we could have seen another 400,000-500,000 people unemployed over the course of the next few years...So we're willing to tolerate a bit of overshoot in inflation over the course of the next few years in order to avoid that situation, to cushion the blow" - BOE Governor Mark Carney (October 14, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c9 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c9 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c10 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c10 Policy Commentary: "We have never thought of our job as keeping the year-ended rate of inflation between 2 and 3 percent at all times...Given the uncertainties in the world, something more prescriptive and mechanical is neither possible nor desirable" - RBA Governor Philip Lowe (October 17, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c11 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c11 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c12 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c12 Policy Commentary: "There are several reasons for low inflation - both here and abroad. In New Zealand, tradable inflation, which accounts for almost half of the CPI regimen, has been negative for the past four years. Much of the weakness in inflation can be attributed to global developments that have been reflected in the high New Zealand dollar and low inflation in our import prices" - RBNZ Assistant Governor John McDermott (October 11, 2016) Report Links: Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 The Fed is Trapped Under Ice - September 9, 2016 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c13 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c13 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c14 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c14 Policy Commentary: ""Given the downgrade to our outlook, Governing Council actively discussed the possibility of adding more monetary stimulus at this time, in order to speed up the return of the economy to full capacity" - BoC Governor Stephen Poloz (October 19, 2016) Report Links: Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c15 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c15 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c16 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c16 Policy Commentary: "We don't have a fixed limit for growing the balance sheet; it's a corollary of our foreign exchange market interventions - which we conduct to fulfill our price stability mandate" - SNB Vice-President Fritz Zurbruegg (October 25, 2016) Report Links: Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 Clashing Forces - July 29, 2016 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c17 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c17 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c18 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c18 Policy Commentary: "A period of low interest rates can engender financial imbalances. The risk that growth in property prices and debt will become unsustainably high over time is increasing. With high debt ratios, households are more vulnerable to cyclical downturns" - Norges Bank Governor Oystein Olsen (October 11, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c19 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c19 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c20 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_28_s2_c20 Policy Commentary: "[On Sweden's financial stability]...it remains an issue because we are mismanaging out housing market. Our housing market isn't under control in my view" - Riksbank Governor Stefan Ingves (October 17, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Dazed And Confused - July 1, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

The Tactical Asset Allocation model can provide investment recommendations which diverge from those outlined in our regular weekly publications. The model has a much shorter investment horizon - namely, one month - and thus attempts to capture very tactical opportunities. Meanwhile, our regular recommendations have a longer expected life, anywhere from 3-months to a year (or longer). This difference explains why the recommendations between the two publications can deviate from each other from time to time. Highlights Chart 1Model Weights bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c1 bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c1 In October, the model outperformed global equities in USD and local-currency terms; it also outperformed the S&P 500 in local-currency terms, while performing in line with the S&P in USD terms. For November, the model trimmed its allocation to cash and stocks and boosted its weighting in bonds (Chart 1). The model increased its weighting in French, Dutch, and Swedish stocks at the expense of the U.S., Japan, Germany, Switzerland, New Zealand, and Emerging Asia. Within the bond portfolio, allocation to New Zealand and the U.K. was increased, while the allocation to U.S., Australian and Spanish paper was reduced. The risk index for stocks deteriorated in October, while the bond risk index improved noticeably. Feature Performance In October, the recommended balanced portfolio gained 0.6% in local-currency terms, and was down 1% in U.S. dollar terms (Chart 2). This compares with a loss of 1.4% for the global equity benchmark, and a 1% loss for the S&P 500 index. Given that the underlying model is structured in local-currency terms, we generally recommend that investors hedge their positions, though we do provide recommendations from time to time. The higher allocation to EM stocks in October was timely, but the boost to bonds was a drag on the model's performance. Weights The model cut its allocation to stocks from 67% to 66% and increased its bond weighting from 21% to 26%. The allocation to cash was decreased from 12% to 8%, while commodities remain excluded from the portfolio (Table 1). The model reduced its allocation to New Zealand equities by 3 points, Emerging Asia by 2 points and U.S., Japan, Germany and Switzerland by 1 point each. Meanwhile, it increased allocation to Dutch, French and Swedish stocks by 4 points, 3 points and 1 point, respectively. In the fixed-income space, the allocation to U.K. and New Zealand paper was increased by 6 points and 5 points respectively, while allocation to Australia, Spain and the U.S. was cut by 3 points, 2 points and 1 point, respectively. Chart 2Portfolio Total Returns bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c2 bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c2 Table 1Model Weights (As Of October 27, 2016) Tactical Asset Allocation And Market Indicators Tactical Asset Allocation And Market Indicators Currency Allocation Local currency-based indicators drive the construction of our model. As such, the performance of the model's portfolio should be compared with the local-currency global equity benchmark. The decision to hedge currency exposure should be made at the client's discretion, though from time to time, we do provide our recommendations. The dollar appreciated in October and investors should position for additional dollar strength. Our Dollar Capitulation Index seems to be breaking out to the upside following a pattern of lower highs. Since 2008, such breakouts have been followed by a significant rally in the broad trade-weighted dollar (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* And Capitulation bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c3 bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c3 Capital Market Indicators Our model continues to exclude commodities from the portfolio. The risk index for this asset class remains at the highest level in over two years (Chart 4). For the first time since June 2014, the risk index for global equities is above the neutral line (Chart 5). The higher overall risk reflects deteriorating liquidity and momentum readings. Our model cut its weighting in equities for the third month in a row. Chart 4Commodity Index And Risk Commodity Index And Risk Commodity Index And Risk Chart 5Global Stock Market And Risk bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c5 bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c5 The value component of the risk index for U.S. stocks improved in October, but this was overshadowed by worsening liquidity and momentum readings. The model slightly trimmed its allocation to U.S. equities (Chart 6). Even after the latest small uptick in the risk index for Dutch equities, it remains one of the lowest among the model's universe. The allocation to this bourse was increased. (Chart 7). Chart 6U.S. Stock Market And Risk bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c6 bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c6 Chart 7Netherlands Stock Market And Risk bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c7 bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c7 The risk index for U.K. stocks declined slightly in October, but remains firmly in high-risk territory both compared to its own history and its global peers. This asset class remains excluded from the portfolio (Chart 8). The model slightly upgraded Swedish equities, despite a worsening risk index. The continued favorable liquidity backdrop remains a boon for Swedish stocks (Chart 9). Chart 8U.K. Stock Market And Risk U.K. Stock Market And Risk U.K. Stock Market And Risk Chart 9Swedish Stock Market And Risk bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c9 bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c9 After declining for four consecutive months, the overall risk index for bonds is not at extreme high-risk levels anymore. The increase in yields has helped completely unwind overbought conditions, as per our momentum indicator. The model used the latest selloff to increase its allocation to bonds (Chart 10). The risk index for U.S. Treasurys declined markedly in October, but a few other markets also feature improved risk readings. As a result, the model downgraded U.S. Treasurys (Chart 11). Chart 10Global Bond Yields And Risk bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c10 bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c10 Chart 11U.S. Bond Yields And Risk bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c11 bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c11 The selloff in New Zealand bonds has pushed the momentum indicator into oversold territory, boosting the allocation to this asset class (Chart 12). The risk index for euro area bonds remains firmly in the high-risk zone even after a notable decline. However, there are select bond markets in the common-currency area that have relatively more favorable risk readings (Chart 13). Chart 12New Zealand Bond Yields And Risk bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c12 bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c12 Chart 13Euro Area Bond Yields And Risk bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c13 bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c13 Within the euro area, Italian bonds feature a risk reading that has fallen below the neutral line. While the cyclical indicator continues to move into more bond-negative territory, it is currently being offset by the oversold reading on the momentum indicator (Chart 14). U.K. gilt yields moved up as the post-Brexit inflation backdrop became gilt-unfriendly and growth surprised on the upside. Now, with momentum moving from overbought to oversold over just a couple of months, any negative economic surprises could potentially weigh on gilt yields. The model has added this asset class to the portfolio (Chart 15). Chart 14Italian Bond Yields and Risk bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c14 bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c14 Chart 15U.K. Bond Yields And Risk bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c15 bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c15 A more hawkish Fed could push the dollar higher. The 13-week momentum measure for the USD remains above, but close to the neutral line. The recovery of the 40-week rate of change from mildly negative levels which have represented a floor since 2012 would suggest that a new leg in the dollar bull market is in the offing (Chart 16). Both the 13-week and 40-week momentum measures for the euro are below the neutral line (Chart 17). Growing monetary divergences could continue weighing on EUR/USD before the technical indicators are pushed into more oversold territory. Fears of hard Brexit knocked down the pound. The 13-week rate of change is now close to its post-Brexit lows, while the 40-week rate of change measure is at the most oversold level since 2000 (excluding the great recession). At these technical levels the pound seems overdue to find a temporary bottom (Chart 18). Chart 16U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c16 bca.gis_taami_2016_10_28_c16 Chart 17Euro Euro Euro Chart 18Sterling Sterling Sterling Miroslav Aradski, Senior Analyst miroslava@bcaresearch.com

Highlights The appearance of two virtuous circles will cause the real broad trade-weighted dollar to strengthen by 10% over the next 12 months. The Fed's efforts to run a "high pressure" economy will create a self-reinforcing cycle where accelerating wage growth boosts household spending, leading to faster wage growth and even more spending. Stronger growth will prompt the market to price in more rate hikes over the coming years, propelling the dollar higher. A rising dollar will boost activity in the euro area and Japan. An improved economic outlook will push up inflation expectations in these economies, causing real rates to fall. This, in turn, will usher in a second virtuous circle in which lower real rates put further downward pressure on the euro and the yen, leading to even faster growth. Global equities are likely to struggle in the near term, as investors discount a more aggressive path for Fed tightening. Once the dust has settled, however, higher beta markets such as Europe and Japan should outperform in local-currency terms. We are closing our long Treasurys/short German bunds trade for a gain of 18%. Feature The Dollar Is Heading Higher Chart 1Most Forecasters Expect Household ##br## Spending Growth To Slow bca.gis_wr_2016_10_28_c1 bca.gis_wr_2016_10_28_c1 The appearance of two virtuous circles will cause the real broad trade-weighted dollar to strengthen by 10% over the next 12 months. The first virtuous circle will push up real yields in the U.S., while the second will push down real yields in key economies such as Europe and Japan. Taken together, this will cause real yield differentials to widen sharply in favor of the U.S., sending the greenback higher. Virtuous Circle #1: Accelerating wage growth boosts U.S. consumption, leading to even faster wage growth and more spending. This forces the Fed to hike rates more than what the market is currently discounting. Real personal consumption has grown by 3% since mid-2013, even as the rest of the economy has expanded by a middling 0.7%. Most analysts expect consumption growth to decelerate next year to around 2.4%, based on Bloomberg estimates (Chart 1). There is no shortage of reasons for why consumer spending may slow. The drop in energy prices since mid-2014 has saved households an annualized $120 billion at the pump, and an additional $30 billion in the form of lower utility bills - equivalent to around 1% of disposable income. This has given households scope to increase spending on other items. Now that oil prices appear to have bottomed, this windfall will cease to grow. Rising asset prices have also stoked consumption. The S&P/Case-Shiller 20-City home price index has risen by 37% since early 2012, while the Wilshire 5000 index has gained 54% (Chart 2). Largely due to these developments, household net worth has increased from 538% of disposable income to 637% over this period, according to the Fed's Flow of Funds accounts. Looking out, we expect U.S. equities to deliver only 2%-to-3% real total returns over the coming decade. Home price appreciation should also flatten out, now that real home prices have moved back above their pre-bubble levels (Chart 3). Chart 2Rising Asset Prices Have Inflated Household Net Worth bca.gis_wr_2016_10_28_c2 bca.gis_wr_2016_10_28_c2 Chart 3U.S. House Prices Are Not Cheap Anymore U.S. House Prices Are Not Cheap Anymore U.S. House Prices Are Not Cheap Anymore Meanwhile, banks are starting to tighten lending standards in some consumer credit categories (Chart 4). Most notably, auto loan standards have tightened markedly, following a number of years of sharp easing. This could pose a headwind to vehicle sales in the coming year. Growth in aggregate hours worked has also decelerated over the past five quarters (Chart 5), a trend that should persist. We expect payroll growth to slow to around 100,000 a month in the next few years, as remaining labor market slack is absorbed. However, therein lies the upside for consumer spending. As the labor market begins to overheat, wage growth is likely to accelerate further (Chart 6). A one percent increase in wage growth boosts aggregate household income by as much as 120,000 additional jobs per month. Chart 4Consumer Lending ##br##Standards Are Starting To Tighten Consumer Lending Standards Are Starting To Tighten Consumer Lending Standards Are Starting To Tighten Chart 5Deceleration In ##br##Aggregate Hours Worked bca.gis_wr_2016_10_28_c5 bca.gis_wr_2016_10_28_c5 Chart 6Diminished Labor Market Slack ##br##Should Boost Wages bca.gis_wr_2016_10_28_c6 bca.gis_wr_2016_10_28_c6 Our sense is that the U.S. labor market is now approaching full employment. Granted, the employment-to-population ratio for prime-aged workers is still 2.3% below its pre-recession levels. However, as Chart 7 illustrates, this particular metric was trending lower even before the Great Recession began, suggesting that much of its decline is structural in nature. The data seems to bear this is out. Among the 23 million Americans between the ages of 25-to-54 who are currently out of the labor force, only 10.6% report wanting a job. This number is not much higher than before the crisis (Chart 8). The vast majority of nonparticipants are either homemakers, taking care of dependents, in school, claim they are ill or disabled, or have taken early retirement (Chart 9). Chart 7A Structural Downtrend In Labor ##br##Market Engagement bca.gis_wr_2016_10_28_c7 bca.gis_wr_2016_10_28_c7 Chart 8Not Many Potential ##br##Workers On The Sidelines bca.gis_wr_2016_10_28_c8 bca.gis_wr_2016_10_28_c8 Chart 9Most Who Do Not Work ##br##Choose Not To Work Two Virtuous Dollar Circles Two Virtuous Dollar Circles If the late 1990s is any guide, an overheated labor market is likely to push up labor's share of national income, allowing household earnings to grow more quickly than GDP. Back then, growth in aggregate wages and salaries among private-sector workers reached nearly 10% (Chart 10). Such blockbuster gains are improbable this time around owing to both lower structural productivity and slower labor force growth. Nevertheless, nominal wage growth could still rise to 5%-6% from the current lackluster pace of 3.7%, helping to bolster consumer spending. In addition, the experience of the 1990s suggests that a tight labor market will particularly benefit less-skilled workers (Chart 11).1 This is simply because less-educated workers are typically the first to be fired, and the last to be hired. Since poorer households tend to spend a larger share of their incomes, this will have a disproportionately large impact on consumption. Chart 10Lesson From The 1990s bca.gis_wr_2016_10_28_c10 bca.gis_wr_2016_10_28_c10 Chart 11The Real Beneficiaries Of A Tight Labor Market Two Virtuous Dollar Circles Two Virtuous Dollar Circles Would higher wage growth cause firms to reduce investment spending? The evidence says otherwise. Business investment has grown sluggishly in this economic recovery, even though profit margins have risen sharply. Thus, high corporate profitability is not a precondition for greater investment spending. If anything, business capex tends to increase during periods when the labor share of income is rising (Chart 12). This reflects the fact that business investment represents what economists call "derived demand." Firms typically expand capacity only when they feel that final demand for their goods or services will increase. Put differently, if consumers spend more, firms will invest more. Chart 12Firms Invest More When Workers Earn More Firms Invest More When Workers Earn More Firms Invest More When Workers Earn More The end result could be the emergence of a virtuous circle in which rising wages push up consumer spending, causing firms to hire more workers and invest in new capacity leading, in turn, to even faster wage growth. In fact, it is possible that the Fed's decision to let the economy run hot for a while pushes it towards an equilibrium where both aggregate demand and the neutral rate of interest - r* - are permanently higher. Chart 13 shows how such multiple equilibria can arise. Chart 13Double-Crossed: Multiple Equilibria In A Keynesian Demand Model Two Virtuous Dollar Circles Two Virtuous Dollar Circles Of course, at some point, the Fed would need to step in to cool things down by hiking rates more quickly than inflation is rising. This would translate into an increase in real interest rates, the consequence of which would be a stronger dollar. This is not just a theoretical possibility: The dollar has, in fact, tended to strengthen meaningfully whenever the labor share of income is rising and the jobless rate has fallen below its full employment level (Chart 14). Virtuous Circle #2: A stronger dollar boosts activity in the euro area and Japan. This pushes up inflation expectations in those economies, causing real rates to fall. Lower real rates put downward pressure on the euro and the yen, leading to even faster growth. How can stronger growth lead to higher real rates in the U.S. but lower real rates in Europe? The answer stems from the economics of liquidity traps. As discussed above, the U.S. economy is nearing full employment. As such, the Fed is no longer constrained by the zero lower bound on nominal interest rates. In contrast, inflation is well below target in both the euro area and Japan (Chart 15). This means that neither the ECB nor the BoJ will raise rates, even if growth picks up. What stronger growth will do in both economies is eat away at deflationary pressures. The upshot will be higher inflation expectations, lower real rates, and a weaker euro and yen. Chart 14Virtuous Dollar Circle #1 In Action bca.gis_wr_2016_10_28_c14 bca.gis_wr_2016_10_28_c14 Chart 15ECB And BoJ: In No Position To Tighten bca.gis_wr_2016_10_28_c15 bca.gis_wr_2016_10_28_c15 Admittedly, high levels of unemployment in Southern Europe will limit the extent to which stronger demand in those economies translates into higher inflation. Nevertheless, the region will still benefit from a weaker euro - and the boost to external competitiveness that this brings. Moreover, with the German unemployment rate at a 25-year low, a cheaper currency will generate more meaningful inflation in Europe's largest economy. This would help erode Germany's gigantic 8% of GDP current account surplus, which has been a key force in propping up the euro. It would also facilitate the "internal devaluation" that Southern Europe has to undertake without the need for grinding deflation in that region. We doubt that either the BoJ or the ECB would do anything to abort this virtuous circle. For his part, Governor Kuroda has stated that he wants inflation to rise above 2% in order to make up for the fact that inflation has consistently run short of the BoJ's target. To back up this pledge, the BoJ is giving the Ministry of Finance a blank check by promising to undertake unlimited bond purchases while keeping the 10-year yield pegged at zero. Thus, not only does the Japanese government need not worry about paying any interest on its debt, it also does not have to worry about repaying the principal, since the BoJ is buying more bonds than the government is issuing. Mario Draghi is also likely to lean into any inflationary tailwind. We expect the ECB to extend its asset purchase program at its December meeting for another six months, which is currently set to end in March 2017. The Governing Council may also signal that it will consider expanding the eligibility rules for bond purchases and modifying the existing capital key allocation. Investment Conclusions Two weeks ago, we argued that in the absence of Fed tightening, U.S. growth could reach 2.8% next year on the back of a turn in the inventory cycle, a pickup in business investment, and increased fiscal spending at the federal, state, and local levels.2 Consistent with Chair Yellen's desire to run a "high pressure" economy, the Fed would welcome faster growth, even if this pushes core inflation temporarily above 2%. However, memories of the 1970s have not fully gone away. Many of Yellen's FOMC colleagues, including former doves such as John Williams and Eric Rosengren, are already clamoring for higher rates. This means that if growth does pick up, the Fed will continue emptying the punch bowl. We expect the FOMC to raise rates twice next year, in addition to the 25 basis-point hike we are penciling in for December. This pales in comparison to the mere 54 basis points in hikes the market is pricing in through to end-2018 (Chart 16). Chart 16Market Rate Expectations Further Out Remain Muted bca.gis_wr_2016_10_28_c16 bca.gis_wr_2016_10_28_c16 Chart 17 shows that rate differentials between the U.S. and its trading partners have widened over the past four months, even as the dollar has traded sideways. Thus, even if rate differentials remain broadly constant, a case can be made for a stronger dollar over the coming months. The analysis above, however, suggests that rate differentials are likely to widen further. This should turbocharge any dollar rally. A 10% appreciation in the real broad trade-weighted dollar index may sound like a lot, but keep in mind that the dollar has weakened by 2% since January. Thus, we are only talking about a rise of 8% from where it was earlier this year. As Chart 18 shows, this would still leave the greenback 3% and 15% below its 2002 and 1985 peaks, respectively. Chart 17U.S. Rate Hikes Will Push Up The Dollar U.S. Rate Hikes Will Push Up The Dollar U.S. Rate Hikes Will Push Up The Dollar Chart 18Still Far From Past Peaks bca.gis_wr_2016_10_28_c18 bca.gis_wr_2016_10_28_c18 Chart 19Japanese And European Stocks Tend To Outperform In A Rising Yield Environment Japanese And European Stocks Tend To Outperform In A Rising Yield Environment Japanese And European Stocks Tend To Outperform In A Rising Yield Environment The current high sensitivity of the dollar to changes in interest rate differentials means that most of the tightening in financial conditions that the Fed will need to achieve over the next few years is likely to come through a stronger currency rather than higher bond yields. Nevertheless, yields are likely to drift higher. Consistent with the views of our Global Fixed Income Strategy service,3 at this point, we see more upside for Treasury yields than for yields in most other developed markets. With that in mind, we are closing our long Treasurys/short German bunds trade for a gain of 18%. Turning to equities, the need for the market to price in a more aggressive path for Fed tightening poses near-term downside risks to global stocks. We remain tactically cautious. Once the dust has settled, however, higher beta equity markets are likely to outperform. As my colleague Anastasios Avgeriou has highlighted, European and Japanese stocks generally do well in a rising yield environment (Chart 19). Moreover, as Chart 20 illustrates, such an environment could benefit global banks shares, which remain among the most despised sectors of the market.4 Chart 20AHigher Yields Would Benefit Banks... Higher Yields Would Benefit Banks... Higher Yields Would Benefit Banks... Chart 20B... As Would Steeper Yield Curves bca.gis_wr_2016_10_28_c20b bca.gis_wr_2016_10_28_c20b Our bullishness does not fully extend to emerging markets. An appreciating dollar could hurt EMs in three ways. First, a stronger dollar could weigh on commodity prices. Second, it could punish EM borrowers with significant dollar liabilities. Third, Fed rate hikes are liable to reduce global dollar liquidity, making it difficult for a number of emerging economies to attract enough foreign capital to finance their current account deficits. Some emerging markets rank higher on this list of vulnerabilities than others. China, for instance, ranks relatively low, given its current account surplus, moderate levels of external debt, and its status as a net commodity importer. As such, while we expect the RMB to weaken against the dollar, it is likely to strengthen on a trade-weighted basis. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 For example, see Harry J. Holzer, Steven Raphael, and Michael A. Stoll, "Employers In The Boom: How Did The Hiring Of Less-Skilled Workers Change During The 1990s?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 88:2 (2006), pp. 283-299. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen," dated October 14, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Return Of The Bond Vigilantes," dated October 18, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Global Alpha Sector Strategy , "The Great (Debt) Wall Of China," dated May 27, 2016, available at gss.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends* Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights We expect the U.S. House of Representatives to remain in GOP hands, but the Democrats could take razor-thin control of the Senate if Clinton wins the Presidency. The current, market-bullish status quo of divided government will continue. The chances of cooperation between a Clinton Administration and the House is actually quite good on some issues. We would expect House Republicans to give in to a modest infrastructure spending plan from Clinton, in exchange for corporate tax reform. There is now bipartisan support in the U.S. for removing the sequester, opening the door to some fiscal stimulus. A shift in focus from monetary to fiscal policy will be quite bullish for the dollar, which could rise by 10% in trade-weighted terms. The Japanese government appears to be preparing another shot of fiscal stimulus, which would be quite bearish for the yen and bullish for Japanese stocks when combined with the Bank of Japan's new yield curve policy. A number of headwinds that have held back U.S. growth this year will give way, generating 2½-3% real GDP growth in 2017. Positive growth surprises will encourage the FOMC to tighten in December and another five times over 2017/18. However, the speed of rate hikes will depend on how quickly the dollar appreciates. Dollar appreciation will undermine U.S. EPS growth next year. We view this as a headwind for stocks, but not something that will prevent modest gains in the S&P 500 next year. A key risk is that a surging dollar and a more hawkish FOMC sparks a correction in EM assets in the near term, spilling over into developed market bourses. Given elevated valuations, the risk/reward balance still favors a defensive strategy, with no more than a benchmark allocation to stocks. Several trends support our recommendation to maintain slightly below-benchmark duration within fixed- income portfolios. Among them, the annual growth rate in total central bank assets for the U.S., Euro Area, the U.K. and Japan is on the verge of peaking even assuming the ECB extends, which means that the period of maximum downward pressure on global term premia is over. Continue to overweight indexed bonds versus conventional issues. Oil prices should be able to hold up in the face of dollar strength given that we expect the tightening oil market will dominate. However, base metals will struggle. Feature As we go to press, Hillary Clinton is poised to win the Presidency of the United States following a tumultuous and divisive campaign. The key question now is the Senate race, where less controversial Republicans are contesting close elections. The GOP is at high risk of losing four Senate seats, with another three in play. Democrats need only four seats to take the Senate because, assuming that Clinton wins the presidency, Vice-President Tim Kaine would then cast the tie-breaking vote in that body. We expect the GOP to hold onto the House. This means that the current, market-bullish status quo of a divided government will continue. With the House remaining in Republican hands, and Democrats clinging to a potential razor-thin control of the Senate, the Clinton White House would be constrained on some of its most left-leaning policies. Unlike Obama, Clinton's victory will not be a popular sweep. She will likely receive less than 50% of the popular vote and will be the first candidate ever elected that has more voters saying they dislike her than like her (Chart I-1). Therefore, the odds are slim that Clinton will come to power with the same level of confidence and agenda-setting mandate as Obama did in 2008. Chart I-1Clinton And Trump: The Least Charismatic Candidates Ever November 2016 November 2016 Nonetheless, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service believes that the chances of cooperation between a Clinton Administration and the House is actually quite good on some issues. On corporate tax reform, it is difficult to see a reduction in effective tax rates, but a deal could be struck to broaden the tax base by closing various loopholes. This would be negative for some S&P 500 multinational corporations, but would benefit America's small and medium-sized enterprises. Paul Ryan and moderate Republicans understand that there has been a paradigm shift in America and that the median voter has moved to the left. As such, we would expect House Republicans to give in to a modest infrastructure spending plan from Clinton, in exchange for corporate tax reform. There is now bipartisan support for removing the sequester. Even a modest infrastructure plan could make a substantive difference for the economy given the high fiscal multipliers of government spending in an economy with low interest rates. The political shift to the left means that a Clinton-Ryan coalition will care less about the concerns of America's large corporations than previous governments, leading to policies that will result in higher effective tax rates on major corporations, a dollar bull market (in conjunction with tighter Fed policy, see below), and rising wages over the next four years. The election outcome will also be positive for bombed-out U.S. health care stocks. Even if the Democrats take the Senate, a Republican-held House will make it difficult for Clinton to push through legislation that does serious damage to the sector's pricing power. Health care stocks are oversold and cheap, at a time when consumer demand is solid and our pricing power proxy is rising much more quickly than overall corporate sector pricing. In terms of the macro implications, a shift in focus from monetary to fiscal stimulus will be quite bullish for the dollar. Below we discuss the important changes coming in the global investment landscape stemming from a renewed dollar bull phase. U.S. Growth: Expect Upside Surprises Any boost to U.S. infrastructure spending is unlikely to show up in GDP until the second half of next year. Nonetheless, there are other reasons to be more upbeat than the consensus on growth prospects for the first half as well. It is important to note that U.S. real final sales to private domestic purchasers, a good measure of underlying demand growth, has grown at almost 2½% over the past year, and was up 3.2% in the second quarter sequentially. A number of headwinds conspired to hold back the headline GDP growth figures, but these headwinds should moderate next year (Chart I-2): The five-quarter inventory correction is almost unprecedented in its length, but there are some high-frequency indicators (i.e. durable goods inventories and the inventory component of the ISM manufacturing index) that suggest that the correction is coming to an end (Chart I-3). Inventory destocking only needs to stabilize to boost GDP growth, since it is the change of the change in inventories that affects GDP growth. Chart I-2U.S. 2016 Growth Headwinds To Fade U.S. 2016 Growth Headwinds To Fade U.S. 2016 Growth Headwinds To Fade Chart I-3Inventory Rebuilding Has Commenced bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s1_c3 bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s1_c3 Some of this year's slowdown reflects a pullback in the contribution of federal and state & local government spending. Nonetheless, this will not last long because state and local government revenues are trending higher and this sector spends all it takes in. As noted above, we also expect a boost from infrastructure spending at the federal level. Housing starts and residential investment hit a soft patch this year. The second quarter dip was mainly due to a warm winter, which pulled forward home-improvement spending. The NAHB homebuilders index heralds a rebound in housing activity in the coming months, in line with the improvement in household formation. Indeed, housing starts are still 20-25% below estimates of the amount of construction necessary to keep up with population growth. We also expect a little more capital spending once the election is out of the way, profits begin to expand again and industrial production growth improves early in the New Year. Moreover, the oil rig count has started to recover, suggesting that energy capex should stabilize and perhaps even improve. Overall corporate capital spending intentions have perked up (Chart I-4). The trade sector will be a drag on growth, especially if the dollar appreciates as we expect. Nonetheless, we believe that the unwinding of the other headwinds that have dogged the economy this year could provide real GDP growth of 2½-3% in 2017. Stronger-than-expected growth will have a positive impact on America's trading partners via import demand, but it is the response of the dollar that could really shake up global financial assets. The reasoning behind our strong dollar view is straightforward: interest rates differentials are the strongest predictor of currency trends on a 12-18 month horizon. Relative economic performance between the U.S. and the rest of the world suggests that interest rate differentials will move even further in favor the U.S. dollar. Chart I-5 highlights that the dollar tends to appreciate when U.S. interest rates are in the upper half of the interest rate distribution of the G10. With few central banks outside of the U.S. in a position to be able to lift interest rates, gently rising U.S. rates will keep the U.S. among the global developed market (DM) high-yielders for many years. Chart I-4Capex Plans Have Improved bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s1_c4 bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s1_c4 Chart I-5U.S. Sitting Atop The Global Interest Rate Distribution Buoys The Dollar bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s1_c5 bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s1_c5 Real interest rate differentials may shift even more than nominal rates in favor the dollar. Inflation expectations should rise in Europe and Japan to the extent that their respective currencies weaken and their economies receive a boost from improved U.S. import demand. But since neither central bank will allow much of an increase in local bond yields, rising inflation expectations will translate into lower real yields in the Eurozone and Japan. This will reinforce the dollar's bias to appreciate. The ECB could upset this forecast by announcing that it will taper the asset purchase program beginning in March of next year, but we believe it is more likely the central bank will extend the QE program for another six months. In Japan's case, the nominal yield curve is now fixed by the Bank of Japan out to 10-years. How Much Will The Dollar Appreciate? This is a difficult question. A central bank can tighten monetary conditions, but does not have control over how much of the tightening comes via interest rates and how much through currency appreciation. Our sense is that over the next couple of years the fed funds rate will need to rise to 2% in nominal terms (0% in real terms) and the dollar will appreciate by 10% in trade-weighted terms, to avoid an economic overheating and an overshoot of the inflation target. We expect the Fed to tighten in December, followed by two more quarter-point hikes in 2017. But, of course, an outsized dollar response to the initial rate hikes would temper the speed of Fed tightening. A 10% rise seems aggressive, but it would still leave the broad trade-weighted dollar index well below previous peaks. Wouldn't Such A Dollar Surge Kill Any Hopes Of A Recovery In U.S. Profits? Undoubtedly, dollar strength presents a direct and non-trivial risk to the earnings outlook. Our U.S. EPS model foresees a return to positive earnings growth early next year, and a full-year expansion of 5-6% (Chart I-6). This is based on three important assumptions: (1) industrial production returns to modest but positive growth next year; (2) oil prices are roughly unchanged from current levels, allowing profits in the energy patch to recover with a lag; and (3) nominal GDP growth accelerates modestly relative to labor compensation. Chart I-6The U.S. Profit Outlook bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s1_c6 bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s1_c6 However, we assumed in the base case scenario presented in May that the dollar is unchanged. Re-running the model with a 10% dollar appreciation over the next year would shave about 2-3 percentage points off of EPS growth next year (Chart I-6). In other words, EPS would rise next year, but only modestly. Can The S&P 500 Rally In The Context Of Dollar Strength? Chart I-7Stocks Can Appreciate With The Dollar bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s1_c7 bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s1_c7 An appreciating dollar is clearly a headwind, but it is the case that the S&P 500 rallied along with the dollar in the last three major dollar bull markets: 1978-1985, 1994-2002, and 2011 to today (Chart I-7). One could point to special factors in each episode. Nonetheless, our point is that if the dollar is appreciating because growth outside the U.S. is deteriorating, then the backdrop is negative for U.S. equities. But if the dollar is appreciating because the U.S. economic growth backdrop has brightened (with no deterioration elsewhere), then U.S. stocks can rally despite the negative impact of the dollar on profits. Indeed, the direction of causation reverses at times: it is the rally in U.S. risk assets (along with higher rates) that attracts foreign capital and pushes the dollar higher. A tax holiday on foreign retained earnings would also be positive for the dollar and risk assets. That said, the currency shifts we expect over the next year will favor Eurozone and Japanese stocks to the U.S. market in local currency terms. This is particularly so for Japan if more aggressive monetary and fiscal policies manage to sharply devalue the yen (see below). According to our models, a 5% depreciation of the euro and a 10% drop in the yen in trade-weighted terms would boost EPS growth next year by 3 and 5 percentage points, respectively, in the Eurozone and Japan (Chart I-8). Monetary policy divergence and relative valuation also support our recommendation to favor Japanese and Eurozone stocks versus the U.S. Chart I-8The Eurozone Profit Outlook The Eurozone Profit Outlook The Eurozone Profit Outlook What Does Our Dollar Outlook Mean For EM Assets? Continuing liquidity injections from the ECB and BoJ are positive for emerging market (EM) assets. Unfortunately, this will not shield emerging markets from a 10% dollar rise, especially if it is accompanied by another downleg in commodity prices (Chart I-9). A stronger greenback is likely to cause distress among over-leveraged EM borrowers given that 80% of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars. Chart I-10 illustrates that there have been no periods when EM share prices rallied amid strength in the trade-weighted U.S. dollar since the early 1980s. Meanwhile, the gap between EM and U.S. nonfinancials' return on equity (RoE) remains deeply negative, which historically has been associated with EM currency depreciation. Chart I-9Dollar Strength Is Negative For Commodities... bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s1_c9 bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s1_c9 Chart I-10...And Emerging Markets ...And Emerging Markets ...And Emerging Markets The implication is that the recent rally in EM risk assets and currencies will not last. Investors should avoid this space. A dollar rally would also be a headache for the People's Bank of China (PBoC). Allowing the RMB to depreciate aggressively versus the dollar to avoid an appreciation in trade-weighted terms could ruffle political feathers in the U.S. and spark capital flight. The PBoC will likely manage the RMB's decline versus the dollar and allow it to appreciate in trade-weighted terms, while tightening capital account controls to prevent capital from fleeing the country. This outcome is slightly negative for the economy and could generate some financial market volatility as the process unfolds. We believe that China will be able to maintain GDP growth of around 6½% next year and that there will be no financial crisis related to China's high debt levels. Nonetheless, China's transition away from an investment-led to a consumer-led expansion means that the tailwind for commodity demand and EM exports will not return. FOMC: Some Like It Hot The probability of a Fed rate hike in December eased a little in recent days due to some disappointing economic data, such as the September readings on retail sales and the CPI, along with comments from Fed Chair Yellen on the benefits of allowing the economy to "run hot". Some others on the FOMC share her views, but many do not. As we highlighted in last month's Special Report,1 Yellen will not overrule the consensus on the FOMC. The appetite to test the limits of the supply side of the economy is simply not broad enough, as visions of the inflationary 1970s still loom large in some policymakers' minds. The Fed may end up being too slow in tightening policy and generate an overheated economy by accident, but the idea of purposefully engineering a temporary inflation overshoot is off the table. The hawkish shift in the consensus can be observed in the latest FOMC minutes. Not only did three members vote for a rate hike in September, but "several" members felt that a rate hike was a "close call". The remaining doves often point out that the Fed's preferred measure of inflation, core PCE, is still below the 2% target. However, this measure is an outlier; all other popular measures of underlying inflation are near or above 2% and are in a clear uptrend. Wage growth, although somewhat mixed across the various measures, is also trending up (Chart I-11). The doves already lost two members this year (Williams and Rosengren). More will jump ship if core PCE moves up in the coming months as we expect, although a 10% dollar appreciation by itself could shave almost a half point off of inflation next year (Chart I-12). Chart I-11U.S. Wage Pressure Is Growing bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s1_c11 bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s1_c11 Chart I-12The Inflation Impact Of Dollar Strength bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s1_c12 bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s1_c12 Recent data disappointments are a concern, but the bounce in both the ISM manufacturing and nonmanufacturing surveys in September, especially in the new orders components, is a sign that the soft patch will not endure. It would require a significant disappointment in the October and November payroll reports for the FOMC to stand pat at the December meeting. Beyond this year, our base-case outlook calls for five quarter-point rate hikes over 2017 and 2018, compared to only two rate hikes currently discounted in money markets. This forecast is uncertain because an even larger portion of the overall tightening in monetary conditions than we expect could come via the dollar. Indeed, there is a significant risk that dollar strength and Fed tightening sparks a correction in risk assets. The TINA phenomenon (There Is No Alternative) has forced many investors to take more risk they are comfortable holding. Valuations are also rich. This is the main reason why our investment recommendation is cautious, including only a benchmark allocation to equities in a balanced portfolio. We maintain that stocks will outperform bonds and cash on a 1-2 year horizon, although total returns will be depressed by historical standards. Moreover, we would not be surprised to see a 10% correction in the major equity bourses in the coming months. Investors with a short-term horizon should consider buying some insurance against this risk. What would it take for us to upgrade stocks to overweight? We would like to see significant fiscal stimulus in some combination of the U.S., Eurozone and Japan. It would be particularly bullish if the stimulus occurs outside the U.S., because a pickup in global growth would allow the Fed to tighten without driving the dollar significantly higher. This scenario would improve the outlook for equities inside and outside of the U.S. Finally, a 10% equity correction would create enough value that we would be quite tempted to upgrade the sector. Japan Prepares For The Next Step The dollar's ascent will be particularly acute versus the yen if we are right that more aggressive policy action looms in Japan. We argued in last month's Overview that fiscal stimulus will be particularly powerful in the context of the Bank of Japan's (BoJ) new policy framework. Instead of targeting a pace of asset purchases, the central bank is effectively fixing the yield curve by promising to hold the 10-year yield near to zero. By fixing the yield curve and by committing to maintain this policy until Japanese inflation moves above the 2% target, the BoJ is hoping to raise inflation expectations and drive down real bond yields. Fiscal stimulus in this environment would be quite effective because nominal yields would not be allowed to rise in response. Any increase in inflation expectations would flow directly into lower real yields and weaken the yen, thus reinforcing the initial thrust of fiscal policy. The timing and amount of additional fiscal spending is not clear, but the Japanese Diet is currently deliberating the third revision to the second supplementary budget. Government officials have signaled that there will be more coordination between monetary and fiscal policy in the future. The government is also debating ways to boost household income, including raising government wages, lifting the minimum wage and providing tax incentives for the private sector to be more generous on the wage front. Any efforts to boost income will add to upward pressure on actual inflation and inflation expectations. Given that the market is discounting inflation of only 0.26% per year on average over the next 20 years, the balance of risks favors an inflation rate that surprises to the upside. The resulting downward pressure on real interest rates, at a time when U.S. real rates will be rising, will depress the yen. Our currency experts expect the yen to weaken to 125 versus the dollar, representing a decline of roughly 10% in trade-weighted terms. We estimate that this would add about a half point to Japanese headline consumer price inflation next year (Chart I-12). A successful policy push would ultimately be quite bearish for JGBs. However, a critical element in the plan is that the BoJ prevents a premature rise in nominal yields. We do not expect any JGB selloff for at least a year. This means that, while total returns for JGBs will be poor (or negative for some maturities), the market will outperform the other major government bond markets in currency hedged terms if global yields rise in the coming months as we expect. The implication is that investors should favor JGBs over Bunds and, especially, Treasuries within global hedged bond portfolios. Also, stay long inflation protection in Japan, overweight the Nikkei and underweight the yen. Reason To Be Bond Bearish Chart I-13Reasons To Keep Duration Short bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s1_c13 bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s1_c13 Our fairly hawkish view on the Fed is a key factor behind our recommendation to keep duration slightly short of benchmark within bond portfolios. More broadly, the global deflation beast is far from tamed, but the firming in selected commodity prices is reducing some of the downward pressure on inflation in the advanced economies. Oil prices have breached $50/bbl on hopes that OPEC-Russia talks will result in production cuts. Our commodity strategists do not expect any agreement to have much of a lasting impact on oil prices. Indeed, there is a risk that oil prices correct if the talks ultimately fail. However, we still expect WTI to trade between $40 and $65/bbl until 2020. The annual growth rate for the continuous commodity index has reached positive territory for the first time since 2014, which is translating into a more positive pricing environment for manufactured goods and overall headline inflation rates for both developed and emerging economies (Chart I-13, bottom panel). This has given inflation expectations a boost in the major markets, at a time when output gaps in developed countries are narrowing (the gap is near to being fully closed in the U.S.). Several other factors favor a below-benchmark duration stance at least for the near term (Chart I-13): Global growth is improving slowly. The global leading economic indicator (LEI) is rising and our diffusion index shows that 10 of 15 countries have rising LEIs. We expect the U.S. economy, in particular, to surprise to the upside. The prospect of even a little fiscal stimulus is bond bearish, following years of austerity in the major developed countries. The downward pressure on global term premia is dissipating as the BoJ has switched away from quantitative targets for asset purchases to fixing the yield curve. The ECB is likely to extend the QE program by another six months, but the central bank is unlikely to lift the pace of purchases from the current level. The annual percent change in total central bank assets for the U.S., Euro Area, the U.K. and Japan is on the verge of peaking even assuming the ECB extends, which means that the period of maximum downward pressure on global term premia is over (Chart I-14). Chart I-14Liquidity Growth Peaking Out bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s1_c14 bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s1_c14 The market expects that real short-term interest rates will stay in negative territory until at least the middle of the next decade, even in the U.S. There is plenty of room for the forward yield curve to reprice higher if growth turns out to be better than expected. This is particularly the case in the U.K., where fears of a post-Brexit economic bust and a fresh shot of stimulus from Bank of England sent the pound and gilt yields to extremely low levels. Our global bond and currency services recommend taking profits on overweight gilt/underweight sterling positions, and shifting in the opposite direction. Finally, bond sentiment indicators are still bullish, particularly in the U.S. Treasury market. Nonetheless, we are far from frothing bond bears. We do not believe that the fixed income market has moved into a secular bear phase, and would likely shift to benchmark or even above-benchmark duration if the 10-year Treasury yield reached 2%. Yields could eventually re-test the year's lows if there is a sharp equity correction. This is a market to be traded for now. Conclusions A more upbeat view on global and, especially, U.S. growth prospects is positive for risk assets, but the adjustment process could be painful as investors come to grips with what this means for the Fed. Extremely low Treasury yields imply that the consensus has "bought into" the Secular Stagnation thesis for the U.S., or at least to the view that America will never again be able to grow above 2%. The pickup in growth we expect will arrive at a time when there is accumulating evidence of an acceleration in wages, signaling that the labor market has reached full employment. A shift in focus away from monetary and toward fiscal stimulus, both inside and outside the U.S., is also bond-bearish. The bond market appears to be ignoring these trends so far, although rising inflation expectations suggest that we may be at the edge of a change in market expectations for growth, inflation and the Fed outlook. A significant shift up in the dollar would limit the bond market selloff, and it would be positive for the major economies outside of the U.S. Nonetheless, a 10% dollar appreciation would carry its own risks, including a hit to the U.S. profit outlook. On its own, dollar strength would not prevent the S&P 500 from rising, but there is a non-trivial risk that it wreaks havoc in the EM and commodity space for a time, reverberating back into developed markets. The bottom line is that investors should remain focused on capital preservation, with no more than an overall benchmark weighting in equities with a bias toward defensive sectors. Within bond portfolios, keep duration on the short side and favor high-quality spread product to government bonds in the major countries. High-yield bonds would benefit from stronger-than-expected economic growth in the U.S., but value is poor and balance sheets are deteriorating; the risk/reward balance is unattractive. European investment-grade bonds issued by domestic issuers are more attractive than the U.S. market because of improving balance sheet health. Favor real-return bonds to conventional issues in the major countries and add exposure to floating-rate notes. Our dollar view means that base metals should be avoided, despite the fact that we expect that China will be able to stabilize growth at around 6-7%. Oil should be able to hold up in the face of dollar strength given that we expect a tightening oil supply/demand backdrop. Both gold and silver would weaken if the dollar continues to appreciate and real bond yields rise in the near term. Nonetheless, rising inflation should overwhelm these negatives in the medium term. This implies that precious metals deserve a strategic place in investors' portfolios, although the near-term could be rough. Finally, we have received many questions on the risks posed by mushrooming U.S. student debt. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 19, takes an in-depth look. We conclude that student debt is a modest economic drag, but is not a source of risk to the government's finances and does not represent the next "subprime" crisis. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst October 27, 2016 Next Report: November 24, 2016 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Herding Cats at the Fed," October 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com II. Student Loan Blues: Can't Repay What I Borrowed Incentives ingrained in the U.S. higher-education system have contributed to an alarming escalation in student debt over the last 15 years. About 43 million Americans owe a total of almost $1.2 trillion for their education, making student loans the second largest category of consumer debt next to mortgages. Some are comparing this trend to the housing subprime crisis, arguing that student debt is a major drag on growth at a minimum, and the source of another financial crisis at worst. Delinquency rates have surged and the 5-year cumulative default rate on student debt has reached almost 30%. Thankfully for the taxpayer, the recovery rate on defaulted student loans is extremely high, at around 80%. Sticker prices at most institutions have mushroomed, although few students pay the full fare. Rising tuition fees only explain about half of the surge in student debt. Education still pays, although the benefits have waned versus the costs. Moreover, students with debt lag significantly those with no debt in terms of wealth accumulation and home ownership after graduation. The rise in default rates have been due to the influx of non-traditional student borrowers after 2007, who come from lower income families and have had poorer educational and employment outcomes. However, the wave of such borrowers has faded, which means that overall delinquency and default rates will decline in the coming years. Debt service payments, while onerous for many families, are not a major drag on overall real GDP growth. The increased propensity of 18-35 year-olds to live with their parents has trimmed annual real GDP growth by 0.14% per year since 2007, although student debt is only one of many underlying causes. The student loan program is at worst only a minor drain on the Federal government's coffer because of the high recovery rate. The bottom line is that student debt is a social issue, and to a lesser extent, a macro issue. But it is not a financial stability issue. Student debt is not the next subprime. "We are not doing these young people any favors by giving them loans that they cannot afford, that they cannot discharge in bankruptcy, and that could be a drag on their financial well-being even into retirement". - Sheila Bair, former FDIC chief, Bloomberg interview, September 26, 2016 Ms. Bair was one of the first to warn about the risks posed by the U.S. subprime MBS market, well before Lehman went bust. Few were listening then, but more are listening now as she sounds the alarm bell regarding student loans. About 43 million Americans owe a total of almost $1.2 trillion for their education, making student loans the second largest category of consumer debt next to mortgages (Chart II-1). Ms. Bair notes that, like the MBS market before 2007, cheap and freely available credit is fueling prices (tuition in this case). Banks handed out mortgage loans to many who could not afford them in the 2000s, just as the Department of Education (DoE) is doing today with student loans. It is difficult to assess borrowers' ability to repay student loans. Some argue that the DoE is not even trying. The trajectory of student debt is indeed alarming (Chart II-2). In inflation-adjusted terms, the total value of loans outstanding has quadrupled since 2000, representing an annual average compound rate of 9.4%. The rise reflects both an increase in the number of borrowers and more borrowing per person. Average debt/person has jumped from $17,300 in 2007 to almost $28,000 in 2015 (amounts vary across data sources). Rising debt levels occurred across the family income distribution. Chart II-1Student Debt: The Next Subprime? bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s2_c1 bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s2_c1 Chart II-2Student Loan Statistics bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s2_c2 bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s2_c2 These figures understate the true debt levels because they include only loans that are made under the federal loan program, representing 81% of the total. The remainder are private loans, mostly originated by banks. Private loans do not enjoy the same borrower protection afforded to federal loans, and carry a significantly higher interest rate (average of almost 14% in 2016, compared to federal loan rates of 3.76%). The data on private loans are sparse due to limited reporting, but a study based on 2012 data showed that the average amount of debt for students with private loans was almost $40,000 at that time.1 Sticker Shock It is easy to blame rising tuition fees given soaring "sticker prices" at most institutions. The average posted fee for tuition and room & board has increased by 30% in inflation-adjusted terms since 2007 at public universities, and by 23% at private non-profit institutions (Charts II-3A & II-3B). However, due to grants, tuition discounts and tax credits for education, only a small fraction of students pay the posted rate. For the 2015/16 school year, the net price that the average student paid at a private non-profit institution was $26,400, far less than the almost $44,000 sticker price. Chart II-3ATuition & Fees: Public Institutions bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s2_c3a bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s2_c3a Chart II-3BTuition & Fees: Private Institutions bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s2_c3b bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s2_c3b Chart II-4The Distribution Of Student Debt November 2016 November 2016 The Brookings Institute estimates that only about 50% of the escalation in student debt in the past two decades can be explained by rising tuition costs.2 Another quarter reflects rising educational attainment; kids are staying in school longer to get a leg up in the highly competitive workplace. The remainder of the total rise in debt was left unexplained in the study. Other possible contributing factors include policy changes that expanded eligibility for federal loans programs, and the housing bust that made it more difficult for families to borrow against the value of their homes for education purposes. There was also a change in the background characteristics of borrowers after the Great Financial Crisis (see below). The share of students suffering with an extraordinary amount of debt is growing, although they still represent a small portion of the total for federal loans (Chart II-4). Five percent of student debtors owe more than $100,000 each, up from 2% in 2007. Another 10% hold between $50,000 and $100,000. About two-thirds of student borrowers owe less than $25,000. A Student Debt Crisis? Another Brookings paper provides estimates for the debt service burden associated with federal student loans. The burden is calculated as the median debt service payment divided by median earnings of employed borrowers for two years after entering the repayment period (Chart II-5).3 This ratio rose from about 4½% in 2004 to 7.1% in 2013. Unfortunately, more recent data are not available. The average interest rate on the outstanding loans has moderated since 2011, although not nearly as quickly as the drop in market interest rates.4 Nonetheless, the continued escalation in the stock of debt per person in recent years means that the debt service-to-income ratio has likely continued to escalate since 2013, despite the moderation in the average interest rate paid. The jump in student loan delinquencies has raised red flags regarding the number of borrowers in financial distress, feeding concerns that a student loan debt crisis is on the horizon. The 90-day delinquency rate for student loans has increased from about 7% in 2007 to 11% in 2012, where it has hovered ever since according to the Federal Reserve Bank of NY data (Chart II-1). However, since only about 55% of all loans are in the repayment period, the actual delinquency rate among those in repayment is almost double the official figures. Loans are considered to be in default when they are more than 270 days past due. Brookings estimates that the 5-year default rate for student loans entering the repayment period five years earlier reached 28% in 2014, up from 16% for the five-year period ending in 2007 (Chart II-6).5 Perhaps surprisingly, the default rate is still far below the peak rate of more than 40% in the late 1990s. Chart II-5Debt Service Burden Is Rising bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s2_c5 bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s2_c5 Chart II-6Defaults Are Rising bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s2_c6 bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s2_c6 Thankfully for the taxpayer, the recovery rate on defaulted student loans is extremely high, at around 80%.6 This is because borrowers are not able to discharge federal student debts during bankruptcy. Congress has passed legislation making it very difficult for borrowers to avoid repaying. The DoE has the authority to use a number of extraordinary collection means. These include garnishing a portion of borrower's wages or seizing any payment a borrower may receive from the federal government. Education Still Pays, But Not For Everyone Chart II-7Debt And Wages For 20-40 Year Olds bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s2_c7 bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s2_c7 The good news is that education still pays for the average or median borrower. Chart II-7 shows that, while the average amount of student loans has escalated, it is still well below the average wage for those borrowers in the 20 to 40-year age group.7 The gap between wages and debt has narrowed over the past 15 years, but the increase in lifetime earnings potential still far exceeds the rise in accumulated debt for the average or median student. Of course, student loans have not paid off for everyone. News reports have highlighted plenty of examples of students that have graduated with crushing debt burdens and poor job prospects. Nonetheless, the Brookings study found that, for the vast majority, "the increase in borrowing would be made up for relatively early in the career of a worker with mean earnings".8 The Digest of Education Statistics show that, in 2013, the median annual earnings for full-time workers with a Bachelor's degree in the 25 to 34 age group was $48,530, compared with $30,000 for workers with just a high-school diploma. The bad news is that it is taking much longer to repay these debts. The mean term of repayment has increased from 7½% in 1992 to about 13½ years in 2010.9 Extended repayment and income-driven repayment plans can increase the loan term to 20, 25 or even 30 years. In some cases, borrowers will still be paying for their education when their children enter college!10 There is also evidence that the debt burden is causing some young adults to delay marriage and live with their parents for longer than they otherwise would. More Debt And Less Wealth Young student debtors also lag significantly relative to their peers in terms of wealth accumulation. A Pew Research Center study found that households headed by a young, college-educated adult without any student debt obligations have about seven times the typical net worth ($64,700) of households headed by a young, college-educated adult with student debt ($8,700; Chart II-8).11 Net worth is lower for those with student loans not just because their overall debt levels are higher; the value of their assets trailed as well. This gap is despite the fact that those households with a degree had almost double the annual income of those in the study that did not. Even comparing only households headed by young adults that did not attain a degree, accumulated wealth for those with student debt fell far short of those who avoided debt. One explanation is that money being absorbed by student debt repayment is unavailable to accumulate assets. A Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) of Boston study12 estimated that a 10% increase in student loan debt per household is associated with a 0.9% decline in the value of total wealth. Student loan burdens also mean that households end up relying more on other types of debt, such as auto loans and credit cards, according to the Pew study. Chart II-8Higher Debt, Lower Wealth... November 2016 November 2016 Table II-1...And Lower Homeownership November 2016 November 2016 Student debtors are also less likely to own a home after 2009 (Table II-1). Before 2009, the FRB of Boston study found that 30-year olds with a history of student loans had a higher homeownership rate than those without student debt. This makes sense because the boost to household income from obtaining more education should make it easier to quality for a mortgage. However, the relationship between student debt and homeownership switched after the Great Recession. The economy-wide homeownership rate has fallen sharply since home prices peaked in 2006, but the drop was more severe for those with student loans. This is probably due to the erosion in future income expectations following the recession for those with student debt, as well as more limited access to additional credit based on these individuals' existing debt loads (i.e. lower credit scores). Alternatively, student debtors may simply be reluctant to add to their overall leverage in light of the more uncertain economic outlook. A Fed study estimated that every 10% increase in student debt per person now results in a 1 percentage point drop in the homeownership rate for the first five years after graduation.13 Non-Traditional Borrowers Led The Surge In Delinquencies... While student debt burdens are unlikely to ameliorate anytime soon, the default rate should moderate in the coming years. Brookings (2015) conducted a detailed assessment of the characteristics of student loan borrowers and how they changed after 2007, by matching administrative data on federal student borrowers with earnings data from tax records. The study split the sample into "traditional" and "non-traditional" borrowers. Traditional borrowers are defined to be those attending 4-year public and private institutions because they tend to be typical in nature; they start college in their late teens, soon after completing high school, are dependent on their parents for aid purposes, pursue 4-year degrees and, frequently, head on to graduate study. This group historically represented the majority of federal borrowers and loan amounts. Non-traditional borrowers historically made up only a small portion of the total. These are defined to be those borrowing for 2-year programs (primarily community college) or to attend for-profit schools. The study found that non-traditional borrowers have largely come from lower-income families, tended to be older (i.e. not supported by parents), attended institutions with relatively low completion rates and faced poor labor market outcomes after leaving school (Chart II-9). Lower median wages and higher rates of unemployment meant that non-traditional borrowers tended to default on their student loans at a higher rate than traditional students. Student borrowing is counter cyclical; it tends to accelerate during recessions as unfavorable labor market conditions encourage people to return to school or to stay in school longer. The flow of new borrowers accelerated particularly sharply during the Great Recession, as intense pressure on State budgets led to cuts in scholarships by public institutions. Access to alternative credit markets was also curtailed during and after the Great Financial Crisis. Chart II-9Non-Traditional Students Had Poor Labor Market Experience November 2016 November 2016 Chart II-10Surge In Non-Traditional ##br##Borrowers After 2007 bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s2_c10 bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s2_c10 Student loan inflows (i.e. the number of new borrowers) and outflows (the number paying off loans) are shown in Chart II-10. Inflows trended higher from 2000 to 2007, while outflows were fairly flat, leading to an upward trend in the net inflows. Inflows subsequently surged during the recession, reaching a peak in 2010. The jump in new borrowers was concentrated among non-traditional students. The number of non-traditional borrowers grew to represent almost half of all new borrowers soon after the recession. The wave of students who had begun to borrow during the recession entered the repayment period in increasingly large numbers from 2011 to 2014. The early years of repayment are the most precarious because debtors are just starting their careers and their earnings are the most variable. The rise in the share of non-traditional borrowers largely explains the surge in the overall default rate since 2011. In contrast, the majority of traditional borrowers have experienced strong labor market outcomes and relatively low rates of default. Of all the students who left school, started to repay federal loans in 2011, and had fallen into default by 2013, about 70% were non-traditional borrowers. ...But The Worst Is Over The situation has since begun to reverse. Inflows and the net change in the number of borrowers has declined since 2012, particularly at 2-year and for-profit institutions. The moderation of the pace of inflows, the change in the composition of borrowers (less non-traditional), and efforts by the DoE to expand the use of income-based repayment programs will put downward pressure on delinquency and default rates in the coming years. Economic Impact Of Student Debt There are several channels through which rising student debt can affect overall economic growth. Spending by households with student debt will be curtailed both by the need to service the loans and by the fact that these households have lower levels of net worth. They are also less likely to own a home or form a small business. (1)Debt Service Burden And The Wealth Effect Table II-2 presents estimates of the value of aggregate debt service payments as a percent of GDP. This is based on the median debt service-to-earnings estimates from the Brookings Institute and median income for households where the head is less than 35 years of age in the Survey of Consumer Finances. If we assume that every dollar paid to service student loans is a dollar not spent on goods and services, then Table II-2 implies that the resulting drag on the level of real GDP has doubled from 0.17% of GDP in 2004 to 0.34% in 2013 (latest year available). However, it is the increase over time that matters for GDP growth, not the level. The rise of 0.17% was spread over nine years, suggesting that the drag on GDP growth was minimal. Moreover, this represents an overestimate of the actual drag, because households with student debt have leaned more heavily on other types of debt in an attempt to maintain their living standards. Table II-2The Debt Service Drag On GDP November 2016 November 2016 Lower levels of asset accumulation and net worth will also undermine consumer spending. However, we believe that accounting for both the "wealth effect" and the debt-service effect on GDP would be double counting. Chart II-11Spending On Education ##br##Not A Growth Driver bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s2_c11 bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s2_c11 Education spending also provides a possible offset to the negative impact of debt service on GDP growth. However, in terms of household spending on education, in inflation-adjusted terms there has been virtually no growth in consumer spending on higher education over the past 15 years despite all the extra spending in nominal dollars (Chart II-11). Data on government spending specifically on higher education is not available, but spending on all levels of education including primary and secondary schools has declined as a fraction of real GDP since the early 2000's. The implication is that total spending on higher education by households and governments has not provided any offset to the drag on GDP growth from student debt since 2007. (2)Housing Market Earlier, we cited Fed estimates that every 10% increase in student debt per person results in a 1 percentage point drop in the homeownership rate for the first five years after graduation. The economy-wide homeownership rate has fallen by 5.5 percentage points since the beginning of 2007, reaching 62.9% in the second quarter of 2016. We estimate that rising student indebtedness could account for as much as 1½ percentage points of the total 5½ percentage point drop. This is based on the Fed's estimates, the rise in the share of student loan borrowers among the total number of households and the increase in student debt-per-person. Again, this estimate likely overstates the impact because we are implicitly assuming that every new student borrower since 2007 ultimately forms a new household upon graduation. Undoubtedly, a portion of student borrowers formed a household with other student borrowers. Even if this estimate is close to the truth, it is not clear that there is a large impact on GDP growth. The formation of new households will result in an expansion in the housing stock one-for-one (assuming no change in inventories). Whether they decide to rent or buy, this will boost the residential investment portion of GDP. Buying a home or condo often results in home renovation and purchases of new furnishings, thus providing the economy with a larger boost compared to new households that rent. Nonetheless, the difference is difficult to estimate and is probably small enough to ignore. Another way to approach the issue is to gauge the impact on the housing market of the greater propensity of 18-35 year olds to live with their parents. Those living at home jumped from 19.2 million in 2007 to 23.0 million in 2015. The proportion of those living at home of the total population of 18-35 year olds rose from 28% to 32%. If the ratio had not increased over the period, it would have resulted in an extra 2½ million young people leaving home. If we assume that one-quarter of them move in with someone else who is also leaving home, then it would result in an increase in the housing stock of more than 1.8 million units since 2007 (condos or single family homes). We estimate that the resulting boost to residential construction growth would have added an average 0.14 percentage points to real GDP growth each year since 2007. Of course, it is not clear how much of the "living at home" trend is due to student loans as opposed to low earnings or poor job prospects. This estimate thus overstates the direct impact of student loans on the housing market. Nonetheless, it is instructive that the living-at-home phenomenon has been a non-trivial drag on economic growth via new home construction. (3) New Business Creation Academic research has also linked rising student indebtedness to a slower pace of new business creation. Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia points out that approximately 60% of new jobs in the private sector are created by small business.14 The U.S. Small Business Administration states that small firms receive approximately three-quarters of their capital needs in the form of loans, credit cards and lines of credit, which often have a personal liability attached. Having student loans reduces one's debt capacity and thus the ability to obtain small business loans. The Fed study compared student loan data and new business formation across U.S. counties. The Fed estimates that an increase of one standard deviation in student debt results in a decrease of 70 in the annual pace of new small business creation, representing a decline of approximately 14½%. Chart II-12 shows the inverse correlation between student debt and new business formation across U.S. states. Chart II-12Student Debt Hinders Small Business Creation November 2016 November 2016 The impact of a slower pace of new business creation on overall economic growth is unclear. A student that does not create a new business for whatever reason will likely end up working for an already existing company that is growing, expanding the supply side of the economy anyway. True, small businesses create a lot of jobs, but they lose a lot too because the failure rate for these firms is high in the early years. Some claim that the less vibrant new business environment since 2007 reflects a less dynamic economy, helping to explain the dismal productivity record since that time. However, this flies in the face of the fact that the small business sector is less productive overall than large businesses. Chart II-13 demonstrates that there is a rough correlation between the new firm creation rate and real GDP growth per capita at the state level. However, it is not clear which one is driving the other. Our sense is that, while a less vibrant new business backdrop likely contributed to the poor post-Lehman economic record, it is far from the major driving factor. Chart II-13GDP Growth And Small Business Creation: Which One Is The Driver? bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s2_c13 bca.bca_mp_2016_11_01_s2_c13 (4) The Federal Budget Could the surge in delinquency rates wind up costing the taxpayer a bundle? Eighty percent of all student loans are either made directly by or are backed by the federal government, generating a potentially large contingent liability. Fortunately for the taxpayer, the recovery rate on student loans is extremely high. Moreover, the Federal government makes money on the spread between the student loan rate and the rate at which it finances these loans (Treasury yields). Congress sets the loan rates and they are kept well above Treasury yields. Under Congressional accounting rules, the cost of a student loan is recorded in the federal budget during the year the loan is disbursed, taking into account the amount of the loan, expected payments to the government over the life of the loan, and other cash flows, all discounted to the present value using interest rates on U.S. Treasury securities. By this accounting rule, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Federal government will make a net profit of almost $200 billion over the 2013-2023 period.15 However, a more reasonable "fair value" accounting method, which includes the costs of collection and other items, shows that the student loan program will cost the taxpayer roughly $100 billion over the same period. Either way, the bottom line is that the student loan program is at worst only a minor drain on the Federal government's coffer. Delinquency and default rates are likely to moderate in the coming years. But even if default rates were to surge to new highs for some reason, the recovery rate is so elevated that the impact on the Federal budget balance would be lost in the rounding. Conclusion It seems clear that incentives ingrained in the U.S. higher-education system have contributed to an alarming escalation in student debt over the last 15 years. There has been a vicious circle in which increased federal loan limits supported institutions' ability to raise tuition fees, resulting in a greater need for federal loans. Some for-profit institutions have been criticized for offering shoddy education, for graduating too many students in disciplines for which job prospects are poor, and for encouraging students to load up on high-cost debt. The U.S. spends almost 80% more per pupil on higher education than the OECD average, and yet some argue that this has not resulted in better educational outcomes. The social impact of student leveraging is clearly negative. The benefits of education have narrowed relative to the costs. Financial stress has increased along with debt service burdens, especially for non-traditional borrowers, and repayment periods have been extended to an average of over 13 years. These trends have caused young people to delay marriage and home purchases. This is a serious political and social issue that needs to be addressed. That said, we do not agree with Ms. Bair that student debt is the next "subprime" crisis. Delinquency and default rates are likely to fall in the coming years. These loans have not been packaged into opaque financial instruments and distributed throughout the investment world. The vast majority of the loans are federally backed and the recovery rate is very high. Even if there is a wave of mass defaults, the federal deficit might rise slightly but there is no channel through which the shock can propagate through the financial system. The bottom line is that student debt is a social issue, and to a lesser extent, a macro issue. But it is not a financial stability issue. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 "Student Debt and the Class of 2015," Annual Report of the Institute for College Access & Success, October 2016. 2 Beth Akers and Matthew Chingos, "Is a Student Loan Crisis on the Horizon?" Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings, June 2014. 3 Adam Looney and Constantine Yannelis, "A Crisis in Student Loans? How Changes in the Characteristics of Borrowers and in the Institutions They Attended Contributed to Rising Loan Defaults," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Fall 2015. 4 Most federal student loans are at a fixed rate set by Congress. 5 Brookings (2015). 6 http://www.edcentral.org/edcyclopedia/federal-student-loan-default-rate… 7 The data are only available to 2010, but we have estimated figures to 2013. 8 Brookings (2014). 9 Brookings (2014). 10 Student loans generally have a 10-year term, but loans consolidated with the federal government are eligible for extended repayment terms based on the outstanding balance, with larger debts eligible for longer repayment terms. 11 "Young Adults, Student Debt and Economic Well-Being," Pew Research Center, May 14, 2014. 12 Daniel Cooper and J.Christina Wang, "Student Loan Debt and Economic Outcomes," Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, October 2014. 13 Alvaro Mezza, Daniel Ringo, Shane Sherlund and Kamila Sommer, "On the Effect of Student Loans on Access to Homeownership," Finance and Economic Discussion Series of the Federal Reserve Board. 2016-2010. 14 Brent Ambrose, Larry Cordell, and Shuwei Ma, "The Impact of Student Loan Debt on Small Business Formation," Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Working Paper, July 2015. III. Indicators And Reference Charts Equity markets ended the month slightly lower as investors come to grips with the economic and profit implications of the pending Fed rate hike and Brexit. While TINA is still in play, caution abounds, as highlighted by waning investor sentiment and continued weakness in our Equity Technical indictor. Rising bond yields and a stronger dollar contributed to a weakening in our Monetary Indictor, trends that no doubt contributed to the overall diminished appetite for risk over the month. Our Equity Valuation Indicators have improved somewhat, but still remain in overvalued territory. Net earnings revisions have become constructive and positive earnings surprises increasingly outpaced negative ones. Despite this, we would need to see a close to 10% price depreciation for U.S. equities to appear attractive, as outlined in Section 1. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators continue to send a positive message for stock markets. These indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Investors often say they are bullish but remain conservative in their asset allocation. At the moment, the low levels of the WTP indicators suggest that flows have been stronger into bonds than into stocks. From a contrary perspective, this means that there is "dry powder" available if investors decide to move more aggressively into equity markets. The U.S. and Eurozone indicators appear to have bottomed out last month and continue their ascent. This should be bullish for both U.S. and Eurozone equities. The U.S. dollar notched a strong month with a gain of more than 3%. This has tightened financial conditions as can be seen in the decline of our Financial Conditions Index. The deviation from its 12-month moving average is even more pronounced, turning negative after several months of treading water in "easing" territory. Our Dollar Composite Technical indicator displayed a violent move higher, but has yet to breach a level consistent with previous episodes of overextension; the USD can rally further. The yen is showing signs of entering an extended period of depreciation. Net speculative positions are extremely elevated and the 40-week rate of change appears to have formed a trough, rebounding from all-time lows. In a similar vein, the euro is also displaying weakness as its 40-week rate of change is crossing into negative territory. As outlined in Section 1, we expect a 10% appreciation in the U.S. dollar, a 10% depreciation in the yen and a 5% depreciation of the euro in trade-weighted terms. The commodity complex ended the month flat, with a more robust global growth backdrop offsetting the negative impact of a strong U.S. dollar and higher rates. While the advance/decline line ticked up, a positive sign for a potential broad-based gain across currencies, gold had a less than stellar month. The outsized impact of financial variables (U.S. dollar strength and higher real rates) on the yellow metal led to a more than 5% price decline. Our Commodity Composite Technical Indicator surged deeper into overbought territory, indicating that it might be time to take some risk off the table. The balance of risks for commodities excluding oil is to the downside. As mentioned in Section 1, an appreciating U.S. dollar and elevated yields will eventually feed through to weakness in the space. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-5U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings Chart III-6Global Stock Market ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-7Global Stock Market ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-8U.S. Treasurys And Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations Chart III-9U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-10Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1110-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-12U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-13Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-14Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-15U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-17U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-18Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-19Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-20Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-22Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-23Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-26Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-27U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-28U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-29U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-30U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-31U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market Chart III-32U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption Chart III-33U.S. Housing U.S. Housing U.S. Housing Chart III-34U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-35U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-36Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China

Highlights The perceived shape of Brexit is the single most important driver of the pound and most U.K. assets. The U.K. Courts are due to deliver landmark legal rulings, which have huge implications for the perceived shape of Brexit. Expect an eventual soft Brexit if the Courts decide against the U.K. government and deem that triggering Article 50 requires parliamentary approval. Expect a much harder Brexit if the Courts decide in favour of the U.K. government. Tactical investors should consider owning some very short-term call options on pound/dollar or a combination of call and put options. Feature Within the next two weeks, the U.K. High Court will deliver a landmark legal ruling which will have huge implications for the future of the U.K. and Europe. Chart of the WeekDifferent Levels Of Brexit Mean Different Levels Of The Pound bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s1_c1 bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s1_c1 The U.K. High Court will rule whether Prime Minister Theresa May can start the legal process to exit the EU using the so-called 'royal prerogative' - the power granted to governments to make decisions without a vote from parliament. If May cannot use the royal prerogative, she will require an Act of Parliament to trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The High Court judgement hinges on a fundamental issue. Triggering Article 50 necessarily means that the current government will overturn previous parliamentary decisions - the European Communities Act (1972) and European Union Act (2011). Does the constitution permit a government to overturn parliamentary decisions, take away treaties, and remove the population's legal rights without obtaining parliamentary approval? Although we are not legal experts, the court could regard that as overstretching government authority. If the High Court's judgement does go against the U.K. government, expect pound/dollar to rally immediately by about 4-5 cents. Conversely, a judgement in favour of the government could see the pound sell off by about 1-2 cents. Given the possibility of this gapping, tactical investors should consider owning some very short-term call options on pound/dollar, or a combination of call and put options. Nevertheless, the story will not end with the High Court. Whichever side loses will appeal the decision and take the case to the Supreme Court, which is expected to respond by the end of the year. This ultimate pronouncement of law will have a landmark bearing on the shape of Brexit and, thereby, the future of the U.K. and the other EU 27. Where Is The Pound Headed Longer-Term? For investors, the spectrum of Brexit possibilities - no Brexit, 'soft' Brexit, 'hard' Brexit, or 'very hard' Brexit - will be the single-most important driver of the pound, and by extension, other U.K. assets. Of course, U.K. asset prices ultimately depend on economic and financial fundamentals. But Chart I-2, Chart I-3, Chart I-4, Chart I-5, Chart I-6, Chart I-7 illustrate that by far the most important fundamental for all U.K. assets right now is the perceived hardness of Brexit, as captured in the pound's value. Chart I-2Harder Brexit Means The Eurostoxx600 ##br##Underperforms The FTSE100... bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s1_c2 bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s1_c2 Chart I-3...And The FTSE250 ##br##Underperforms The FTSE100 ...And The FTSE250 Underperforms The FTSE100 ...And The FTSE250 Underperforms The FTSE100 Chart I-4Harder Brexit Means U.K. ##br##Goods Exporters Outperform... bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s1_c4 bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s1_c4 Chart I-5Harder Brexit Means ##br##Retailers Underperform... bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s1_c5 bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s1_c5 Chart I-6...Travel And Leisure Underperforms... bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s1_c6 bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s1_c6 Chart I-7...And Real Estate Underperforms bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s1_c7 bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s1_c7 Pound/dollar has (so far) traded at three distinct levels, based on three distinct levels of perceived Brexit severity: near 1.50 before the Brexit vote; near 1.30 after the Brexit vote but perceiving a soft Brexit; and near 1.20 after Theresa May announced that she would trigger Article 50 by next March and was contemplating a hard Brexit (Chart of the Week). Hence the (post-appeal) outcome of the legal case against the government carries great significance. If the government loses, and requires a parliamentary vote to trigger Article 50, several consequences follow. Theresa May's end-March deadline for firing the Brexit starting gun would become very difficult to meet, severely delaying the whole process. Would the government even win a parliamentary majority? If in doubt, would the government call a snap General Election to try and beef up its majority? The current batch of parliamentarians has a strong bias for staying in the EU, but it would be difficult to fly in the face of the referendum result. On the other hand, the checks and balances of parliament are there precisely to stop the country walking over the cliff-edge that a very hard Brexit would be. All the while, with investment slowing and higher inflation from the weaker pound squeezing household real incomes, the economic headwinds from the U.K.s limbo status would be becoming more apparent. Given the high stakes and likely irreversibility of the formal legal process, parliamentarians would rightfully want to examine and approve the U.K.'s negotiating hand. It seems that Parliament would almost certainly water down or delay Brexit before voting it through. Hence, if the government loses its legal case after appeal, Brexit will likely end up in a soft form. And pound/dollar will ultimately elevate to 1.35. Conversely, if the government wins its legal case after appeal, Theresa May will be on course to trigger Article 50 early next year, as promised. At which point, the EU 27's optimal game-theoretical first play is to be very aggressive - effectively opening with a very hard Brexit offer as described in the next section. Whereupon, pound/dollar would find its fourth, even lower, new level: near 1.10. Two Myths About Brexit It is important to debunk a couple of common myths about Brexit. First, that the U.K.'s current position as the EU 28's second largest economy will force the remaining EU 27 to give the U.K. a special status - allowing access to the three freedoms of goods, services, and capital but with controls on the fourth freedom of movement: people. This belief is misplaced. The biggest worry for the EU 27 is that a special status for Britain could catalyse other countries, under populist pressure, to ask for equivalent deals. The EU 27 does not want to give Marine Le Pen the opportunity to say "let's follow the Brits, they've negotiated a great deal." Hence, the U.K. will not get special treatment. Quite the contrary, it must be seen to be paying a substantial price for Brexit. Even for Anglophile Angela Merkel, protecting the indivisibility of the four freedoms and the integrity of the EU is the overriding priority. If the U.K. restricts free movement of people, it almost certainly means a hard Brexit: substantially restricted access to the single market. The U.K. would then have to negotiate a free trade agreement (FTA) with the EU. Given the current difficulty that Canada is experiencing in negotiating a FTA, this might not be a straightforward process for the U.K either. Furthermore, as a FTA does not usually cover services, it would handicap the services-heavy U.K. economy, while perfectly suiting the goods-heavy German economy. A second common belief is that the pound will act as an automatic economic stabilizer. That irrespective of a very tough deal from the EU 27, a weaker sterling will soothe the pain of a very hard Brexit by making British exports more competitive. Granted, the weaker pound will boost the demand for the U.K.'s goods exports. But total U.K exports are much less sensitive to devaluations compared to when the pound tumbled out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992. Then, just a quarter of the U.K's exports were services; today that proportion is approaching a half (Chart I-8) With the exception of tourism, these services tend to be high value-added financial and business services. Cutting their price will not significantly boost the demand for them. Chart I-8Almost Half Of U.K. Exports Are Services Almost Half Of U.K. Exports Are Services Almost Half Of U.K. Exports Are Services Meanwhile, U.K. consumers will feel distinctly poorer as the sterling prices of food and energy rise (Chart I-9), squeezing real household incomes and spending. In turn, this will leave the Bank of England with a major headache. How best to support real spending: defend the plunging pound to keep a lid on food and energy prices, or cut interest rates? Chart I-9Higher Sterling Prices For Food And Energy Will Squeeze Real Incomes Higher Sterling Prices For Food And Energy Will Squeeze Real Incomes Higher Sterling Prices For Food And Energy Will Squeeze Real Incomes Investment Reductionism For U.K. Assets The charts throughout this report show that the strategy for many U.K. investments reduces to an overriding question. Will the U.K largely retain access to the single market, defining a soft Brexit? Or will the U.K. largely lose access to the single market, defining a hard Brexit? In a soft Brexit: Sterling would rally 10%, taking pound/dollar to 1.35. The Eurostoxx600 and S&P500 would outperform the FTSE100. Within U.K. equities, sterling earners would outperform dollar earners, favouring small and mid-cap over large cap. The FTSE250 would outperform the FTSE100. The heavily domestic-focused retailers, travel and leisure, and real estate sectors would outperform the market. Goods exporters, such as the apparel sector would become less competitive and underperform the market. In a hard Brexit, expect the exact opposite of the above. Pound/dollar would slump 10% to 1.10, and so on. To determine which strategy to follow, await the post-appeal Supreme Court judgement on how Article 50 must be triggered, due at the end of the year. If Article 50 requires parliamentary approval, expect a soft Brexit. If it doesn't require parliamentary approval, expect the Brexit game theory to become hard and aggressive. Right now this is a coin toss, but forced to choose, we expect events may eventually prevent a damaging hard Brexit. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* This week's trade is another commodity pair trade: long copper / short tin. 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 10 Long Copper / Short Tin Long Copper / Short Tin * 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_10_27_s2_c1 bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s2_c1 Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s2_c2 bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s2_c2 Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s2_c3 bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s2_c3 Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s2_c4 bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s2_c4 Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s2_c5 bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s2_c5 Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s2_c6 bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s2_c6 Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s2_c7 bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s2_c7 Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s2_c8 bca.eis_wr_2016_10_27_s2_c8

Highlights China's abnormal credit growth has been the result of speculative, high-risk behavior among Chinese banks - and not the natural result of the country's high savings rate. Banks do not intermediate savings into credit, and they do not need deposits to lend. Banks create deposits and money by originating loans. A commercial bank is not constrained in loan origination by its reserves at the central bank if the latter supplies liquidity (reserves) to commercial banks 'on demand'. What habitually drives credit booms are the "animal spirits" of banks and borrowers. We are initiating a relative China bank equity trade: short listed medium-size banks / long large five banks. Continue shorting the RMB versus the U.S. dollar. Feature For some time, the consensus view has been that rampant credit growth in China and the resulting excesses have been the natural result of the country's high savings rate, particularly among Chinese households. We have long argued differently: abnormal credit growth has been the result of speculative, high-risk behavior among Chinese banks and other creditors and borrowers. In this vein, China's credit bubble is no different than any other credit bubble in history. Although an adjustment in China might play out differently than it has in other countries where credit excesses became prevalent, China's corporate credit bubble is an imbalance that poses a non-trivial risk to both mainland and global growth (Chart I-1). Chart I-1China's Outstanding Credit Is Large Relative To Global GDP China's Outstanding Credit Is Large Relative To Global GDP China's Outstanding Credit Is Large Relative To Global GDP In a nutshell, Chinese banks have not channelled large amounts of household deposits into credit. Without mincing words, it is our view that banks have originated loans literally from "thin air" as banks do in any other country. In turn, credit has boosted spending, income and, consequently, savings. Do Deposits Create Loans, Or Do Loans Create Deposits? It is a widely held view among academics, investors and market commentators - including some of our colleagues here at BCA - that China's enormous credit expansion over the past several years has been a natural outcome of the nation's high savings rate. The argument goes like this: China has a very high savings rate, and it is inherent that household savings flow to banks as deposits. In turn, banks have little choice but to lend out on these deposits. The upshot of this reasoning is as follows: China's abnormally strong credit growth is a consequence of the country's abundant savings rather than an unsustainable excess. This argument hails from the Intermediate Loan Funds (ILF) model, otherwise known as the Loanable Fund Theory. This model suggests that deposits create loans - i.e., banks intermediate deposits into credit. Even though the ILF model is the most widespread theory of banking within academia and in textbooks, it unfortunately has little relevance to real-life banking - i.e., banking systems around the world do not function as the model posits. An alternative but much less recognized theory, the Financing Money Creation (FMC) model, asserts that banks create deposits from "thin air" when they originate a new loan. This is the model that banking systems in almost all countries in the world subscribe to. Indeed, whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower's bank account, therefore creating new money in the process (Chart I-2). In other words, bank loans create deposits and money. Chart I-2Commercial Banks: Credit Origination Creates Deposits Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses Herein we cite various papers that discuss this matter and delineate the key points: "Banks do not, as many textbooks still suggest, take deposits of existing money from savers and lend it out to borrowers: they create credit and money ex nihilo - extending a loan to the borrower and simultaneously crediting the borrower's money account" (Turner, 2013). "When banks extend loans, to their customers, they create money by crediting their customer's accounts" (King, 2012). "Based on how monetary policy has been conducted for several decades, banks have always had the ability to expand credit whenever they like. They don't need a pile of "dry tinder" in the form of excess reserves to do so" (Dudley, 2009). "In a closed economy (or the world as a whole), fundamentally, deposits come from only two places: new bank lending and government deficits. Banks create deposits when they create loans." (Sheard, 2013). "Just as taking out a new loan creates money, the repayment of bank loans destroys money" (McLeay, 2014). The papers cited in the bibliography on page 18 elaborate on this topic in depth and readers are encouraged to review this literature. Bottom Line: Banks do not need deposits to lend. They create deposits and money by originating loans. Do Banks Lend Their Reserves At Central Banks? Another misconception about modern banking in general and China's banking system in particular is that banks lend out their excess reserves held at the central bank. Provided that Chinese banks have plenty of required reserves at the People's Bank of China (PBoC), some economists and analysts argue it is a matter of cutting the reserve requirement ratio to free up reserves (liquidity), which will allow banks to boost their loan origination. Again, we cite several papers as well as specific views from central bankers who reject the notion that banks lend out their reserves at the central bank: This comment by William C. Dudley (President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank) states "the Federal Reserve has committed itself to supply sufficient reserves to keep the fed funds rate at its target. If banks want to expand credit and that drives up the demand for reserves, the Fed automatically meets that demand in its conduct of monetary policy. In terms of the ability to expand credit rapidly, it makes no difference whether the banks have lots of excess reserves or not" (Dudley, 2009). "In fact, the level of reserves hardly figures in banks' lending decisions. The amount of credit outstanding is determined by banks' willingness to supply loans, based on perceived risk-return trade-offs, and by the demand for those loans. The aggregate availability of bank reserves does not constrain the expansion directly" (Borio et al., 2009). "While the institutional facts alone provide compelling support for our view, we also demonstrate empirically that the relationships implied by the money multiplier do not exist in the data ... Changes in reserves are unrelated to changes in lending, and open market operations do not have a direct impact on lending. We conclude that the textbook treatment of money in the transmission mechanism can be rejected..." (Carpenter et al., 2010). "...reserves are, in normal times, supplied 'on demand' by Bank of England to commercial banks in exchange for other assets on their balance sheets. In no way does the aggregate quantity of reserves directly constrains the amount of bank lending or deposit creation" (McLeay 2014). "Most importantly, banks cannot cause the amount of reserves at the central bank to fall by "lending them out" to customers. Assuming that the public does not change its demand for cash and the government does not make any net payments to the private sector (two things that are both beyond the direct control of the banks and the central bank), bank reserves have to remain "parked" at the central bank" (Sheard, 2013). More detailed analysis on this topic is available in the papers cited in the bibliography on page 18. Bottom Line: Banks do not lend out their reserves at the central bank. A commercial bank is not constrained in loan origination/money creation by its reserves at the central bank if the latter supplies liquidity (reserves) to commercial banks 'on demand'. Empirical Evidence: Savings Versus Credit This section presents empirical evidence that there is no correlation between national and household savings rates and loan origination. This is true for any country, including China. Credit growth and credit penetration (the credit-to-GDP ratio) have little to do with a country's or with households' savings rates. Chart I-3 illustrates that there has been no correlation between China's national or household savings rates and the credit-to-GDP ratio. China's savings rate was high and rising before 2009, yet the credit bubble formation only commenced in January 2009 when the savings rate topped out. Looking at other countries such as Korea, Taiwan and the U.S., historically we find no correlation between their savings and credit cycles1 (Chart I-4). Chart I-3China: Credit And Savings ##br##Are Not Correlated China: Credit And Savings Are Not Correlated China: Credit And Savings Are Not Correlated Chart I-4The U.S., Korea And Taiwan:##br## Credit And Savings Are Not Correlated The U.S., Korea And Taiwan: Credit And Savings Are Not Correlated The U.S., Korea And Taiwan: Credit And Savings Are Not Correlated Importantly, a high or rising savings rate does not preclude deleveraging. There were many two- to four-year spans of deleveraging in China when the credit-to-GDP ratio was flat or falling (Chart I-5) - i.e., the growth rate of credit was at or below nominal GDP growth. This occurred despite the country's high and rising savings rate. So, not only is deleveraging not unusual for China but it has also occurred amid a high savings rate. This contradicts the commonly held view that Chinese credit has always expanded faster than nominal GDP because the nation saves a lot. Deleveraging at the current juncture will likely be very painful, because the size of credit flows is enormous and even a moderate and gradual deceleration in credit will produce a major drag on growth. Specifically, the credit impulse - the second derivative of outstanding credit that measures the impact of credit growth on GDP - will be equal to -2.2% of GDP if credit growth moderates from 11.3% now to 7.8% in the next 24 months (Chart I-6). Chart I-5There Were Periods Of ##br##Deleveraging In China Too There Were Periods Of Deleveraging In China Too There Were Periods Of Deleveraging In China Too Chart I-6China's Credit Impulse Will ##br##Likely Be Negative China's Credit Impulse Will Likely Be Negative China's Credit Impulse Will Likely Be Negative As Chart I-6 also demonstrates, China's credit impulse drives Chinese imports, the most critical variable for the rest of the world. Chart I-7China: A Growth Engine Shift Since 2009 China: A Growth Engine Shift Since 2009 China: A Growth Engine Shift Since 2009 Further, it is possible to argue that vigorous credit growth generates robust income growth. The latter, in turn, allows a nation as a whole and households in particular to save more. If Chinese banks had not originated as many loans since early 2009 as they have, many goods and services in China would not have been produced and sold, and income growth for all companies, households and even government would be much lower. Even if the savings rate were held constant, less income would entail lower absolute amounts of both national and household savings. In short, China's exponential credit growth since 2009 has helped boost both national and household income levels, and in turn the absolute level of their savings. Chart I-7 illustrates that before 2009, mainland economic and income growth were driven by exports, but since early 2009, credit has been instrumental in generating income growth and prosperity. Finally, many analysts rationalize strong loan growth among Chinese banks by their robust deposit growth. This logic is flawed: Chinese banks have substantial deposits on hand because they originate a lot of loans. Bottom Line: China's and any other country's national or household savings rate does not explain swings in credit creation. Banks do not intermediate savings into credit. Rather, banks create deposits and money. What Drives Bank Lending? If a credit boom is not driven by abundant savings, what is the foundation for a credit boom in general, and the one currently underway in China in particular? Loan origination by a bank depends on that bank's willingness to lend, as well as general demand for loans. Also, depending on policy priorities, regulators often try to encourage or limit banks' ability to lend by imposing and adjusting various regulatory ratios. Barring any regulatory constraints, so long as there is demand for loans and a bank is willing to lend, a loan will be originated. Hence, in theory, banks can lend to eternity unless shareholders and regulators constrain them. In the immediate wake of the Lehman crisis, the Chinese authorities encouraged banks to open the credit floodgates. Thus, there was a de facto deregulation in the nation's banking system in early 2009 - policymakers encouraged strong credit origination. The experience of many countries - documented by numerous academic papers on this topic - has demonstrated that banking sector deregulation typically leads to excessive risk-taking by banks, and abnormal credit growth. These episodes have not ended well, with multi-year workouts following in their wake. By and large, a credit boom often occurs when risk-taking by banks surges and shareholders and regulators do not constrain them. This has been no different in China - the credit boom since 2009 has been powered by speculative and excessive risk-taking among banks and their management teams in particular, amid complacency of regulators and shareholders. Bottom Line: What habitually drives excessive credit creation are the "animal spirits" of banks and borrowers. Banks' and borrowers' speculative behavior and reckless risk-taking typically degenerates into a credit boom that often ends in an economic and financial downturn. It has been no different in China. What Constrains Bank Lending? The following factors can limit bank credit origination: Monetary policy can limit credit growth via raising interest rates, which dampens loan demand. Also, banks can become more risk averse when interest rates rise as they downgrade creditworthiness of current and prospective borrowers. Government regulations can impose various restrictions on banks, restraining their risk-taking and ability to originate infinite amounts of credit. In China, to limit banks' ability to lend, regulators have imposed several mandatory ratios on commercial banks, and also practice 'Window Guidance'. First, the capital adequacy ratio (CAR=net capital / risk-weighted assets). This ratio limits banks' ability to originate infinite amounts of loans by imposing a minimum level CAR. In China, most banks comply comfortably with CAR. The CAR for the entire commercial banking system is currently 13.1%. While the minimum requirement is 8%. The caveat is that in China, banks' equity capital is nowadays considerably inflated because they have not provisioned for non-performing loans (NPLs). If banks were to fully provision for NPLs, their equity capital would shrink significantly, and they would probably not meet the minimum CAR. Table I-1 shows that in a scenario of 12.5% NPL ratio for banks' claims on companies and zero NPL on household loans and mortgages as well as a 20% recovery rate, a full provisioning by banks would erode 65% of their equity. In this scenario, the CAR ratio would drop a lot - probably below the required minimum of 8% and banks would be forced to raise new equity (dilute existing shareholders) or shrink their balance sheets - or a combination of both. Table I-1China: NPL Scenarios And Banks' Equity Capital Impairment Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses Second, the leverage ratio - computed as net Tier-1 capital divided by on- and off-balance-sheet assets. According to government regulation, this ratio should be at least 4%. As of June 30, 2016, the leverage ratio for the entire commercial banking system was 6.4%, comfortably above its floor. Nevertheless, as with CAR, the leverage ratio is overstated at the moment because the numerator - net Tier-1 equity capital - is artificially inflated, as it is not adjusted for realistic levels of NPLs, as discussed above. If 65% of equity is eroded due to sensible loan-loss provisioning and write-offs (as per Table 1), the leverage ratio would drop to about 2.3%, below the required minimum of 4%. Hence, banks would need to raise new equity (dilute existing shareholders), shrink their balance sheets or do a combination of both. Equity dilution is bearish for bank stocks and, if and as banks moderate their assets/loan growth, the economy will suffer. Third, regulatory 'Window Guidance' is implemented through PBoC recommendations to banks on their annual and quarterly credit ceilings, and on their credit structures. There is no official disclosure of this measure, and it is done between the PBoC, the Chinese Banking Regulatory commission (CBRC) and banks' management. In recent years, the efficiency of 'Window Guidance' has declined dramatically. Banks have defied bank regulators' efforts to rein in credit growth by finding loopholes in regulations. What's more, they have de facto exceeded credit origination limits by moving credit risk off their balance sheets and classifying it differently than loans. The result has been mushrooming Non-Standard Credit Assets (NSCA). Table I-2 reveals that on- and off-balance-sheet NSCA stand at RMB 10 trillion and RMB 19 trillion, respectively. Furthermore, banks have lately expanded their lending to non-depositary financial organizations that include trust companies, financial leasing companies, auto financing companies and loan companies (Chart I-8). This has probably been done to circumvent government regulations. Hence, Chinese banks have taken on much more credit risk than regulators have wanted them to by reclassifying/renaming loans as NSCA, and parking these assets both on- and off-balance-sheet. Table I-2China: Five Largest Banks Hold ##br##Only 40% Of Credit Assets Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses Chart I-8Non-Bank Financial Organizations##br## Are On A Borrowing Spree From Banks bca.ems_sr_2016_10_26_s1_c8 bca.ems_sr_2016_10_26_s1_c8 In short, regulatory measures in China have not been effective at restraining credit growth in recent years. Bank shareholders are the biggest losers when banks expand credit uncontrollably, and then their default rates rise. The reason being that banking is a business built on leverage. For example, if a bank's assets-to-equity ratio is 10 and 10% of assets go bad (default with no recovery), shareholders' equity will completely evaporate - i.e., they will lose their entire investment. Hence, it is in the best interests of bank shareholders to halt a credit expansion when they sense deteriorating credit quality ahead. Doing so will hurt the economy, but limit their losses. Why have shareholders of Chinese banks not stepped in to curb the credit boom and misallocation of capital? We believe they have either been satisfied with such a massive credit expansion, which has initially driven shareholder returns up, or weak institutional shareholder mechanisms have meant they have been unable to enforce credit discipline on their banks. All in all, if China's or any other credit system is driven by the principals of capitalism and markets, creditors are the ones who should curtail credit growth - regardless of what impact it will have on the economy. If a country's credit system in general and banks in particular do not operate on principals of capitalism and markets, banks can expand credit infinitely, thereby perpetuating capital misallocation and raising inefficiency, leading to stagnating productivity - in other words, a move to a more socialist bend. Only in a socialist system do banks expand their credit portfolios in perpetuity, since they are not run to maximize wealth for shareholders. On a related note, there is another misconception that all Chinese banks are state-owned and the government will be fast to bail them out by buying bad assets at par. Table I-3 illustrates the ownership structure of 16 Chinese banks listed the A-share market, including the large ones. The state (central and local governments) and SOEs have a large but not 100% ownership stake. In fact, foreign investors have considerable equity shares in many banks. Table I-3Chinese Banks: Shareholder Structure Is Diverse Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses Hence, a government bail-out of these banks at no cost to shareholders would mean the Chinese government is using taxpayer money to benefit domestic private as well as foreign shareholders. Given the considerable amounts involved, this will be politically difficult to achieve unless the benefits of doing so are explicitly greater than the costs of doing nothing. Chart I-9Commercial Banks Are On ##br##Borrowing Spree From PBoC Commercial Banks Are On Borrowing Spree From PBoC Commercial Banks Are On Borrowing Spree From PBoC We are not implying that a government bailout is impossible. Our point is that it will take material pain and considerable deterioration in the economy and financial markets before the central government bails out banks at no cost to other shareholders. No wonder the authorities have not recapitalized the banks so far. In the long run, if the Chinese government is serious about improving the credit/capital allocation process, it has to allow market forces to take hold so that creditors and debtors are not bailed out but instead assume financial responsibility for their decisions. This means short-term pain but long-term gain. The lack of demand for credit is an important constraint on credit origination. If there are no borrowers, banks will have a hard time making a sizable amount of loans. Liquidity constraints also limit banks' ability to expand their assets. Let's consider an example when liquidity constraints arise. Bank A originates a loan, and Borrower A wants to transfer money to its Supplier B, which has an account at Bank B. In theory, Bank A should reduce its excess reserves at the central bank by transferring money to Bank B's reserve account at the central bank. However, if too many borrowers of Bank A try to transfer their money/deposits to other banks, Bank A will run into liquidity constraints as its excess reserves dry up. In such a case, Bank A should borrow money from the central bank or the interbank market to replenish its excess reserves. Provided many G7 central banks are nowadays committed to supplying as much liquidity (reserves) as banks require, in these countries banks do not really face liquidity constraints in lending. The focus of advanced countries' central banks is to control short-term interest rates - i.e., they manage liquidity in a way to keep policy rates at the target. In the case of China, even though the PBoC has a high required reserves ratio (RRR) for banks, it apparently supplies commercial banks with whatever amounts of liquidity they require. Chart I-9 reveals that the PBoC's claims on commercial banks have surged by fivefold in the past three years. Given the Chinese monetary authorities have in the recent years been very generous in meeting banks' demands for liquidity, the high RRR has not constrained mainland banks' ability to originate loans. This contradicts some analysts' assertions that the PBoC can boost lending by cutting the RRR. As the PBoC presently fully accommodates banks' demands for liquidity, the significance and impact of required reserves has declined. On the whole, nowadays, commercial banks in China are not facing liquidity (reserves) constraints to expand credit. High debt servicing costs could constrain bank lending. Are there limits to the credit-to-GDP ratio? It is illustrative to consider a numerical example for China. Corporate and household debt presently stands at 220% of GDP and, according to Bank of Intentional Settlement (BIS) calculations, debt servicing costs (including interest payments and amortization) account for around 20% of disposable income (Chart I-10). If credit indefinitely expands at a rate well above nominal GDP growth (Chart I-11) and interest rates do not decline, debt servicing costs will rise substantially. For example, let's assume that mainland corporate and consumer leverage reaches 400% of GDP in the next several years. If and when this happens, debt servicing costs could double, approaching 40% of income assuming constant interest rates and debt maturity. Chart I-10China's Corporate And Household##br## Credit: The Sky'S The Limit? China's Corporate And Household Credit: The Sky'S The Limit? China's Corporate And Household Credit: The Sky'S The Limit? Chart I-11Will Credit Growth Slow Toward##br## Nominal GDP Growth? Will Credit Growth Slow Toward Nominal GDP Growth? Will Credit Growth Slow Toward Nominal GDP Growth? No debtor can continue to function under such debt burden. Hence, debtors will have to cut their spending (for companies it will be a reduction in capex budgets) or these debtors will need to borrow to pay interest and retire old debt. In short, this becomes an unsustainable Ponzi scheme, where debtors borrow to service their debt obligations. Anecdotal evidence suggests this is not rare in China nowadays. One way the authorities could reduce debt servicing is to cut interest rates to zero and lengthen the maturity of debt. This is what many advanced economies have done. If Chinese credit penetration does not stop rising, the PBoC will be forced to cut rates to close to zero. This in turn will lead to large capital outflows, and the RMB will depreciate versus the U.S. dollar. Bottom Line: The following factors can restrain bank credit origination: monetary policy (higher interest rates), government regulations, bank shareholders, lack of credit demand, liquidity constraints and high debt servicing costs. Investment Implications Chart I-12Short Small Banks / Long Large##br## Banks In China Short Small Banks / Long Large Banks In China Short Small Banks / Long Large Banks In China If banks' shareholders and other creditors in China act in accordance with their self-interests to preserve the value of their assets, they will have to reduce credit origination/lending. As a result, China will experience an acute economic downturn. This would constitute a capitalist-type adjustment, which in turn will lead to more efficiency, solid productivity growth, and reasonably high economic growth over the long term. However, it will also mean significant short-term pain. If the government bails out everyone, underwrites all credit risks, and gets even more involved in capital/credit allocation, the economy will not experience an acute slump for a while. However, this would represent a shift toward socialism and the potential growth rate will collapse in the next several years. With the labor force stagnating and probably contracting in the years ahead, China's potential growth will be equal to its productivity growth. In socialism, productivity growth is low, often close to zero. The growth trajectory in this scenario will follow mini-cycles around a rapidly falling potential growth rate. In brief, China's growth rate is bound to slow further, regardless of what scenario plays out over the next several years. Today, we are initiating a relative China bank equity trade: short listed small- and medium-size banks / long large five banks in the A-share market (Chart I-12). There has been more speculative high-risk lending from the small- and medium-size banks than the large ones. As we documented in our June 15, 2016 Special Report titled Chinese Banks' Ominous Shadow,2 the largest five banks have fewer non-standard credit assets than medium and small banks. If 12.5% of banks' claims on companies turn sour and the recovery rate is 20%, 100% of the equity of 11 listed small- and medium-sized banks will be wiped out. The same number for the large five banks is 42%. Hence, these 11 listed small- and medium-sized banks are more exposed to bad loans than the large five. Finally, mushrooming leverage entails that the monetary authorities should reduce interest rates drastically. However, lower interest rates will spur more capital outflows from the mainland. Hence, the RMB is set to depreciate further. We have been shorting the RMB versus the U.S. dollar since December 9, 2015, and this position remains intact. 1 We discussed this at length in Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China: Imbalances And Policy Options", dated June 12, 2012, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Chinese Banks' Ominious Shadow", June 15, 2016, link available on page 22. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Assistant andrijav@bcaresearch.com Bibliography Borio, C. and Disyatat, P. (2009), "Unconventional Monetary Policy: An Appraisal", BIS Working Papers, No. 292, November 2009. Carpenter, S. and Demiralp, S. (2010),"Money, Reserves, and the Transmission of Monetary Policy: Does the Money Multiplier Exist?", Finance and Economics Discussion Series, No. 2010-41, Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs, Washington, DC: Federal Reserve Board Dudley, W. (2009), "The Economic Outlook and the Fed's Balance Sheet: The Issue of "How" versus "When"", Remarks at the Association for a Better New York Breakfast Meeting, available at http://www.newyorkfed.org/newsevents/speeches/2009/dud090729.html Jakad, Z. and Kumhof, M. (2015), "Banks Are Not Intermediaries of Loanable Funds - and why this Matters", Bank of England, Working Paper 529, May 2015 King, M. (2012), Speech to the South Wales Chamber of Commerce at the Millenium Centre, Cardiff, October 23. Ma, G., Xiandong, Y. and Xim L. (2011), "China's evolving reserve requirements", BIS Working Papers, No. 360, November 2011. Turner, A. (2013), "Credit, Money and Leverage", September 12. Sheard, Paul (2013), "Repeat After Me: Banks Cannot And Do Not 'Lent Out' Reserves", Standard & Poor's Rating Services, August 2013, New York Werner, R. (2014b), "How Do Banks Create Money, and Why Can Other Firms Not Do the Same?", International Review of Financial Analysis, 36, 71-77. See King (2012), "Banks Are Not Intermediaries of Loanable Funds - and why this Matters", pp. 6, cited in Zoltan Jakab and Michael Kumhof, Bank of England Working Paper 529, May 2015. See Dudley (2009), "Banks Are Not Intermediaries of Loanable Funds - and why this Matters", pp. 13, cited in Zoltan Jakab and Michael Kumhof, Bank of England Working Paper 529, May 2015. See Carpenter and Demiralp (2010), "Banks Are Not Intermediaries of Loanable Funds - and why this Matters", pp. 13, cited in Zoltan Jakab and Michael Kumhof, Bank of England Working Paper 529, May 2015. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Duration: Treasury yields will continue to rise as a December Fed rate hike is priced in. A surge in bullish dollar sentiment between now and December would cause us to back away from our below-benchmark duration stance. Spread Product: Maintain a neutral allocation to spread product, favoring convexity over credit risk. A surge in bullish dollar sentiment between now and December would cause us to downgrade spread product relative to Treasuries. TIPS: The increased sensitivity of TIPS breakevens to core inflation argues for a continued overweight position in TIPS relative to nominal Treasuries. Sovereign Debt: Continue to favor U.S. corporate credit over USD-denominated sovereign government debt within a neutral allocation to spread product. Feature About one month ago, we outlined how we expected our investment strategy to evolve over the remainder of this year and into 2017.1 Our continued expectation that the Fed will lift rates in December leads us to maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and a neutral allocation to spread product2 until a December rate hike has been fully discounted by the market. Chart 1Dollar Sentiment: A Key Indicator Dollar Sentiment: A Key Indicator Dollar Sentiment: A Key Indicator Beyond December, our investment strategy will depend largely on how the dollar responds to an upward re-rating of rate expectations. Strong dollar appreciation would likely cause us to reverse our below-benchmark duration stance and become even more cautious on spread product. Conversely, a tame dollar could mean that the sell-off in bonds and rally in spreads have further to run. The dollar has appreciated by close to +2% since early September and bullish sentiment toward the dollar has also edged higher (Chart 1). However, so far the increases appear muted compared to the rapid dollar appreciation that occurred in the run-up to last December's rate hike. The reason we care about the dollar is that a stronger currency represents a tightening of financial conditions that acts to depress expectations of future economic growth. This can spell trouble for risk assets and also lower the market-implied odds of future rate hikes. For example, spread product was performing well last year until rate hike expectations started to move higher in late October. As the market began to anticipate a December Fed rate hike, it did not take long for the combination of higher rate expectations and increasingly bullish dollar sentiment to weigh on risk assets (Chart 2). The Market Vane survey of bullish sentiment toward the dollar surged above 80% last December, and this tightening of financial conditions is what prompted the sell-off in spread product and sharp decline in Treasury yields that kicked off 2016. Chart 2More Bullish Dollar Sentiment Is A Risk For Spread Product More Bullish Dollar Sentiment Is A Risk For Spread Product More Bullish Dollar Sentiment Is A Risk For Spread Product With last year's example in mind, the relevant question for current investment strategy is: How much dollar appreciation can the market tolerate before Treasury yields reverse their uptrend and credit spreads start to widen? To answer that question we make an assessment of U.S. and global growth relative to this time last year. All else equal, if U.S. growth is improved compared to last year, then it should require a greater dollar appreciation to have a similar impact on yields and spreads. Relatedly, if the growth outlook outside of the U.S. is improved, then it would mean that the dollar's reaction to rising U.S. rate expectations might not be as strong. On this note, there is some evidence pointing toward a more resilient U.S. and global economy than at this time last year. In the U.S., our preferred leading indicators suggest that growth contributions from capital spending, housing, net exports, government spending and inventories should all move higher in the coming quarters (Chart 3). This should act to offset a likely moderation in consumer spending growth (Chart 4). All in all, the domestic U.S. growth outlook appears similar to - if not slightly better than - what was seen at this time last year. There is more cause for optimism in the global growth indicators. The aggregate global PMI and LEI are tracking close to levels seen last year, but rising diffusion indexes suggest that further increases are likely (Chart 5). Already, manufacturing PMIs in all the major economic blocs have entered clear uptrends (Chart 5, bottom two panels). This suggests that the global growth outlook is actually much brighter than at this time last year, and improved diffusion indexes suggest that the global recovery has also become more synchronized. Chart 3U.S. Growth Outlook Improving... bca.usbs_wr_2016_10_25_c3 bca.usbs_wr_2016_10_25_c3 Chart 4...Outside Of Consumer Spending bca.usbs_wr_2016_10_25_c4 bca.usbs_wr_2016_10_25_c4 Chart 5Global Growth On The Upswing Global Growth On The Upswing Global Growth On The Upswing The implication of a U.S. economic outlook that is broadly similar to last year and an improved outlook for global growth is that the U.S. dollar may not react as strongly to rising Fed rate hike expectations in 2016 as it did in 2015. If this turns out to be the case, then the performance of spread product should also be more resilient and the uptrend in Treasury yields is less likely to reverse. Bottom Line: We continue to track the dollar and dollar sentiment closely to inform our near-term investment strategy. While dollar sentiment has edged higher, it has not yet reached the elevated levels seen last year. A more synchronized global growth recovery makes such a spike in bullish dollar sentiment less likely this time around. What Is A High Pressure Economy? Chart 6What A "High Pressure Economy" Looks Like bca.usbs_wr_2016_10_25_c6 bca.usbs_wr_2016_10_25_c6 Fed Chair Janet Yellen introduced a new buzzword to the market two weeks ago when she suggested in a speech3 that "it might be possible to reverse the adverse supply-side effects [of the financial crisis] by temporarily running a 'high-pressure economy' with robust aggregate demand and a tight labor market." Some investors took this to mean that the Fed would be increasingly tolerant of inflation overshooting its 2% target. We think this interpretation is incorrect, although we do think that Yellen's description of a "high pressure economy" provides a lot of information about the Fed's reaction function. More than anything, Yellen's speech was a response to recent trends in the labor market. The downtrend in the unemployment rate started to abate late last year, even though the economy has continued to add jobs at an average pace of just under +200k per month. A sharp rebound in the labor force participation rate has prevented the unemployment rate from falling, despite robust job growth (Chart 6). It is this dynamic that Yellen refers to when she talks about a "high pressure economy". Essentially, her theory suggests that, despite the low unemployment rate, the economy might be able to continue to add jobs without inflation spiking higher. Put differently, the unemployment rate might be less useful as an input to the Fed's forecast of future inflation than in past cycles. The key implication for investors is that if the Fed doesn't trust the unemployment rate to provide a signal about future inflation, then it is forced to rely on the actual inflation data for guidance. In our view, core PCE and core CPI inflation are now the two most important inputs to the Fed's reaction function. On that note, while last week's September core CPI release was soft, both core CPI and core PCE remain in uptrends that began in early 2015. Further, diffusion indexes suggest that these uptrends will persist (Chart 7). The Fed's increased focus on core inflation also has implications for our TIPS call. The sensitivity of TIPS breakevens to realized core inflation has shifted higher since the Great Recession (Chart 8). In our view, this has occurred because of how the zero-lower-bound on interest rates has constrained the Fed's ability to influence investor expectations. Chart 7The Inflation Uptrend Is Intact bca.usbs_wr_2016_10_25_c7 bca.usbs_wr_2016_10_25_c7 Chart 8TIPS Breakevens & Core Inflation TIPS Breakevens & Core Inflation TIPS Breakevens & Core Inflation When the fed funds rate was well above the zero-lower-bound, investors could reasonably assume that the Fed would act to offset any temporary price shocks. As such, long-maturity TIPS breakevens remained in a relatively narrow range and were mostly influenced by perceptions about the stance of Fed policy. In a zero-lower-bound world, investors can reasonably question whether the Fed has the ability to offset a deflationary price shock. As such, inflation expectations are increasingly driven by the actual inflation data rather than the Fed. With the Fed and the market both increasingly taking their cues from the actual inflation data, it means that the Fed will likely remain sufficiently accommodative for core PCE to return to target and also that TIPS breakevens will move higher alongside the trend in realized inflation. Bottom Line: The increased sensitivity of TIPS breakevens to core inflation argues for a continued overweight position in TIPS relative to nominal Treasuries. Sovereign Credit: A Dollar Story Chart 9Sovereign Debt & The Dollar Sovereign Debt & The Dollar Sovereign Debt & The Dollar As noted above, in the current environment the path of the U.S. dollar takes on increased importance for our entire portfolio strategy. However, there is one sector of the fixed income market where the dollar is always paramount - USD-denominated sovereign debt. Specifically, we refer to the Barclays Sovereign index which consists of the U.S. dollar denominated debt of foreign governments, mostly emerging markets.4 In the long-run, the performance of sovereign debt relative to equivalently-rated and duration-matched U.S. corporate credit tends to track movements in the dollar and bullish sentiment toward the dollar (Chart 9). When the dollar appreciates it makes USD-denominated debt more expensive to service from the perspective of a foreign issuer, and therefore causes sovereign debt to underperform domestic alternatives. As stated above, we do not anticipate a near-term spike in the dollar, like what was witnessed near the end of last year. However, given that the Fed is much further along in its tightening cycle than other major central banks, the long-run bull market in the U.S. dollar should remain intact. This will continue to be a major headwind for sovereign debt. Further, the recent performance of sovereign debt relative to U.S. credit has bucked its traditional correlations with the dollar. Notice that the beta between sovereign excess returns and the dollar has moved into positive territory (Chart 9, bottom two panels). Historically, the correlation does not remain at these levels for long and sovereign debt should underperform as the more typical negative correlation is re-established. At present, there is not even an attractive valuation argument for sovereign debt relative to U.S. credit. The spread differential between the Sovereign index and an equivalently-rated, duration-matched U.S. credit index is well below zero (Chart 10), and only the USD-debt of Hungary, South Africa, Colombia and Uruguay offer spreads that appear attractive relative to the U.S. Credit index (Chart 11). Chart 10No Spread Pick-Up In Sovereigns No Spread Pick-Up In Sovereigns No Spread Pick-Up In Sovereigns Chart 11USD-Denominated Sovereign Debt By Issuing Country Dollar Watching: An Update Dollar Watching: An Update Bottom Line: Continue to favor U.S. corporate credit over USD-denominated sovereign government debt within a neutral allocation to spread product. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching", dated September 13, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 We favor negatively convex assets (MBS) over credit within a neutral allocation to spread product, on the view that negatively convex assets will outperform as yields head higher in advance of a December rate hike. In anticipation of a December Fed rate hike we are also maintain a short position in the December 2017 Eurodollar futures contract as well as positions in 2/10 and 10/30 curve flatteners. The three trades have returned: +20bps, -23bps and +4bps respectively. 3 http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20161014a.htm 4 The largest issuers in the Barclays Sovereign Index are: Mexico (22%), Philippines (14%) and Colombia (11%). Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Boost restaurant stocks to neutral, as same-store sales should improve next year. A further upgrade requires evidence of top-line traction. The exodus from health care stocks represents an overreaction rather than a downshift in fundamental forces. Stay long. Recent Changes S&P Restaurants Index - Upgrade to neutral for a profit of 9%. Table 1 Profits: Is Less Bad Good Enough? Profits: Is Less Bad Good Enough? Feature Equity market buoyancy remains a liquidity rather than an earnings story. Fed commentary and the trend in global bond yields, a reflection of the global central bank narrative, continue to exert an outsize influence on short-term price action and momentum. In the background, earnings are a wildcard. Companies may be surpassing beaten down third quarter estimates, but the path of profits over the next several quarters is by no means assured and will determine the durability of any stock market advance. Even excluding the persistent drag from narrowing profit margins, courtesy of falling productivity and increasing unit labor costs, it is dangerous to look at the corporate profit outlook through rose colored glasses. The low level of economic growth, both at home and abroad, represents a major hurdle to the corporate sector. Total business sales have climbed back up to zero, but it is premature to forecast meaningful growth ahead based on moribund global export growth (Chart 1), and/or leading economic indicators. After all, sales growth has been virtually non-existent for years, reinforcing that earnings per share have been driven by cost cutting and buybacks. While measured consumer price inflation has crept higher, corporate sector pricing power remains virtually non-existent. The producer price index is still deflating, despite the rally in oil prices. U.S. import prices are very weak (Chart 1). The negative global credit impulse warns that there is still no impetus to reinvigorate final demand, and by extension, global profits (Chart 1). It is hard to envision an economic reacceleration as long as the corporate sector is more inclined to retrench than expand, as heralded by stressed balance sheets and weak durable goods orders (Chart 2). Chart 3 shows BCA's two U.S. profit models. The first one is based on reflationary variables, such as the dollar, bond yields and oil prices. It is designed to predict the trend in forward earnings momentum. This model has troughed, but is not signaling any upside ahead in already exuberant analyst earnings estimates (Chart 3, second panel). Chart 1Without Sales Growth... bca.uses_wr_2016_10_24_c1 bca.uses_wr_2016_10_24_c1 Chart 2... And Rising Costs... bca.uses_wr_2016_10_24_c2 bca.uses_wr_2016_10_24_c2 Chart 3... How Much Can Profits Improve? ... How Much Can Profits Improve? ... How Much Can Profits Improve? The second model looks at macro data such as new orders, labor costs and productivity growth to forecast the trend in actual operating earnings. This model is slightly more optimistic (Chart 3, bottom panel), and signals a decisive end to the profit contraction, albeit not a growth rate sufficient to satisfy double-digit analysts forecasts or rich valuations. The U.S. dollar is a major wildcard, as any sustained strength would compromise earnings. Typically, major profit expansions only occur after the currency begins to depreciate and labor cost inflation ebbs (Chart 2). The late-1990s was an exception, as profits climbed alongside the currency and amidst rising wage inflation (Chart 2). However, that was during an economic and credit boom, two key factors that are conspicuously absent at the moment. Nevertheless, as discussed in past Weekly Reports, the flood of central bank liquidity could sustain the overshoot in equity prices for a while longer. Investors have demonstrated a willingness to look through soggy profits as long as the liquidity taps remain open. Despite the possibility of a stubbornly resilient broad market, we do not recommend interpreting it as a sign of economic vitality, and consider it high risk. Our portfolio strategy is based on expected sectoral earnings trends, as liquidity is subject to the whims of central bankers. We recommend a largely defensive sector portfolio, with some exceptions, as discussed in last week's Special Report. Our cyclical exposure remains confined to consumption-oriented plays; this week we are lifting our view on restaurants. Restaurants: Buying Into Weakness Investors have gravitated toward washed out deep cyclical sectors rather than consumption-oriented plays in recent months. However, we doubt this trend has staying power, as outlined in our Special Report last week. Consequently, it is time to revisit the outlook for shunned consumer sectors, such as restaurants. This year's exodus from casual dining stocks has been justified on the basis of overvaluation and deteriorating industry performance. The National Association of Restaurants (NAR) survey of current performance has dipped into negative territory (Chart 4), as restaurant operators have reported a decrease in traffic. One of the major drags on restaurant same-store sales has been the gap in restaurant inflation compared with the cost of food inflation for eating at home. Relative inflation has soared (Chart 5). That has caused relative spending growth at restaurants vs. at home dining to drop sharply, in real (volumes) terms. However, next year could be different. If the inflation gap falls, as predicted by the decline in relative spending (Chart 5), then restaurant traffic should stabilize. Importantly, the odds of budgets for dining out being pruned even further are low. As long as wages and salaries growth is decent and consumer income expectations are firm, consumers should still allocate a rising share to restaurants relative to eating at home (Chart 5). There is plenty of scope for relative restaurant spending to rise on a secular basis (Chart 5, bottom panel). Clearly, if relative spending were to reaccelerate too quickly, then the inflation gap would stay wide, and same-store sales growth would stay punk. That is a risk to an optimistic view of future restaurant traffic. But the good news is that cost structures are being realigned to a more subdued sales run rate. The NAR survey shows that staffing plans are on the wane. That leads restaurant labor cost inflation (Chart 4). As the largest source of expenses, any decline in headcount would be welcome given that minimum wages in a number of states are set to climb next year. In any case, the most potent profit elixir would be a recovery in top-line growth, sourced both domestically and from abroad. Restaurant sales growth has been unimpressive for the past several years. Subdued pricing power gains, and until recently, lackluster income growth among lower income consumers have weighed on revenue growth. The good news is that consumer confidence among low income earners is on the upswing (Chart 6), which bodes well for casual dining out in the coming quarters. If our bearish view on refiners and gasoline prices continues to pan out, then a windfall from lower fuel prices may further bolster the outlook. Chart 4Expenses Set To Ease bca.uses_wr_2016_10_24_c4 bca.uses_wr_2016_10_24_c4 Chart 5Inflation Gap Should Narrow bca.uses_wr_2016_10_24_c5 bca.uses_wr_2016_10_24_c5 Chart 6Sales Set To Stabilize... bca.uses_wr_2016_10_24_c6 bca.uses_wr_2016_10_24_c6 In addition, restaurant retail sales often follow the trend in the wealth effect (Chart 7). The latter has pulled back this year, owing to the equity market consolidation and house price correction. However, financial wealth gains are rebounding, and provided the stock market does not suffer a sustained swoon, consumers' feeling of affluence may soon be bolstered. Even marginal improvements in store traffic should be impactful to same-store sales. Restaurant chains have been in retrenchment mode since the Great Recession. Construction activity is historically low, which implies limited capacity expansion (Chart 7). Contribution from abroad may become less of a drag. The industry garners roughly 67% of sales from overseas. The strong U.S. dollar, particularly against emerging market currencies, has deprived the industry of sales strength. Moreover, even in domestic currency terms, emerging markets consumption has been through a difficult period, as the Asian Hotel and Restaurant Activity Proxy spent most of the last year in negative territory (Chart 8). But EM currencies have stabilized and Asian restaurant activity has climbed back into positive territory in recent months. The upshot is that foreign revenue could make up any lingering domestic sales slack. All of this suggests that leaning into share price weakness in anticipation of improved prospects next year makes sense. Nevertheless, the S&P restaurants index does not warrant a full shift from underweight to overweight. There could still be earnings/headline risk given lackluster readings in coincident activity indicators, despite McDonald's earnings beat last week. Valuations are not cheap. On a normalized basis, the relative forward P/E ratio has dropped below its average, but still trades at a premium to the broad market. A return to above average levels is possible if operating margins expand on the back of sales improvement (Chart 9), thereby sparking higher return on equity, but it may be too soon to position for such an outcome. Chart 7... Or Even Improve In 2017 bca.uses_wr_2016_10_24_c7 bca.uses_wr_2016_10_24_c7 Chart 8End Of Foreign Drag bca.uses_wr_2016_10_24_c8 bca.uses_wr_2016_10_24_c8 Chart 9Still Not Dirt Cheap bca.uses_wr_2016_10_24_c9 bca.uses_wr_2016_10_24_c9 Bottom Line: Lift the S&P restaurant index (BLBG: S5REST - MCD, SBUX, YUM, CMG, DRI) to neutral from underweight, locking in a profit of 9% since our underweight recommendation last November. Health Care Crunch: Buying Opportunity Or Trend Change? The speed at which the health care sector has sunk toward the bottom end of this year's trading range has unnerved many investors. In fact, the sector has dropped back down to the levels where we added it to our high conviction overweight list. The question now is whether our positive views still hold, and whether would we add here if we weren't long already, or if something more sinister is at work? The hit to health care stocks reflects a rise in risk premiums related to concerns that the U.S. government will exert more control over price setting if the Democrats win the election rather than any immediate downshift in relative forward earnings drivers. While it is impossible to forecast with any precision to what extent pricing models may or may not change, the political appetite may be low for another overhaul of the sector so soon after the Affordable Care Act was implemented. Regardless, several observations suggest that the sector may already be undershooting, i.e. a Democratic victory is already discounted. Relative performance has experienced a clear uptrend over the last forty years, with cyclical swings oscillating around its upward sloping trend-line (Chart 10). It would be extremely rare for a bull phase to peak prior to hitting at least one standard deviation above trend. Instead, the price ratio hit trend and is now not far above one standard deviation below trend, a level one would normally equate with an economic boom when capital flowed to high-beta sectors. Cyclical technical measures also point to an undershoot. Our Technical Indicator has hit an oversold extreme (Chart 11), signaling that the sell-off is in the late stages. Our relative advance/decline line has also stayed firm, suggesting that the decline in the overall sector has not been broad-based (Chart 11). Chart 10Time To Buy, Not Sell bca.uses_wr_2016_10_24_c10 bca.uses_wr_2016_10_24_c10 Chart 11Buying Opportunity Buying Opportunity Buying Opportunity Whether a wholesale flight from the sector, and all defensives in general, looms is largely contingent on the path of inflation expectations, which have been in a multiyear decline. This trend reflects anemic global final demand and the repercussions from over-indebtedness. Lately, inflation expectations have firmed, but that may largely reflect the rebound in oil prices courtesy of hopes for an OPEC production cut, given the lack of confirming indicators of growth acceleration and renewed strength in the U.S. dollar. The latter is testing the top end of its recent range (Chart 11, shown inverted, bottom panel), and it would be highly unusual for inflation expectations to rise concurrent with the U.S. dollar. In a world of zero interest rates and limited aggregate demand strength, a strong currency is deflationary, especially for corporate profits. Those conditions keep bond yields low, and push capital into long duration sectors. Once the election is over, attention will refocus on the relative forward earnings outlook. Our Indicators suggest that earnings momentum will stay positive. Our health care sector pricing power proxy has rebounded after cooling from red-hot levels, and is still much stronger than overall corporate sector pricing (Chart 12, second panel). That is confirmed by the pharmaceuticals producer price index, and employment cost index for health insurance, i.e. pricing strength is broad-based. There is still scant evidence of a downshift in consumer spending patterns in reaction to rising health care sector inflation. Real (volumes) personal spending on health care goods and services continues to grow at a mid-single digit rate, well in excess of the rate of overall consumption (Chart 12). That is consistent with ongoing earnings outperformance. As noted in past research, the time to forecast negative relative earnings momentum is when consumers balk at higher prices. So far, a few high profile cases of exorbitant drug price increases have grabbed the spotlight, but in aggregate, consumers are not voting with their wallets. The biggest tangible negative for the health care sector may be that shares outstanding are no longer falling (Chart 13). That mirrors overall buyback activity, which has cooled markedly on the back of balance sheet deterioration and waning free cash flow. We doubt the supply of health care stocks is going to rise much, however, because the sector is in good financial shape, earning healthy returns and is not dependent on external financing. Chart 12Demand Driven Pricing Power Gains Demand Driven Pricing Power Gains Demand Driven Pricing Power Gains Chart 13Buybacks Are Dwindling bca.uses_wr_2016_10_24_c13 bca.uses_wr_2016_10_24_c13 Bottom Line: Health care sector risk premiums have climbed in response to polling results, but an apolitical check on relative earnings drivers and valuations points to a buying opportunity. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and growth over value.

Highlights The path of the least resistance for the U.S. dollar is up; this has far-reaching implications for monetary policy, global growth dynamics and asset prices. Dollar strength reinforces our view to overweight defensives vs. cyclicals and is a headwind to overall S&P 500 profits. Most of the gap between core CPI and core PCE can be explained by the medical care component. Overall, core PCE is likely to reach 2% over the next several months; a strong dollar means core goods PCE deflation will be sustained, but rising wage costs will put upward pressure on service sector inflation. Feature Amid the ongoing U.S. elections and Q3 earnings uncertainty, one of our higher conviction views is the likelihood of U.S. dollar appreciation. Our reasoning is straightforward: interest-rate differentials are the strongest 12-18 month predictor of currency trends,1 and relative economic performance between the U.S. and the rest of the world suggests that the gap between U.S. monetary policy and elsewhere will stay wide, and perhaps even widen (Chart 1). Chart 1Interest Rates And The Dollar Interest Rates And The Dollar Interest Rates And The Dollar Moreover, as we showed last week, the trade-weighted dollar provides good insurance against a variety of downside equity risks, even when a financial calamity occurs on U.S. soil. We remain dollar bulls. However, that does not mean that the outlook is without risk. The implications of further dollar strength are wide-ranging: How does dollar strength impact inflation expectations and monetary policy? How does the rest of the world cope with a rising U.S. dollar? How does the S&P 500 stand up to further dollar appreciation? Monetary Policy And The Dollar We have discussed the ramifications of the Fed Policy Loop, the interplay between Fed policy and financial conditions, since September 2015 (Chart 2). Since last year, each hawkish move from the Fed has been met by a sharp upward adjustment in the trade-weighted dollar and a sell-off in equities and credit spreads. Tighter-than-expected financial conditions have then forced the Fed to lower its outlook for future economic growth and adopt a more dovish policy stance. A more dovish Fed then caused financial conditions to ease and the dollar to fall, and this easing eventually emboldened Fed policymakers to move in a more hawkish direction. The loop then repeats itself. The reason this loop has been in place is because U.S. monetary policy is so far in advance of other central banks. For example, the ECB and BoJ continue to try to find ways to stimulate their economies, while the Fed is gearing up for a second rate hike. The point is that this feedback mechanism means that monetary conditions tighten in the form of a rising dollar, even without the Fed hiking interest rates by very much (Chart 3). The implication for investors is also clear: for equities, even though overall monetary conditions can tighten, rate-sensitive, domestically-exposed sectors such as telecoms can still perform well, because the tightening is coming mainly through the currency, rather than interest rates. For bonds, the policy loop means that sell-offs are likely to happen in fits and starts: the Fed knows that the process of normalizing interest rates will trigger bouts of volatility, because their actions are being exaggerated by movements in the dollar. This is one reason why we are not more eager to move aggressively underweight duration. Chart 2The Fed Policy Loop USD Strength: Betting Dollars To Donuts USD Strength: Betting Dollars To Donuts Chart 3Dollar To Do The Fed's Lifting? bca.usis_wr_2016_10_24_c3 bca.usis_wr_2016_10_24_c3 ROW And The Dollar Dollar strength, in the context of a robust U.S. economy, can be a good thing for some parts of the world. For example, a strong dollar means that European and Japanese exports will be more competitive. In this benign context, currency strength acts a growth re-distributor, taking growth away from the U.S., but transferring it to others, where the currency has been devalued. Our concerns focus squarely on emerging markets. Since the early 1980s, there have been no periods when EM share prices rallied amid strength in the real broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar (Chart 4). Chart 4EM Stocks Don't Like Dollar Strength EM Stocks Don't Like Dollar Strength EM Stocks Don't Like Dollar Strength It is significant that financial markets panicked in August, 2015 when the RMB was devalued by 2% ahead of the Fed's warning about a rate rise, and amid broad based U.S. dollar strength. True, the RMB has weakened periodically since then, without any real fallout for risk assets. Nonetheless, it is hard to say that the global economy - and China for that matter - is in significantly better shape than when the Fed began televising the last rate hike. We do not offer a forecast on the likelihood of further RMB devaluation. However, recent history is a reminder that dollar strength risks creating volatility in global markets. The latter would be especially true if worries about the EM credit cycle resurface. S&P 500 And The Dollar In the last major dollar bull market (1994-2002), U.S. stocks strengthened alongside the rise in the currency, offering some historical support that dollar strength does not necessarily hinder stock market performance. However, the global backdrop during that era was distinctly different from today. During the last half of the 1990s, the entire global economy experienced a supply-side, disinflationary expansion and credit binge. The U.S. was at the forefront of that expansion, and pulled the rest of the world (ROW) along for the ride. In other words, the U.S. and ROW were all moving broadly in the same direction. Today, the global economic backdrop is starkly different. Europe, Japan and China are all battling deflation and the major distinguishing trait of this business cycle is deficient demand and the need to de-lever. As we highlighted above, the U.S. has embarked on a gradual rate hike path, but most other central banks are trying new ways to reflate. In this world, currency movements act to re-distribute growth: a stronger currency can become a headwind to externally sourced profits, rather than a reflection of strong domestic demand. Indeed, the S&P 500 may become even more vulnerable to dollar strength: globally sourced profits as a share of overall S&P 500 profits has been in a steady climb over the past twenty years. Chart 5 shows that net earnings revisions are especially sensitive to currency moves, suggesting that further dollar appreciation would undermine already very lofty earnings expectations and would be a headwind for the broad market. Chart 5Beware The Dollar Drag Beware The Dollar Drag Beware The Dollar Drag From a sector perspective, dollar strength has already become problematic and is a main reason why we continue to advocate for defensive stocks relative to cyclical plays. Our U.S. Equity Strategy service published a Special Report on this topic last week.2 The Report outlined a seven item checklist of factors needed before tilting positions in favor of cyclicals. The first item on the list is dollar weakness. The full checklist is here: Chart 6Stick With Defensives Stick With Defensives Stick With Defensives Broad-based U.S. dollar weakness, particularly against emerging market currencies in countries with large current account deficits. An end to Chinese manufacturing sector deflation. A decisive upturn in global manufacturing purchasing manager's indexes. A return to growth in global export volumes and prices. A resynchronization in global profitability such that U.S. profits were not the only locomotive. A rebound in global inflation expectations. China credibly addressing banking sector weakness to the point where economic growth can reaccelerate rather than move laterally. Most of the items remain unfulfilled and our U.S. equity strategists believe that over the past several weeks, a technical adjustment has occurred in equity markets, rather than a fundamentally-driven trend change. In fact, the cyclical vs. defensive share price ratio appears to now be overshooting after having undershot. We expect leadership to revert back to non-cyclical sectors once the current rotational correction has run its course, given the lack of confirmation from the bulk of the macro variables on our checklist (Chart 6). The bottom line is that the U.S. dollar's path of least resistance is to trend higher. Dollar strength has already become restrictive for some U.S. industries, and unlike the late 1990s, we are concerned that further currency appreciation will act to restrain profit growth, rather than be reflective of a stellar domestic backdrop. Still, the Fed and other central banks' actions have proven to so far be a powerful antidote to earnings concerns: as long as the liquidity taps remain open, investors are willing to look through profit disappointment. We continue to recommend benchmark weightings to equities, but are highly attuned to this profit risk. What Is The True Inflation Rate? The Fed's target is 2% inflation. Core CPI has been above this rate for eleven months, implying that if the Fed's target was based on this measure, policymakers would have been much more aggressive in hiking interest rates. But the Fed's preferred measure, core PCE, is still stuck below the target. The CPI and PCE usually move together. The correlation between the two series is about 98% and divergences tend to be short-lived (Chart 7). Thus, the choice between the two series is often irrelevant, although the recent gap raises an issue for the Fed and the bond market: which measure is currently telling the right story? First, there are many alternative measures of inflation and in Chart 8, we show a selection of them. The median CPI uses the middle or median price change as its estimate of the underlying rate of inflation, irrespective of its share of the overall basket. The trimmed mean CPI removes the most volatile components of the index. The market-based PCE measure of inflation addresses concerns about using "imputed" prices (such as financial services furnished without payment) by leaving them out. Incidentally, this latter series, which is currently somewhat weaker than core PCE, is giving a similar inflation signal to our corporate price deflator. Together, these two measures suggest that the business sector is faced with a much tougher pricing backdrop than the core PCE and core CPI suggest. Chart 7Core CPI And Core PCE Usually Say The Same Thing bca.usis_wr_2016_10_24_c7 bca.usis_wr_2016_10_24_c7 Chart 8Various Alternative Measures Various Alternative Measures Various Alternative Measures Unfortunately, none of these alternative measures offer reliable leading information and do not help in understanding the divergence between core CPI or core PCE. However, understanding how the indexes are constructed does uncover important differences. Core CPI And Core PCE Explained The core CPI is a fixed-weight index while the personal consumption expenditure is chain-weighted. A fixed-weight index uses a constant basket of goods and tries to determine how much more an individual pays for an identical basket today versus a base year. A chain-type index measures how much it costs to a constantly evolving basket. The latter should be more representative of consumers' evolving buying habits. Historically, the different weighting methodology explains most of the gap between CPI and PCE inflation rates. The remainder of the gap is accounted for largely by the difference in the size of the weights used for the medical and housing components. Housing accounts for 40% of core CPI and only 17% of core PCE. Medical care accounts for 7% of core CPI versus 18% of core PCE. Currently, the gap between core PCE and core CPI is mostly explained by the medical care component (both the relative weights, but also the underlying prices used). In the CPI, only the portion that consumers spend on health care is taken into account, but the PCE also includes the amount that government agencies spend on consumers' behalf. The pricing information on the government funded portion is estimated from the PPI, which sometimes gives a different signal than the data supplied to the CPI from the consumer expenditure survey. The gap between medical care PCE and CPI has become particularly pronounced in the past few years. There is a lot of confusion about what is driving the spike in CPI medical care costs, with some pundits trying to find a political angle. Some blame higher insurance rates, while others blame drug costs. In fact, as Chart 9 shows, all elements of medical care CPI have contributed to the surge. Meanwhile, core PCE shows that medical care inflation has in fact been contained, some say, due to the enactment of the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare). It is not clear that this is the full story and forecasting future rates of inflation specifically in this sector is beyond the scope of this report. Over the next six to twelve months, we would expect some convergence between the two inflation gauges, as CPI medical care inflation peaks. More specifically, we would not be surprised to see the core PCE move slightly above 2%, but we think it is unlikely that much of an overshoot of the Fed's target can occur. Chart 10 shows the major components of CPI and we note the following: Chart 9Medical Care##br## Inflation Is Tricky bca.usis_wr_2016_10_24_c9 bca.usis_wr_2016_10_24_c9 Chart 10Major Components Of##br## Inflation At Crosscurrents Major Components Of Inflation At Crosscurrents Major Components Of Inflation At Crosscurrents Goods prices continue to fall. If our strong dollar view proves correct, deflation in this sector may persist for years. Recall that throughout the economic recovery in the first half of the previous decade, core goods price deflation persisted; that was during a dollar bear market. This time, dollar strength is likely to keep an even tighter lid on imported prices. Non-shelter service price inflation appears to be rolling over, after a surge earlier this year. The key for core service price inflation is wage pressures, since labor costs are the most significant input cost to U.S. service businesses. For core service price inflation to sustainably break above 3%, i.e. to return to the pre-Great Recession range, recent wage trends will need to be sustained, if not accelerate. Shelter prices are the most difficult segment to forecast. Our model for shelter inflation has flattened out, owing to a decline in market-tightness in multi-family properties. A reasonable working assumption is that shelter inflation stays around 3%, which is roughly the rate of shelter inflation that persisted prior to the housing bubble of the previous decade. Adding it up, core inflation is likely to drift gradually up: service sector inflation will likely trend higher with wage growth, but deflation in the goods sector will provide somewhat of an offset. The Fed has initiated interest rate hikes in the past when core PCE was under 1.5%, so there is historic precedent for policymakers to hike rates before the 2% target is achieved. Of course, this cycle is very different and there has been much talk of the need for policymakers to err on the side of ease for even longer, i.e. allow inflation to run much higher than 2%. Recent Fed communication suggests that a December rate hike is most likely, unless the data significantly worsen in the meantime. Thereafter, if our inflation view is correct, the Fed will find little reason to hike more than twice in 2017. Note: Last week, I had the pleasure of participating in our Geopolitical Strategy service's webcast on the upcoming U.S. Elections. In addition to a well-rounded debate on the U.S. political situation, we also discussed the present economic and investment landscape. To listen to the replay, please go here: www.bcaresearch.com/webcasts/index/131 Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report "Dollar: The Great Redistributor", dated October 7, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Special Report "Defensive Dominance Has Bent, But Will Not Break", dated October 17, 2016, available at uses.bcaresearch.com Appendix Monthly Asset Allocation Model Update Our Asset Allocation (AA) model provides an objective assessment of the outlook for relative returns across equities, Treasuries and cash. It combines valuation, cyclical, monetary and technical indicators. The model was constructed as a capital preservation tool, and has historically outperformed the benchmark in large part by avoiding major equity bear markets. Please note that our official cyclical asset allocation recommendations deviate at times from the model's recommendation. The model is just one input to our decision process. The model's recommended weightings for the major asset classes remained unchanged this month: neutral equity exposure at 60% (benchmark 60%), slightly overweight Treasury allocation at 40% (benchmark 30%) and underweight cash at 0% (benchmark 10%). The neutral portfolio recommendation for equities is in line with our qualitative defensive stance, in place since August 2015. Although the technical and monetary components of the equity model are still favorable, the earnings-driven component continues to warn that profits are likely to remain lackluster, especially relative to expectations. The allocation for a slight overweight in Treasuries continues to be supported by all three components of the bond model: valuation, cyclical and technical. While the valuation component continues trending towards expensive territory, a "buy signal" still exists for now. The cyclical and technical components of the bond model have retraced some of their bullish signals, but both still maintain a preference for Treasuries, especially relative to cash. Chart 11Portfolio Total Returns Portfolio Total Returns Portfolio Total Returns Chart 12Current Model Recommendations Current Model Recommendations Current Model Recommendations Note: The asset allocation model is not necessarily consistent with the weighting recommendations of the Cyclical Investment Stance. For further information, please see our Special Report "Presenting Our U.S. Asset Allocation Model", February 6, 2009. Market Calls