Emerging Markets

Watch Inflation Expectations How much longer can this go on? Global equities were up 6% in January alone (the 15th consecutive month of positive returns), and investors are increasingly asking how much further this bull market has to run. There are no signs we can see that suggest it will end imminently. Our watch-list of key recession indicators (decline in global PMIs, inverted yield curve, rise in credit spreads - Chart 1) is sending no warning signals. U.S. GDP growth was a little weaker than expected in Q4, at 2.6% QoQ annualized, but this was mainly due to inventories and strong imports: final private demand, a better guide to future growth, was strong at 4.3%. Fed NowCasts for Q1 growth point to 3.1-4.2%. The euro zone grew even faster than the U.S. last year, and even Japan probably saw 1.8% GDP growth. Corporate earnings expectations have accelerated sharply over just the past few weeks - particularly in the U.S. as a result of the tax cuts (Chart 2) - with analysts now expecting 16% EPS growth for the S&P 500 this year. BCA U.S. Equity Strategy service's earnings models suggest that this forecast may still be too cautious (Chart 3). Recommended Allocation Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update Chart 1No Recession Signals Flashing No Recession Signals Flashing No Recession Signals Flashing Chart 2A Dramatic Rise In Earnings Forecasts... A Dramatic Rise In Earnings Forecasts... A Dramatic Rise In Earnings Forecasts... Chart 3...But Forecasts May Still Be Too Cautious ...But Forecasts May Still Be Too Cautious ...But Forecasts May Still Be Too Cautious While it is true that equity valuations are stretched, particularly in the U.S. (with BCA's Composite Valuation Index having just tipped into the "Extremely Overvalued" zone - Chart 4), valuations are not usually a good timing tool. Investor euphoria seems not yet to have reached the extremes that usually characterize a bull-market peak. The message we hear consistently from wealth managers is that their clients who missed last year's rally are now looking to get into risk assets. The American Association of Individual Investors' latest weekly survey shows 45% bulls to 24% bears - not especially optimistic by past standards (Chart 5). Flows into equity funds have started to accelerate, but have been weaker than bond flows over the past year (Chart 6). Chart 4U.S. Equities Now 'Extremely Overvalued' U.S. Equities Now 'Extremely Overvalued' U.S. Equities Now 'Extremely Overvalued' Chart 5Investors Are Not Particularly Bullish Investors Are Not Particularly Bullish Investors Are Not Particularly Bullish Chart 6Flows Into Equities Starting To Accelerate Flows Into Equities Starting To Accelerate Flows Into Equities Starting To Accelerate Chart 7Key: Inflation Expectations Getting to 2.5% Key: Inflation Expectations Getting to 2.5% Key: Inflation Expectations Getting to 2.5% We think the key to timing the top lies in inflation expectations. With the U.S. economy at full capacity and unemployment at 4.1%, well below the NAIRU of 4.6%, the Fed believes that a pick-up in inflation is just a matter of time - an analysis we agree with. The market has started to come round to this view too, with implied inflation rising by about 40 BPs over the past two months (Chart 7). The market has now priced in a 65% probability of the Fed's projected three rate hikes this year, and even a 27% probability of four. Inflation expectations hitting 2.5% (which would be compatible with the Fed's 2% PCE inflation target - CPI inflation is typically 50 BPs higher) could be the tipping-point. This is because it would remove the Fed put - with inflation expectations elevated, the Fed would no longer be able to back off from tightening in the event of a global risk-off event such as a stock-market correction or a slowdown in China. Such a rise in inflation expectations would also push the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield above 3%, which would increase the attraction of fixed income, and represent a threat to highly indebted borrowers, especially in emerging markets. This is how bull markets typically end: with the Fed having to raise rates to choke off inflation, and either making a policy mistake or tightening monetary policy enough to slow growth. But all this is probably quite a few months away. We expect to turn more defensive perhaps late this year, ahead of a recession that we have for some time now penciled in for the second half of 2019. Given how advanced the cycle is, conservative investors primarily concerned with capital preservation might look to dial down risk or hedge exposure now. But investors focused on quarterly performance should ride the bull market until some of the warning signals mentioned above begin to flash. For now, therefore, we continue to recommend an overweight in equities relative to bonds on the 12-month investment horizon, and mostly pro-risk and pro-cyclical tilts. Equities: We continue to prefer developed over emerging equities. EM will be hurt by the slowdown likely in China (where money supply and credit growth have fallen in response to the authorities' tighter policies - Chart 8), rising U.S. interest rates, sluggish productivity growth, and valuations that are no longer particularly cheap (Chart 9). Within DM, we are overweight euro zone and Japanese equities, which should benefit from their higher beta, more cyclical earnings, still accommodative monetary policy, and cheaper valuations than the U.S. Our sector bets are tilted to late-cycle value sectors such as financials, industrials and energy. Chart 8Tighter Monetary Conditions in China bca.gaa_mu_2018_02_01_c8 bca.gaa_mu_2018_02_01_c8 Chart 9EM No Longer Cheap EM No Longer Cheap EM No Longer Cheap Fixed Income: Rising inflation expectations should push the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yield up to 3% this year, with German Bunds rising by a similar amount. We recommend an underweight on duration, and a preference for inflation-linked over nominal bonds, in these markets. In the U.K. and Australia, however, central banks are unlikely to tighten as quickly as futures markets have priced in and so we prefer their government bonds. While the expansion continues, spread product should continue to outperform in the fixed-income bucket. The default-adjusted spread on U.S. high-yield bonds remains over 200 BP and, though we see little further spread contraction, carry alone makes this attractive. Currencies: BCA was correct last year to predict a widening of interest-rate differentials between the U.S. and the euro zone, but wrong to conclude that this would lead to a stronger dollar (Chart 10). The drivers of currencies can undergo regime shifts, and it seems now that valuation (both the euro and yen are cheap compared to their purchasing power parity, 1.32 and 99 to the U.S. dollar respectively), current account surpluses (3.3% for the euro zone and 3.7% for Japan), and other factors have become more important. Tactically, the euro, in particular, looks very overbought. Speculative investors are very long euros, the ECB is likely to remain dovish relative to the Fed, and the strong euro could put some downward pressure on growth in the short-term. However, if the dollar were to rebound by 5% or so we would be likely to end our dollar bull call. Chart 10Rate Differentials No Longer Moving Currencies Rate Differentials No Longer Moving Currencies Rate Differentials No Longer Moving Currencies Chart 11Oil Supply To Increase In 2019 Oil Supply To Increase In 2019 Oil Supply To Increase In 2019 Commodities: Oil prices have risen on the back of strong global demand, OPEC discipline, and a lag in the response of U.S. shale oil producers. We forecast an average of $67 a barrel for Brent crude this year, with spikes to as high as $80 in the event of disruptions in producer countries such as Venezuela. However, with one-year forward crude prices around $62, shale producers (whose marginal costs average about $52 a barrel) are likely to pick up production soon. OPEC, too, should be happy with crude around $50-60. Our energy team forecasts a pick-up in supply next year (Chart 11), which should bring the crude price down to an average of $55 in 2019. Industrial commodities are a product of Chinese demand, global growth, and the U.S. dollar. These drivers look likely to be mixed over the coming months and so we remain neutral. Gold has risen, in the face of rising interest rates, because of the weak dollar - it remains an excellent hedge against inflation, recession, and geopolitical risks and so should be a modest part of any balanced portfolio. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights China's new exchange rate regime has significantly weakened the link between the U.S. dollar and the broad RMB trend, at the expense of a stronger (negative) relationship between CNY/USD and the dollar. Our metrics to gauge the impact of broad RMB movements on exports suggest that the recent rise is not yet a threat to China's economy. A further 5% depreciation in the U.S. dollar would cause a meaningful further increase, but not one large enough for our metrics to flash a warning sign. Several factors argue against the probability of an August 2015-style CNY/USD devaluation. Even if the PBOC were to do so, global investors would likely react very differently than they did in 2015, given the underlying strength of the global economy. Stay overweight Chinese investable stocks over the cyclical investment horizon, despite a likely dollar-driven retracement in CNY/USD over the coming months. Feature Chart 1A Sharp Rise In CNY/USD A Sharp Rise In CNY/USD A Sharp Rise In CNY/USD The Chinese Renminbi (RMB) has risen over 4% versus the U.S. dollar since mid-December, and global investors have begun to take notice (Chart 1). The sharp acceleration in the RMB has raised several questions in the minds of market participants: What is the likely economic impact of the rise, and how does this fit into the view that China's ongoing growth slowdown is likely to be benign and controlled? How will policymakers respond to the strength in the exchange rate? Is there a risk of a 2015-style depreciation that would roil global financial markets? In this week's report we offer our perspective on these issues, and provide investors with forecasts for the RMB assuming a 5% appreciation or depreciation of the U.S. dollar versus major currencies over the coming 6-12 months. While it is true that the broad RMB trend has risen non-trivially over the past year, we conclude that is too early to view this rise as a threat to the export sector. This supports our view of a benign, controlled economic slowdown in China, as well as a cyclical overweight stance towards Chinese equities. Putting Recent Exchange Rate Movements In Context In order to answer the questions noted above, it is important to examine recent exchange rate movements in the context of China's ongoing efforts to internationalize the RMB, as they have had a substantial impact on the relationship between the RMB and the U.S. dollar over the past few years. Beijing has been taking steps for years to promote the global use of the RMB, but these efforts came into sharp focus on August 11-12, 2015, when the PBOC devalued the currency versus the U.S. dollar (Chart 2). In addition to the devaluation, the PBOC changed the way that the daily fixing rate would be set, in a fashion that increased the sensitivity of the rate to market forces. The PBOC made these changes at the time that they did for two specific reasons: The IMF was in the process of deciding whether to include the RMB in the SDR basket, after having stated that a more market-based RMB rate was a precondition for inclusion. The policy to link the RMB to the U.S. dollar was causing significant appreciation of the former during a period of enormous dollar strength. Given the decision to alter the fixing rate mechanism, the PBOC decided to devalue the exchange rate by a modest amount in one, bundled policy change. The important point for investors is that the market turmoil that followed the August 2015 changes to the exchange rate overshadowed a much more consequential announcement on December 11, 2015 that precipitated a shift in the link between the RMB and the US dollar (USD) towards multiple currencies.1 At first blush, the "decision" made by the PBOC in December was trivial: they announced that the China Foreign Exchange Trade System (CFETS) would publish an index for the RMB measured against a basket of foreign currencies. But the implication of the announcement was that the PBOC was shifting its focus from managing CNY/USD to managing the value of the RMB versus the currencies of many trading partners. Essentially, December 2015 marked the beginning of a new exchange rate policy in China. The effect of this new policy change can clearly be seen in the relationship between CNY/USD and the trade-weighted RMB versus the U.S. dollar (Chart 3). The chart highlights that the beta of J.P. Morgan's nominal trade-weighted RMB versus the Bloomberg U.S. Dollar Spot Index was strongly positive prior to 2016, whereas the beta of CNY/USD to the Dollar Index was weak. Following the PBOC's policy shift, these relationships traded places: the beta between CNY/USD and the dollar became much more negative, whereas the strength of the U.S. dollar / trade-weighted RMB link weakened considerably. Chart 2The August 2015 Deval Significantly##br## Impacted Global Markets The August 2015 Deval Significantly Impacted Global Markets The August 2015 Deval Significantly Impacted Global Markets Chart 3A New Exchange Rate Regime Began##br## In December 2015 A New Exchange Rate Regime Began In December 2015 A New Exchange Rate Regime Began In December 2015 Bottom Line: China's new exchange rate regime has significantly weakened the link between the U.S. dollar and the broad RMB trend, at the expense of a stronger (negative) relationship between CNY/USD and the broad dollar trend. The Economic Implications Of China's New Exchange Rate Policy Chart 4The Recent Rise In CNY/USD ##br##Has Been Dollar-Driven The Recent Rise In CNY/USD Has Been Dollar-Driven The Recent Rise In CNY/USD Has Been Dollar-Driven Given our discussion above, the recent strength of the CNY/USD exchange rate should not be surprising: Chart 4 highlights that its sharp rise is largely the mirror image of recent U.S. dollar weakness. Panel 2 illustrates another way of observing this effect; EUR/USD typically trades inversely to the broad dollar trend, and CNY/EUR has been little changed over the past six months. The key questions for investors are 1) how to assess what impact the broad RMB appreciation over the past year will have on Chinese export growth, and 2) what future dollar movements might imply for the broad RMB trend. We use two metrics to gauge the likely impact of broad exchange rate movements on export growth: a fair value assessment (Chart 5), and the rise of an export-weighted RMB index relative to its high and low points over the past few years, when the exchange rate was clearly negatively and positively contributing to monetary conditions (Chart 6). The charts highlight that the real effective RMB is currently cheap, and that a nominal export-weighted index is only marginally above the median value since 2015. Neither of these measures implies that the rise in the RMB has reached levels that would be restrictive for exports. Chart 7 shows that the annual growth rate of our export-weighted RMB index has been predicted quite well by that of the dollar index and the CNY/USD exchange rate over the past two years. Based on this regression, Chart 8 presents what is likely to occur to our export-weighted RMB index in a 5% appreciation & depreciation scenario. The chart shows that the impact of a 5% appreciation (which we expect) will be muted, whereas a 5% depreciation in the dollar would cause a meaningful further rise in the export-weighted RMB. Still, it would not be enough to push the index to a new high, nor would it cause the real effective RMB shown in Chart 5 to rise into expensive territory. Bottom Line: Our metrics to gauge the impact of broad RMB movements on exports suggest that the recent rise is not yet a threat to the export sector. A further 5% depreciation in the U.S. dollar would cause a meaningful further increase, but not one large enough for our metrics to flash a warning sign. Chart 5The RMB Is Cheap In REER Terms The RMB Is Cheap In REER Terms The RMB Is Cheap In REER Terms Chart 6Rising, But Not Yet Near Previous Highs Rising, But Not Yet Near Previous Highs Rising, But Not Yet Near Previous Highs Chart 7The Dollar and CNY/USD Explain ##br##The Broad RMB Trend The Dollar and CNY/USD Explain The Broad RMB Trend The Dollar and CNY/USD Explain The Broad RMB Trend Chart 8Further Dollar Depreciation Would Bite, ##br##But Not Disastrously So Further Dollar Depreciation Would Bite, But Not Disastrously So Further Dollar Depreciation Would Bite, But Not Disastrously So August 2015, Redux? Given that the PBOC's devaluation of the RMB in August 2015 roiled global financial markets, it seems natural to ask whether the Chinese central bank could cause another shock by again depreciating the CNY/USD exchange rate. In our view, the answer is no. First, there are several reasons why the PBOC is unlikely to intervene to limit a rise in CNY/USD barring material further strength: Trade frictions with the U.S. remain, and a stronger CNY/USD could reduce the likelihood that the Trump administration will levy across-the-board tariffs on Chinese imports The PBOC recently reduced the influence of the "counter-cyclical factor" that was included in the CNY/USD midpoint formula. Since the factor was introduced to lessen the impact of market forces on the yuan's reference rate, the PBOC would likely have refrained from making any changes to it if they were unduly worried about the upward impact of recent dollar declines on CNY/USD If the PBOC becomes uncomfortable with the extent of the RMB rise in trade or export-weighted terms, it could aim to lower the yuan versus other key trading partners, including the euro area. As noted above, CNY/EUR has recently remained flat during the euro's sharp recent upleg versus the dollar. We noted that the RMB is now cheap in real effective terms (Chart 5), unlike in August 2015 when the deviation from fair value was the highest that it had been since mid-2000. Chart 92015 Vs Today: A Completely Different ##br##Global Economic Backdrop 2015 Vs Today: A Completely Different Global Economic Backdrop 2015 Vs Today: A Completely Different Global Economic Backdrop Second, even if the PBOC were to depreciate the CNY/USD exchange rate over the coming months, we doubt that investors would react in the same way as they did to the initial devaluation. As we reviewed in a Weekly Report last October,2 the global economy was suffering from a synchronized slowdown, and the surprise decision caused global investors to speculate heavily that additional devaluations were likely. The current condition of the global economy is clearly quite different than that which prevailed in the summer of 2015. Global PMIs are the most synchronized that they have been since the earliest phase of the economic cycle (Chart 9), which suggests that a significant slowdown is not imminent. Even if the pace of growth becomes narrower or slows modestly, it is difficult to envision the same kind of panicked response absent a separate and highly impactful accompanying shock. Bottom Line: Several factors argue against the probability of an August 2015-style CNY/USD devaluation. Even if the PBOC were to do so, global investors would likely react very differently than they did in 2015, given the underlying strength of the global economy. Investment Strategy Implications Chart 10Export Impact Of The RMB Appreciation##br## Is Non-Trivial, But Manageable Export Impact Of The RMB Appreciation Is Non-Trivial, But Manageable Export Impact Of The RMB Appreciation Is Non-Trivial, But Manageable Over a 6-12 month time horizon, there are two investment strategy implications of our above discussion. First, our analysis suggests that investors should focus on the broad RMB trend rather than the CNY/USD exchange rate when determining the likely impact of currency fluctuations on China's growth picture. It is true that an export-weighted RMB index has risen by a greater amount over the past year than a typical trade-weighted RMB (or the CFETS RMB index) would suggest (Chart 10), but for now it is too early to conclude that this represents a threat to the export sector. This conclusion is consistent with our view that China's ongoing economic slowdown will be benign, and controlled in nature. Second, given the tight (negative) link between CNY/USD and the U.S. dollar, and our view that USD is more likely to appreciate than depreciate over the coming months, it is true that the US$ relative performance of Chinese equities may be somewhat negatively impacted by a retracement in CNY/USD. But as we noted when presenting our "decision tree" for Chinese stocks at the beginning of the year,3 the cyclical condition of China's business cycle is the dominant factor that investors should consider when judging the appropriate allocation to Chinese equities. As such, our focus on China's exchange rate remains on how it impacts the growth outlook, and our judgement on this question continues to support a favorable stance towards the equity market. Bottom Line: Stay overweight Chinese investable stocks over the cyclical investment horizon, despite a likely dollar-driven retracement in CNY/USD over the coming months. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 http://www.pbc.gov.cn/english/130721/2988680/index.html 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China's Economy - 2015 Vs Today (Part I): Trade", dated October 26, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Decision Tree For Chinese Stocks", dated January 4, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights The U.S.'s twin deficits do not explain the drop in the USD; Global growth is the biggest factor for the USD, and growth depends on China's economic reforms; The U.S. is turning more hawkish on China trade despite Beijing's reform-induced vulnerability; U.S. and Chinese political dynamics suggest upside risks in the former and downside in the latter; Go long DXY. Feature American policymakers scrambled to walk back Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin's "weak dollar" comments last week. Investors were left to wonder why Mnuchin broke with the long-held official position of favoring a strong dollar. Was it a "shot across the bow" of China, warning Beijing that the U.S. would engage in currency manipulation if it was not given concessions on trade? Or was it an admission that the U.S. would run large "twin deficits" - a budget deficit and a current account deficit - going forward? We don't have a good explanation for what Mnuchin said in Davos.1 But we can say with some conviction that the "twin deficit" explanation, which has been brought up in almost every client conversation so far this year, is wrong. Chart 1Twin Deficits: Why The Panic? Twin Deficits: Why The Panic? Twin Deficits: Why The Panic? Chart 2Because The Narrative Is Scary Because The Narrative Is Scary Because The Narrative Is Scary First, who says that the U.S. is about to widen its twin deficit (Chart 1)? The concern arises periodically in the marketplace but is often grossly off the mark in predicting the path of deficits or the dollar (Chart 2). We expect the budget deficit to hold steady in 2018, if not contract. Why? Because the fiscal deficit almost always contracts in the eight quarters before a recession, barring, in some cases, one or two quarters just before the recession hits (Chart 3). Unless investors have a high-conviction view that a recession is afoot in the next two quarters, they should ignore the dire predictions about the U.S. budget deficit. Chart 3The Deficit Is Not A Problem... Yet The Deficit Is Not A Problem... Yet The Deficit Is Not A Problem... Yet Chart 4Bond Market Not Sniffing Out Any Twin Deficit Crisis Bond Market Not Sniffing Out Any Twin Deficit Crisis Bond Market Not Sniffing Out Any Twin Deficit Crisis If the risk to the U.S. economy is to the upside, as we believe due to the tax cuts and unleashing of animal spirits, then deficits will come down regardless of additional tax or spending policy.2 In the long term, yes, the budget deficit will almost certainly expand due to entitlement spending, the impact of automatic stabilizers during a recession, and the loss of revenue from tax cuts. But long-term deficit concerns are the purview of the bond market, not currency traders. So what is the bond market telling us? Chart 4 shows that the yield curve tends to steepen as the twin deficit widens; both tend to occur during and after recessions. Today, however, the curve continues to flatten. Another fixed-income market indicator that tends to track budget deficits is the 30-year swap spread, which falls during recessions as budget deficits expand. But today the swap spread is not falling, it is increasing and doing so at the fastest pace since the 2008 recession (Chart 5). This may be a sign of resurgent animal spirits as banks throw caution - and concerns over Obama-era overregulation - to the wind. Credit demand is rising in the economy, which should increase both the velocity of money and growth. Concerns over the widening fiscal deficit are not being reflected in this indicator. Finally, our currency strategist, Mathieu Savary, has pointed out that a widening twin deficit only impacts developed economies' currencies about 50% of the time over 12 month periods. In other words, expansion of the twin deficit predicts currency moves about as well as flipping a coin. What really matters is how central banks respond to the causes and economic effects of the twin deficits. Protectionism, on the other hand, ought to be bullish for the dollar.3 As such, a potential trade war between China and the U.S. should not be the reason for the dollar's deepening doldrums. And while we are generally open to alarmism on trade protectionism - due to the fact that President Trump has few constitutional or political constraints holding him back on this issue - there is still not enough evidence to say whether the Trump administration will impose across-the-board tariffs on China. (See next section.) Could dollar weakness, conversely, be the result of a Plaza Accord 2.0 orchestrated between Chinese and American policymakers to depreciate the greenback in order to avert the need for protectionist policies? We doubt it. First, the U.S. and China economic dialogue has faltered. Second, the dollar would not have declined following the Plaza Accord had the Fed not aggressively cut rates from 1984 to 1985 by 423 basis points (Chart 6). And the Fed is obviously not cutting rates today, it is hiking them. Chart 5No Sign Of Deficit Here No Sign Of Deficit Here No Sign Of Deficit Here Chart 6The Fed Is More Important Than Politics... The Fed Is More Important Than Politics... The Fed Is More Important Than Politics... So, what matters for the U.S. dollar? Higher domestic inflation would matter as it would incentivize the Fed to tighten more than the market expects. Even here, however, recent history warrants caution on this view. Between 2004 and 2006, the Fed tightened 440 basis points and yet the dollar declined 11% from the start of the tightening cycle to its end (Chart 7). This is because the rest of the world's growth outpaced U.S. growth, particularly that of emerging markets, which grew at an annual 19%. We therefore come full circle to the single biggest issue on our forecasting horizon: Chinese policy. China is the most important variable for the U.S. dollar at the moment as it can single-handedly tip the global growth balance back towards the U.S., given its expected contribution to global growth (Chart 8). Chart 7...But Not More Important Than Global Growth ...But Not More Important Than Global Growth ...But Not More Important Than Global Growth Chart 8China Really Matters For Global Growth "America Is Roaring Back!" (But Why Is King Dollar Whispering?) "America Is Roaring Back!" (But Why Is King Dollar Whispering?) Our view is that Chinese policymakers are acting as an accelerant to BCA's House View that the Chinese economy will experience a benign slowdown. Risks are skewed towards the downside. We recently dedicated our monthly Crow's Nest Webcast solely to this issue and we highly encourage our clients to listen to it on replay.4 In today's weekly, we briefly assess where our Chinese view stands and then turn to U.S. politics. News Flash: Chimerica Has Been Dead Since 2012 Two critical aspects of our China view are coming together. The first is U.S. policy, which is becoming more aggressive after a year in which Trump showed restraint for the sake of North Korean negotiations.5 The second is China's renewed focus on domestic economic reforms.6 The "symbiotic" relationship between the U.S. and China is in decay, as we have argued since 2012.7 As China's economy grows, so grows its capacity for challenging the United States in the strategic sphere (Chart 9). Meanwhile the two economies have diverged markedly since U.S. households began to deleverage in 2008 (Chart 10). Chart 9China's Capabilities Are Growing China's Capabilities Are Growing China's Capabilities Are Growing Chart 10China No Longer Addicted To U.S. Demand China No Longer Addicted To U.S. Demand China No Longer Addicted To U.S. Demand The mainstream media is about to become more attuned to this reality now that the Trump administration has published a series of high-level reports declaring that U.S. strategy toward China is changing. Here are a few choice quotations: "China is a strategic competitor using predatory economics to intimidate its neighbors while militarizing features in the South China Sea." (Department of Defense, National Defense Strategy, 2018) "Long-term strategic competitions with China and Russia are the principal priorities for the Department." (Department of Defense, National Defense Strategy, 2018) "[High-level bilateral dialogues] largely have been unsuccessful - not because of failures by U.S. policymakers, but because Chinese policymakers were not interested in moving toward a true market economy." (U.S. Trade Representative, 2017 Report to Congress On China's WTO Compliance, 2018) "The United States also will take all other steps necessary to rein in harmful state-led, mercantilist policies and practices pursued by China, even when they do not fall squarely within WTO disciplines." (U.S. Trade Representative, 2017 Report to Congress On China's WTO Compliance, 2018) "The United States ... is seeking fundamental changes to China's trade regime, including the overarching industrial policies that have continued to dominate China's state-led economy." (U.S. Trade Representative, 2017 Report to Congress On China's WTO Compliance, 2018) "China and Russia want to shape a world antithetical to U.S. values and interests. China seeks to displace the United States in the Indo-Pacific region, expand the reaches of its state-driven economic model, and reorder the region in its favor." (President Trump, National Security Strategy of the United States of America, 2017) We expect to find echoes of this tough rhetoric in Trump's State of the Union Address on January 30, which will air as we go to press. Already commentators have declared that the U.S. is entering a "post-engagement" phase in the U.S.-China relationship.8 The U.S. and China will continue to engage. What is important is the Trump administration's shift toward more aggressive economic statecraft. Trump's view, made amply clear on the campaign trail, and now officially U.S. policy, holds that China is a mercantilist as well as a revisionist power and that it has initiated a trade war against the U.S. Thus the real policy change lies not in naming China a "strategic competitor" antithetical to U.S. values, but in declaring that normal "WTO consistent" remedies are no longer sufficient and the U.S. will have to resort to "all other steps necessary." The question is whether the U.S., in adopting unilateral measures, will pursue trade remedies on an item-by-item basis, as it has done so far, or break out of the mold and levy broader tariffs to try to achieve "fundamental changes" as quoted above. Trump's recent tariffs on solar panels and washing machines adhered closely to U.S. institutional procedures and penalized U.S. ally South Korea as well as China: if this is the trajectory that the U.S. intends to take, then markets can breathe a sigh of relief.9 The basic trade data show that the U.S. has continued to expand imports from China despite past incidents of presidents slapping on tariffs (Chart 11). Chart 11China And U.S.: Ships Passing In The Night China And U.S.: Ships Passing In The Night China And U.S.: Ships Passing In The Night However, the U.S. is likely to draw a harder line than that. The same data also show that the U.S. is not gaining much access to the Chinese market over time, while China has greatly diminished its exposure both to exports and to U.S. trade as a whole. Furthermore, the Trump administration is accusing China of trying to gain superior technology from the U.S. in a way that jeopardizes its security and sovereignty in the pursuit of a better strategic position. This is said to include coercion and corruption of U.S. firms in China, favoring the manufacturing sector by squeezing out competition, preferring domestic-sourced goods over foreign goods, and jeopardizing U.S. companies' intellectual property and network security. The key grievances are forced technology transfer, the "Made in China 2025" industrial strategy, "indigenous innovation" rules, and the new Cyber-Security Law.10 A test case for the U.S.'s harder line will be the ongoing investigation into China's intellectual property theft, which is due by August but is expected to elicit action by Trump sooner. Trump has a range of actions he can take either within or without the WTO. Going outside the WTO would give him greater flexibility, for instance, to impose a "fine," as he called it, for the cumulative "big damages" of China's intellectual property theft - but it would also enable China to claim that the U.S. itself is violating WTO trade rules.11 How will China respond to this turn in U.S. policy? It will continue to focus on rebooting its economic reforms. Reform is both necessary for its own interests, as we have outlined in the past, and expedient in that it enables China to try to deflect and delay U.S. pressure.12 This is not to say that China will not retaliate to particular U.S. moves, but simply that it will prefer to minimize conflict unless and until the Trump administration demonstrates via broad and sweeping trade measures that Beijing has no choice but to engage in open trade war. China's recent declarations that it will accelerate economic reforms aimed at trade and investment openness - particularly in financial services but also more generally - are geared toward allaying Washington. Xi Jinping's right-hand economist, Liu He, who is a key figure, made this clear at the World Economic Forum in Davos, where he said that China's reform and opening up this year would "exceed international expectations." Politburo Standing Committee member Wang Yang made a similar point late last year, saying that the "Made in China 2025" program would not discriminate against foreign or private firms.13 Simultaneously, leading technocrats are calling attention to China's vulnerability as it attempts delicate financial reforms. Guo Shuqing of the China Banking Regulatory Commission has warned of "black swan" or "gray rhino" events as he continues with his financial regulatory crackdown, and he has been echoed by the vice-secretary general of the National Development and Reform Commission.14 These statements are prudent - as it is always risky for highly leveraged countries to tinker with financial tightening - and useful because Beijing wants to warn the U.S. against pushing too hard since it is both "making progress" and vulnerable to instability. We certainly expect the reforms to have a significant, adverse impact on China's economic growth this year. In the latest developments, the policy crackdown is spreading to local governments, where fiscal tightening could ensue (Chart 12). Local governments lack stable sources of revenue, have large hidden debts, face an intensifying debt repayment schedule over the next three years, and have recently begun to cancel infrastructure projects under central government scrutiny (in Inner Mongolia, Gansu, and other provinces, and reportedly even in Xi's favored province of Zhejiang). Furthermore, the reforms have involved a crackdown on shadow lending that has sent non-bank credit into a steep decline (Chart 13). While some market estimates suggest that bank loans could grow by 13%-15% in 2018, such estimates cut against the policy grain. Assuming that non-bank credit does not grow any faster in 2018 than it did in 2017 (9.7%), China can afford to let new bank loans grow at 9.7% and still keep its total social financing (TSF) at its five-year annual average growth rate of 14.5%. Policymakers will not be able to soften their line easily, as several key players are newly appointed and must establish their credibility from the outset. Chart 12Local Government Finances Under Scrutiny Local Government Finances Under Scrutiny Local Government Finances Under Scrutiny Chart 13Shadow Bank Crackdown To Weigh On Credit Growth Shadow Bank Crackdown To Weigh On Credit Growth Shadow Bank Crackdown To Weigh On Credit Growth Our view is that Trump will harden the line despite China's promises both of deeper internal reforms and greater opening up. But the timing is impossible to predict. The real fireworks may be reserved until closer to the U.S. midterm election, as campaigning heats up in the fall. That would be the time for Trump to try to rally his voters by means of a clash of economic nationalisms with China. Beyond the top U.S. grievances cited above, we would highlight the U.S. approach toward China's state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Preferential policies for SOEs are a structural issue that the U.S. is now criticizing. At the party congress in October, President Xi Jinping pledged not only to reform the SOEs but also to make them bigger and stronger. Hence there is a potential collision course. The precise implementation of China's reforms could determine whether the U.S. pursues the issue further. China's State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission has so far reaffirmed Xi's comments at the party congress but, in keeping with the subtlety of Xi's policies, has also suggested there may be room to intensify reforms. The combination of Trump's economic policies, and China's intensifying reforms, will result in the U.S. economy outperforming expectations relative to China while U.S. corporations will outperform their Chinese counterparts (Chart 14). China will experience higher volatility, both in general and in relation to the U.S., and Chinese companies that suffer from reforms will underperform U.S. companies that benefit most from tax cuts (Chart 15). This is ironic given the popular narrative that the U.S. is suffering from chaotic democratic politics while China's centralized authoritarian model reigns triumphant. Of course, we do think Xi has key capabilities to drive reforms further in his second term than in his first, so these U.S.-China divergences will continue for the next 6-to-12 months at least. China's slowdown and increase in equity volatility should create a policy response: more fiscal spending and credit expansion. The comparison of relative U.S. and Chinese credit impulses suggests that China extends more credit as relative volatility rises (Chart 16). Our view, however, is that China's credit impulse will continue disappointing this year as Beijing prioritizes reform over growth. The credit numbers in January are the next data set to watch, in addition to the aforementioned local government spending. Investors should brace for more uncertainty as the Lunar New Year approaches (Feb. 16). Chart 14U.S. Earnings Surprise Relative To China U.S. Earnings Surprise Relative To China U.S. Earnings Surprise Relative To China Chart 15Xi Adds Volatility Relative To Trump Bump Xi Adds Volatility Relative To Trump Bump Xi Adds Volatility Relative To Trump Bump Chart 16China's Credit Impulse Disappoints China's Credit Impulse Disappoints China's Credit Impulse Disappoints Bottom Line: The Trump administration has issued an ultimatum of sorts on trade. Yet China claims to be redoubling its efforts at reforming and opening up its economy - party to deflect the pressure. We are almost certain that Trump will take further punitive actions, but it is too soon to say when or if he will engage in sweeping measures that threaten to destabilize China and thus initiate a trade war. The political context heading into the U.S. midterm vote will be crucial. Is America Having A Macron Moment? It is unfortunate when one's forecast is challenged only weeks after it is conceived. But that appears to be happening to our view, articulated in late December, that investors should expect no significant legislation to come out of Congress following the passage of the tax cuts.15 Bad news for our forecast is perhaps good news for U.S. policy initiatives and the overall quality of U.S. governance. President Trump has softened his stance on immigration, stating that he would be willing to grant citizenship to roughly 1.8 million "Dreamers" - young adults who came to the U.S. as illegal immigrants.16 Clearing the immigration hurdle would mean that Congress can focus on passing a budget for FY2018 that would see both defense and discretionary spending levels significantly raised. It would also relegate the never-ending saga of the debt ceiling to the dustbin, at least for the duration of this political cycle. Trump also followed up his immigration proposal by sketching a $1.7 trillion infrastructure investment plan (albeit a vague one). Chart 17Bipartisanship = Steeper Bull Market? Bipartisanship = Steeper Bull Market? Bipartisanship = Steeper Bull Market? Could we be approaching a "Macron moment" in U.S. politics? A moment when the "silent majority" rises up and sends a message to politicians that it has had enough of polarizing extremes? Previous such moments have included President Reagan's collaboration with congressional Democrats and President Clinton's with Republicans, which underpinned that glorious stock market run between August 12, 1982 and March 24, 2000 (Chart 17). Both presidents passed significant economic and social reforms during that time. Chart 18Peak Partisanship? Peak Partisanship? Peak Partisanship? Chart 19Independents On The Rise Independents On The Rise Independents On The Rise Yes, polarization remains at extreme levels (Chart 18), but that could also mean that it is reaching its natural limits. Rather than dwell on the high levels of polarization, which are baked into the "expectations cake," we would point out that the percentage of Americans who identify as independents is now fast approaching the combined total who identify as either Republican or Democrat (Chart 19). Ominously for Republicans - who hold both the House and the Senate - midterm electoral sweeps have almost always occurred along with the share of independents crossing the 40% mark (Table 1). Table 1Sweep Elections Coincide With High Independent Affiliation "America Is Roaring Back!" (But Why Is King Dollar Whispering?) "America Is Roaring Back!" (But Why Is King Dollar Whispering?) Meanwhile, President Trump's conciliatory tone on immigration was met with howls of protest from conservative activists. This is despite the fact that his proposal essentially exchanges leniency for Dreamers for considerably tougher immigration laws in general, which would align the U.S. with its developed market peers.17 Conservative activists are, however, massively out of step with the rest of America. Polls show that immigration is not high on the list of priorities for most Americans, and that most Americans continue to believe both that immigration is a positive and that immigration intake should remain at current levels (Chart 20). Chart 20Americans Are Neither Anti-Immigrant Nor All That Concerned About Immigration "America Is Roaring Back!" (But Why Is King Dollar Whispering?) "America Is Roaring Back!" (But Why Is King Dollar Whispering?) Our gut call that President Trump was itching to move to the political middle appears to be correct.18 Whether this becomes investment relevant will ultimately depend on whether the Democrats reciprocate. If Democrats go by data, they will. The government shutdown imbroglio has cost them a double-digit lead in the generic congressional ballot (Chart 21). As a political strategy, the shutdown was a miserable failure. Furthermore, the 2016 election stands as clear evidence that "outrage" does not work. Clinton picked up almost a million more voters in California than President Obama yet failed to beat his performance where it mattered: the Midwest. If Democrats continue to run on a "resistance" platform in order to satisfy their activist base, they will fail to win the House. Chart 21Government Shutdown An 'Own Goal' For Dems Government Shutdown An 'Own Goal' For Dems Government Shutdown An 'Own Goal' For Dems Ironically, the best strategy for Democrats ahead of the midterm election is to cooperate with Trump. The swelling ranks of independent voters will reward them if they do so. That same strategy, however, will paradoxically boost Trump's chances in 2020. Bottom Line: The market is, of course, ideologically nihilist. But a move to the middle - which benefits everyone involved except House Republicans - would be positive for stocks and the economy. Key bellwethers going forward are how Democrats react to Trump's immigration proposal and whether Trump moves to the middle on trade deals, starting with NAFTA, whose sixth round of negotiations just ended inconclusively (although not negatively) in Montreal. Investment Implications From the perspective of global asset allocation, the most important issue today is Chinese economic and regulatory policy. Yes, U.S. inflation is important, but whether it moves the dollar - and therefore commodities and EM assets - will depend on the pace of the current Chinese slowdown. China is therefore the most "diagnostic variable" in 2018. If our House View that inflation is coming back in the U.S. is right and our Geopolitical Strategy view that risks to growth in China are to the downside is also right, then investors should go long the U.S. dollar and underweight EM and EM-leveraged assets. If, on the other hand, we are wrong, then investors should load up with EM risk assets to the hilt right now. It is that simple. For what it is worth, we are putting our moderate-conviction view to the test and opening a long DXY trade. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 But on a completely unrelated note we would like to remind our clients that, over the past 24 months, Mr. Mnuchin was the executive producer of How to Be Single, Midnight Special, Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice, Keanu, The Conjuring 2, Central Intelligence, The Legend of Tarzan, Lights Out, Suicide Squad, Sully, Storks, The Accountant, Rules Don't Apply, The Lego Batman Movie, Fist Fight, CHiPs, Going in Style, Unforgettable, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, Wonder Woman, The House, Annabelle: Creation, The Lego Ninjago Movie, and The Disaster Artist. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017," dated January 20, 2017, and Weekly Reports, "Trump and Trade," December 9, 2016, and "The Elusive Gains From Globalization," dated November 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research Webcasts, Geopolitical Strategy Crow's Nest, "China: How Is Our View Working Out?" dated January 25, 2018. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2017 Report Card," dated December 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, and "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think," dated October 4, 2013, and "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see Daniel H. Rosen, "A Post-Engagement US-China Relationship," Rhodium Group, January 19, 2018, available at rhg.com. 9 In fact, in the case of washing machines, the U.S.-based GE Appliances stands to gain from the tariff and has been owned by China's Haier Electronics Group since 2016. 10 Several clients have asked us about China's Cyber-Security Law, which has been in the process of implementation since July 2017 and will go fully into effect by the end of 2018. The law is meant to give the Chinese government the option of exercising control over all networks in the country. State security agencies are deeply involved in its enforcement and oversight. Foreign business interests fear that the law's new obligations will be onerous and potentially damaging - including potential violations of corporate security over intellectual property, source code, supply chain details, and data storage and transmission. 11 Please see Stephen E. Becker, Nancy Fischer, and Sahar Hafeez, "Update on US Investigation of China's IP Practices," Lexology, January 8, 2018, available at www.lexology.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "How To Read Xi Jinping's Party Congress Speech," dated October 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Wang has served as the top interlocutor with the U.S. in the U.S.-China Comprehensive Economic Dialogue. 14 Please see "China eyes black swans, gray rhinos as 2018 growth seen slowing to 6.5-6.8 percent: media," Reuters, January 28, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. "Gray rhinos," coined by author Michele Wucker, refer to high-probability, high-impact risks, whereas the proverbial "black swan" is a low-probability, high-impact risk. These terms have both been making the rounds more frequently in Chinese policymaking circles since last year. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 What is fascinating about Trump's statement is that he cited the 1.8 million figure. There are actually only about 800,000 people who officially participated in President Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. But estimates suggest that another 1,000,000 young adults are in the U.S. illegally, yet did not register. Trump has come under criticism from conservative, anti-immigration groups for essentially moving the goalposts beyond what even the Democrats had wanted. 17 Canada, for example, has a purely merit-based immigration system that is considerably tough on family reunification. (Reunification has even been suspended because of a large backlog.) In Europe, family reunification laws are extremely strict. Even spouses are not automatically allowed residency status in several major European countries unless they fulfill various conditions. 18 Please see footnote 2 above.

Highlights A potential rise in U.S. inflation and China's growth slowdown represent formidable headwinds to EM risk assets. A manifestation of these tectonic macro shifts will be a U.S. dollar rally and weakening commodities prices. These two will dent the EM risk asset rally. Strong DM growth will not offset the impact of a slower Chinese economy on EMs and commodities. A new fixed-income trade: bet on a steeper swap curve in Mexico relative to Canada. Feature The global macro landscape in 2018 will be shaped by the two tectonic shifts: U.S. fiscal stimulus amid vigorous growth, and policy tightening in China amid lingering credit and money excesses. The former will grease the wheels of the already robust U.S. economy, generating a whiff of inflation and fueling a further selloff in the U.S. bond market. China's tightening will in turn weigh on commodities prices and curtail the emerging market (EM) economic recovery. A manifestation of these tectonic macro shifts will be a U.S. dollar rally and weakening commodities prices producing formidable headwinds to EM risk assets. As such, we are reiterating our recommendation to underweight EM risk assets versus their DM peers. As to the absolute performance, we believe EM risk assets are close to a major market top. A Whiff Of U.S. Inflation Strong U.S. growth could in fact be damaging to EM financial markets, as it will likely augment U.S. consumer price inflation. Investors are currently extremely sanguine on U.S. inflationary pressures. An upside surprise to inflation will lift U.S. interest rate expectations further, supporting the greenback and hurting EM carry trades. There is some evidence that U.S. inflation is about to pick up: The New York Federal Reserve underlying inflation gauge is rising, signaling higher inflation ahead (Chart I-1). The nascent revival in the MZM (money of zero maturity) impulse presages a trough in inflation (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Fed Price Pressure Gauge Signifies Higher Inflation Fed Price Pressure Gauge Signifies Higher Inflation Fed Price Pressure Gauge Signifies Higher Inflation Chart I-2U.S. Money Growth And CPI U.S. Money Growth And CPI U.S. Money Growth And CPI The weak U.S. dollar will also help augment inflation in America. U.S. import prices from emerging Asia and Mexico have been rising - even before the latest carnage in the U.S. dollar (Chart I-3). This will filter through into higher domestic price pressures. Chart I-3U.S. Import Prices Are Rising U.S. Import Prices Are Rising U.S. Import Prices Are Rising In brief, fiscal stimulus amid buoyant growth as well as overwhelming optimism among consumers and businesses is creating fertile ground for companies to raise prices. This will amplify corporate profit growth but will also lead to higher inflation. We are not making a case that U.S. inflation is about to surge. Our thesis is that market participants are very complacent on inflation. The money market is pricing in only 96 basis points in rate hikes in 2018-'19. In the meantime, the term premium in the U.S. yield curve is extremely depressed. Therefore, even modest inflation surprises will likely produce an additional meaningful selloff in U.S./DM bond markets. Will global share prices rise in response to strong corporate profit growth, or sell off in the face of higher U.S. inflation? Our hunch is that share prices will suffer as rising bond yields cause multiples to shrink. Rising bond yields will overpower the profit growth impact on share prices. The basis is that multiples are disproportionately and inversely linked to percentage change interest rates but are proportionately and positively linked to EPS.1 At still-low yields, a 50-basis-point rise in bond yields constitutes a sizable percentage change in the bond yield, likely leading to a meaningful P/E de-rating. Current sky-high bullish sentiment towards equities combined with elevated valuations and overbought conditions will mean that even a modest rise in inflation readings will likely trigger equity market jitters. EMs will underperform DMs amid such a selloff, as the former has benefited much more than the latter from low interest rates. Bottom Line: U.S. fiscal stimulus is arriving at a time when final demand is robust, the labor market is tight and business and consumer confidence is buoyant. This will encourage companies to raise prices, resulting in a whiff of U.S. inflation. The latter will rattle markets in the months ahead. China: Tightening Amid Credit/Money Excesses Inflation in China has already been steadily rising (Chart I-4). Interest rates adjusted for inflation remain low. Rising inflation along with still-lingering credit and money excesses necessitates policy tightening. We have written extensively about China's ongoing tightening trifecta - liquidity tightening, increased regulatory oversight and clampdown as well as an anti-corruption crackdown in the financial industry.2 Regulatory tightening in particular could inflict a particular bite as it outright constrains banks' ability to originate credit. This tightening has already led to record low broad money growth, and credit growth is downshifting too (Chart I-5). The cumulative impact of this tightening will play out in the months ahead, weighing further on money and credit growth and ultimately on final demand. Chart I-4China: Inflation Is In Steady Uptrend China: Inflation Is In Steady Uptrend China: Inflation Is In Steady Uptrend Chart I-5China: Broad Money And Credit Growth bca.ems_wr_2018_01_31_s1_c5 bca.ems_wr_2018_01_31_s1_c5 On the fiscal front, local government spending has languished in recent months (Chart I-6, top panel) and general (central plus local) government spending growth has been lackluster (Chart I-6, bottom panel). In 2017, local government annual spending amounted to RMB 19 trillion, or 22% of nominal GDP. Central government expenditures are about 6-fold smaller. Local governments rely on land sales to replenish their coffers, but timid money growth points to weaker land sales ahead (Chart I-7). In the meantime, their annual borrowing is restricted by the central government. Overall, this will constrain local government expenditures in 2018. Chart I-6China: Government Expenditures China: Government Expenditures China: Government Expenditures Chart I-7China: Land Sales To Slump bca.ems_wr_2018_01_31_s1_c7 bca.ems_wr_2018_01_31_s1_c7 The combined credit and fiscal spending impulse heralds a relapse in mainland imports of goods and commodities (Chart I-8). This constitutes a major threat to commodities prices, and consequently to EM. A pertinent question is whether financial markets will react to rising U.S. inflation or a slowdown in Chinese growth. Clearly, one could argue that strong U.S. growth would offset a mainland growth slump, resulting in a stable global macro environment. However, financial markets are an emotional discounting mechanism, and they do not always follow rational thinking. For example, in the first half of 2008 - just a few months ahead of the Global Financial Crisis - global financial markets were preoccupied with mounting global inflation due to strong growth in EM/China. At the time, oil and many other commodities prices were literally surging, and U.S. bond yields were climbing (Chart I-9). Global financial markets were not concerned with the ongoing U.S. recession, shrinking bank loans and deflating house prices. Chart I-8China's Impact On Rest Of The World China's Impact On Rest Of The World China's Impact On Rest Of The World Chart I-92008: An Inflation Scare Just ##br##Before Deflationary Bust 2008: An Inflation Scare Just Before Deflationary Bust 2008: An Inflation Scare Just Before Deflationary Bust In retrospect, financial markets traded on the theme of rising global inflation in the first half of 2008 even though the U.S. was already in a recession, and was heading into the most severe deflationary bust of the past 80 years. Similarly, the financial markets today could trade on the U.S. inflation theme for a couple months, even though China will be slowing. Bottom Line: China's policy tightening is particularly dangerous because it is occurring amid substantial and still-lingering credit, money and property market excesses. Won't Strong DM Growth Support China And Other EMs? Our investment stance on EM has been and remains negative, despite our positive view on U.S. and European growth. The key rationale for this stance is that EMs are much more leveraged to China than to the U.S. and Europe. Hence, our view assumes de-synchronization of growth between EM and DM. In our opinion, an EM slowdown will be largely due to China's deceleration and the latter's impact on commodities prices and non-commodity economies in Asia via trade. South America, Russia, South Africa, Malaysia and Indonesia are commodities producers, and as such are sensitive to fluctuations in commodities prices. The rest of Asia - Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines - are still exposed to the mainland economy as the latter is their largest export destination. Thus out of the EM sphere, China's dynamics will have a limited impact on only Mexico, India, and Turkey. However, Mexico is at risk of a NAFTA abrogation, while Turkey is at risk of runaway inflation and monetary profligacy. India on the other hand has its own problems and its bourse is unlikely to do well, given it is overbought and expensive. Furthermore, while we are bullish on the growth outlook in central European economies, they are too small to matter from an EM benchmark perspective. It might be useful to contemplate the late 1990s macro dynamics when major decoupling occurred between DM and EM. The booming economies of the U.S. and Europe did not prevent recurring crises in EM in the second half of the 1990s. Chart I-10 illustrates that U.S. and European imports growth was surging at that time, but EM stocks and currencies collapsed. What's more, despite the economic boom in DM during that period - U.S. and euro area real GDP growth rates averaged 4.2% and 2.6%, respectively, between 1996 and 1998 - commodities prices were in a bear market (Chart I-11). Chart I-10EM Crises In 1997-98: U.S. And ##br##Europe's Imports Were Booming EM Crises In 1997-98: U.S. And Europe's Imports Were Booming EM Crises In 1997-98: U.S. And Europe's Imports Were Booming Chart I-11Booming DM GDP And ##br##Falling Commodities Prices Booming DM GDP And Falling Commodities Prices Booming DM GDP And Falling Commodities Prices One might suspect that EM crises in the second half of the 1990s occurred because booming DM growth led to rising U.S. bond yields. However, Chart I-12 portrays that U.S. bond yields actually fell in 1997 and 1998 due to the deflationary shock stemming from the EM turmoil. Chart I-12EM Crises Occurred Amid ##br##Falling U.S. Bond Yields EM Crises Occurred Amid Falling U.S. Bond Yields EM Crises Occurred Amid Falling U.S. Bond Yields By and large, the 1997-98 EM crises occurred despite buoyant DM growth and falling DM bond yields. Nowadays, advanced economies carry much smaller weight in global trade and GDP than they did 20 years ago. Furthermore, EMs are much less dependent on exporting to DMs than they were two decades ago. In addition, China was not an economic powerhouse 20 years ago like it is today, and it did not buy as much from the rest of EMs as it does today. Presently, China holds the key to the EM outlook, and the link is through Chinese imports of goods and commodities. As China's credit and fiscal spending impulse suggests, mainland imports are likely to slow, weighing on commodities prices (refer to Chart I-8 on page 6). To be sure, we are not suggesting that EMs are facing crises similar to what transpired in 1997-98. The point of this comparison is to highlight that robust DM growth in of itself is not sufficient to head off an EM downturn if the latter faces a negative shock from China. With respect to DM growth benefiting China itself, it is critical to realize that China's exports to the U.S. and EU together account for only 6.6% of Chinese GDP (Chart I-13). By far, the largest component of the mainland economy is capital spending, constituting 42% of GDP. Construction and infrastructure are an integral part of capital expenditures, and they are very sensitive to money/credit cycles. Finally, from a global trade perspective, China and the rest of EM account for 46% of global imports, while the U.S. and EU account for 20% and 15%, respectively (Chart I-14). Hence, the total import bill of EM including China is larger than that of the U.S.'s and EU's imports combined. This entails that the pace of global trade growth is set to moderate if EM/China domestic demand decelerates. Chart I-13What Drives Chinese Economy: ##br##Capex Not Exports To DM What drives Chinese Economy: Capex Not Exports To DM What drives Chinese Economy: Capex Not Exports To DM Chart I-14Important Of EM/China In Global Trade Important Of EM/China In Global Trade Important Of EM/China In Global Trade Bottom Line: Strong DM growth will not offset the impact of a slower Chinese economy on EMs and commodities. Investment Conclusions A manifestation of the above-discussed tectonic macro shifts - a rise in U.S. inflation and China's slowdown - will be a U.S. dollar rally and weakening commodities prices. These two macro shifts will produce a perfect storm for EM risk assets. As a harbinger of a forthcoming selloff in EM exchange rates and DM commodities currencies (AUD, NZD and CAD), their implied volatility measures are already picking up (Chart I-15). As to a China/Asia slowdown, Korean, Taiwanese and Singaporean manufacturing output volume growth rates have already relapsed (Chart I-16). Their exports and corporate profits still appear robust because of rising prices. This certifies that there are inflationary pressures, even in Asia. Chart I-15Currency VOLs Are Rising Currency VOLs Are Rising Currency VOLs Are Rising Chart I-16Asian Manufacturing Output Volume Asian Manufacturing Output Volume Asian Manufacturing Output Volume All in all, we maintain a negative stance on EM risk assets in absolute terms and recommend underweighting them versus their DM peers. Within the EM universe, our equity market overweights are Taiwan, India, Korean technology, Thailand, Russia, central Europe and Chile. Our underweights are South Africa, Turkey, Brazil, Peru and Malaysia. Among currencies, our favorite shorts are the TRY, the ZAR, the MYR and the BRL. For investors who prefers relative EM currency trades, we recommend the following longs for crosses: RUB, TWD, THB, CNY and INR. For fixed-income trades, please refer to our open position table on page 18. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Mexico: Bet On A Steeper Swap Curve Relative To Canada For Mexican financial markets, the key uncertainty at the moment is the outcome of the ongoing NAFTA negotiations. Mexico's macro backdrop argues for considerable central bank easing, as inflation is about to roll over and domestic demand is extremely weak. However, if the U.S. pulls out of NAFTA - the odds of which are considerable, as our Geopolitical Strategy team has argued3 - the peso will sell off and interest rates are likely to rise. How should investors position themselves in Mexican fixed-income markets given this binominal outcome from the NAFTA negotiations and uncertainty over its timing? One way is to position for a swap curve steepening in Mexico, and hedge it by betting on a swap curve flattening in Canada by entering the following pair trades (Chart II-1): Chart II-1Mexico, Canada And Their ##br##Relative Swap Curve Mexico, Canada And Their Relative Swap Curve Mexico, Canada And Their Relative Swap Curve Receive 6-month and pay 10-year swap rates in Mexico Pay 6-month and receive 10-year swap rates in Canada In A Scenario Where The U.S. Withdraws From NAFTA: The Mexican swap curve would invert due to short-term rates going up more than long-term rates. In Canada, potential risks from NAFTA abrogation and tightening monetary policy amid frothy property markets and high household debt will cap upside in its long-term interest rates. With its long-term bond swap rates at par with those in the U.S., it seems as though the Canadian fixed income market is underpricing the risk of potential growth disappointments beyond the near run. In essence, should the U.S. withdraw from NAFTA, the loss realized on the Mexican steepener leg would partially be offset by the potential gain on the Canadian flattener leg. In A Scenario Where The U.S. Does Not Withdraw From NAFTA: The Mexican swap curve would start steepening. The rationale is that domestic dynamics suggest inflation has peaked and Banxico should begin its easing cycle soon. Monetary and fiscal policies have been extremely restrictive in Mexico, and considerable monetary easing is justified going forward: A significant part of the rise in inflation in 2017 was caused by peso depreciation in 2016. Last year's peso rally suggests that inflation should start to roll over soon (Chart II-2). Besides, one-off effects on inflation - such as the gasoline subsidy removal that took place at the end of 2016 - will subside as the base effect it has caused fades. In brief, the consumer inflation rate will rapidly decline, justifying substantial monetary easing. Banxico's 425 basis points in rate hikes since the end of 2015 are still filtering through the economy. The persistent slowdown in money and credit growth will continue to weigh on domestic demand for the time being. Notably, retail sales volume and gross fixed capital formation are both contracting while domestic vehicles sales are shrinking sharply (Chart II-3). Chart II-2Mexico: Inflation Is Set To Drop Mexico: Inflation Is Set To Drop Mexico: Inflation Is Set To Drop Chart II-3Mexico: Consumer And Business ##br##Spending Are Extremely Weak Mexico: Consumer And Business Spending Are Extremely Weak Mexico: Consumer And Business Spending Are Extremely Weak Due to currently high inflation, real wage growth remains weak. This will continue to weigh on consumer spending (Chart II-4). Fiscal policy has been tightening. Fiscal expenditures, excluding interest payments, are contracting in nominal terms (Chart II-5). Chart II-4Mexico: Real Wage Growth Is Very Timid Mexico: Real Wage Growth Is Very Timid Mexico: Real Wage Growth Is Very Timid Chart II-5Mexico: Fiscal Policy Is Super Tight Mexico: Fiscal Policy Is Super Tight Mexico: Fiscal Policy Is Super Tight Canada is currently on the opposite side of the business cycle spectrum relative to Mexico. The Canadian economy is very strong, being led by domestic demand. Real consumer spending is growing at its fastest pace in nearly 10 years, while the unemployment rate is at 40-year lows. Moreover, a record proportion of Canadian firms are having difficulty meeting demand because of capacity constraints and a tight labor market (Chart II-6, top and middle panel). Chart II-6Canadian Economy Is ##br##Above Full-Employment Canadian Economy Is Above Full-Employment Canadian Economy Is Above Full-Employment As such, the output gap is positive and growing, which has historically led to rising inflation (Chart II-6, bottom panel). Robust growth and rising inflation will force the Bank of Canada to hike rates further. In the meantime, real estate and consumer credit in Canada are overextended, leaving the Canadian consumer at risk from much higher interest rates. The threat that monetary tightening will hurt domestic demand in the future will cap the swap curve in Canada relative to Mexico. On the whole, in the scenario where the U.S. remains in NAFTA, the potential for swap curve steepening in Canada is less than in Mexico. Investment Recommendations We have been recommending that investors maintain a neutral stance across all asset classes in Mexico and wait for clarity on NAFTA negotiations before going overweight the country's currency, fixed-income markets and possibly equities relative to their EM peers. In the face of lingering NAFTA uncertainty, fixed-income investors should contemplate the following relative trade: Receive 6-month and pay 10-year swap rates in Mexico / pay 6-month and receive 10-year swap rates in Canada. Overall, this trade is exposed to minimal losses in the scenario where the U.S. withdraws from NAFTA but is exposed to considerable gains where the U.S. remains in NAFTA, making the overall risk/reward attractive. Provided the NAFTA negotiations could drag till year-end, this trade offers a reasonable risk-reward for traders. It offers a profitable opportunity to profit from Mexico's swap curve steepening, while limiting downside in case NAFTA is terminated before year-end. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 This is due to the fact that interest rates are in the denominator of the Gordon Growth model while EPS/dividends are in the numerator. 2 Please refer to Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Questions For Emerging Markets," dated November 29, 2017, the link is available on page 19. 3 Please refer to the Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, titled "Nafta - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, the link is available at gps.bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights U.S. equities 'melted up' in January as tax cuts made the robust growth/low inflation sweet spot even sweeter. Ominously, recent market action is beginning to resemble a classic late cycle blow-off phase. The fundamentals supporting the market will persist through most of the year, before an economic downturn in the U.S. takes hold in 2019. The repatriation of overseas corporate cash will also flatter EPS growth this year via buyback and M&A activity. The S&P 500 could return 14% or more this year. Unfortunately, the consensus now shares our upbeat view for 2018. Valuation is stretched and many indicators suggest that investors have become downright giddy. This month we compare valuation across the major asset classes. U.S. equities are the most overvalued, followed by gold, raw industrials and EM assets. Oil is still close to fair value. Long-term investors should already be scaling back on risk assets. Investors with a 6-12 month horizon should stay overweight equities versus bonds for now, but a risk management approach means that they should not try to squeeze out the last few percentage points of return. In terms of the sequencing of the exit from risk, the most consistent lead/lag relationship relative to previous tops in the equity market is provided by U.S. corporate bonds. For this reason, we are likely to take profits on corporates before equities. EM assets are already at underweight. We still see a window for the U.S. dollar to appreciate, although by only about 5%. A lot of good news is discounted in the euro, peripheral core inflation is slowing and ECB policymakers are getting nervous. Monetary policy remains the main risk to a pro-cyclical investment stance, although not because of the coming change in the makeup of the FOMC. The economy and inflation should justify four Fed rate hikes in 2018 no matter the makeup. The bond bear phase will continue. Feature Chart I-1Investors Are Giddy Investors Are Giddy Investors Are Giddy U.S. equities 'melted up' in January as tax cuts made the robust growth/low inflation sweet spot even sweeter. Ominously, though, recent market action is beginning to resemble the classic late cycle blow-off phase. Such blow-offs can be highly profitable, but also make it more difficult to properly time the market top. Our base case is that the fundamentals supporting the market will persist through most of the year, before an economic downturn in the U.S. takes hold in 2019. Unfortunately, the consensus now shares our upbeat view for 2018 and many indicators suggest that investors have become downright giddy (Chart I-1). These indicators include investor sentiment, our speculation index, and the bull-to-bear ratio. Net S&P earnings revisions and the U.S. economic surprise index are also extremely elevated, while equity and bond implied volatility are near all-time lows. From a contrarian perspective, these observations suggest that a lot of good news is discounted and that the market is vulnerable to even slight disappointments. It is also a bad sign that our Revealed Preference Indicator moved off of its bullish equity signal in January (see Section III for more details). Meanwhile, central banks are beginning to take away the punchbowl as global economic slack dissipates. This is all late-cycle stuff. Equity valuation does not help investors time the peak in markets, but it does tell us something about downside risk and medium-term expected returns. The Shiller P/E ratio has surged above 30 (Chart I-2). Chart I-3 highlights that, historically, average total returns were negligible over the subsequent 10-year period when the Shiller P/E was in the 30-40 range. Granted, the Shiller P/E will likely fall mechanically later this year as the collapse of earnings in 2008 begins to drop out of the 10-year EPS calculation. Nonetheless, even the BCA Composite Valuation indicator, which includes some metrics that account for extremely low bond yields, surpassed +1 standard deviations in January (our threshold for overvaluation; Chart I-2, bottom panel). An overvaluation signal means that investors should be biased to take profits early. Chart I-2BCA Valuation Indicator Surpasses One Sigma BCA Valuation Indicator Surpasses One Sigma BCA Valuation Indicator Surpasses One Sigma Chart I-3Expected Returns Given Starting Point Shiller P/E February 2018 February 2018 As we highlighted in our 2018 Outlook Report, long-term investors should already be scaling back on risk assets. We recommend that investors with a 6-12 month horizon should stay overweight equities versus bonds for now, but we need to be vigilant in terms of scouring for signals to take profits. A risk management approach means that investors should not try to get the last few percentage points of return before the peak. U.S. Earnings And Repatriation Before we turn to the timing and sequence of our exit from risk assets, we will first update our thoughts on the earnings cycle. Fourth quarter U.S. earnings season is still in its early innings, but the banking sector has set an upbeat tone. S&P 500 profits are slated to register a 12% growth rate for both Q4/2017 and calendar 2017. Current year EPS growth estimates have been aggressively ratcheted higher (from 12% growth to 16%) in a mere three weeks on the back of Congress' cut to the corporate tax rate.1 U.S. margins fell slightly in the fourth quarter, but remain at a high level on the back of decent corporate pricing power. A pick-up in productivity growth into year-end helped as well. Our short-term profit model remains extremely upbeat (Chart I-4). The positive profit outlook for the first half of the year is broadly based across sectors as well, according to the recently updated EPS forecast models from BCA's U.S. Equity Sector Strategy service.2 The repatriation of overseas corporate cash will also flatter EPS growth this year via buyback and M&A activity. Studies of the 2004 repatriation legislation show that most of the funds "brought home" were paid out to shareholders, mostly in the form of buybacks. A NBER report estimated that for every dollar repatriated, 92 cents was subsequently paid out to shareholders in one form or another. The surge in buybacks occurred in 2005, according to the U.S. Flow of Funds accounts and a proxy using EPS growth less total dollar earnings growth for the S&P 500 (Chart I-5). The contribution to EPS growth from buybacks rose to more than 3 percentage points at the peak in 2005. Chart I-4Profit Growth Still Accelerating Profit Growth Still Accelerating Profit Growth Still Accelerating Chart I-5U.S. Buybacks To Lift EPS U.S. Buybacks To Lift EPS U.S. Buybacks To Lift EPS We expect that most of the repatriated funds will again flow through to shareholders, rather than be used to pay down debt or spent on capital goods. Cash has not been a constraint to capital spending in recent years outside of perhaps the small business sector, which has much less to gain from the tax holiday. A revival in animal spirits and capital spending is underway, but this has more to do with the overall tax package and global growth than the ability of U.S. companies to repatriate overseas earnings. Estimates of how much the repatriation could boost EPS vary widely. Most of it will occur in the Tech and Health Care sectors. Buybacks appear to have lifted EPS growth by roughly one percentage point over the past year. We would not be surprised to see this accelerate by 1-2 percentage points, although the timing could be delayed by a year if the 2004 tax holiday provides the correct timeline. This is certainly positive for the equity market, but much of the impact could already be discounted in prices. Organic earnings growth, and the economic and policy outlook will be the main drivers of equity market returns over the next year. We expect some profit margin contraction later this year, but our 5% EPS growth forecast is beginning to look too conservative. This is especially the case because it does not include the corporate tax cuts. The amount by which the tax cuts will boost earnings on an after-tax basis is difficult to estimate, but we are using 5% as a conservative estimate. Adding 2% for buybacks and 2% for dividends, the S&P 500 could provide an attractive 14% total return this year (assuming no multiple expansion). Timing The Exit Chart I-6Timing The Exit (I) Timing The Exit (I) Timing The Exit (I) That said, we noted in last month's Report and in BCA's 2018 Outlook that this will be a transition year. We expect a recession in the U.S. sometime in 2019 as the Fed lifts rates into restrictive territory. Equities and other risk assets will sniff out the recession about six months in advance, which means that investors should be preparing to take profits sometime during the next 12 months. Last month we discussed some of the indicators we will watch to help us time the exit. The 2/10 Treasury yield curve has been a reliable recession indicator in the past. However, the lead time on the peak in stocks was quite extended at times (Chart I-6). A shift in the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate above 2.4% would be consistent with the Fed's 2% target for the PCE measure of inflation. This would be a signal that the FOMC will have to step-up the pace of rate hikes and aggressively slow economic growth. We expect the Fed to tighten four times in 2018. We are likely to take some money off the table if core inflation is rising, even if it is still below 2%, at the time that the TIPS breakeven reaches 2.4%. We will also be watching seven indicators that we have found to be useful in heralding market tops, which are summarized in our Scorecard Indicator (Chart I-7). At the moment, four out of the seven indicators are positive (Chart I-8): State of the Business Cycle: As early signals that the economy is softening, watch for the ISM new orders minus inventories indicator to slip below zero, or the 3-month growth rate of unemployment claims to rise above zero. Monetary and Financial Conditions: Using interest rates to judge the stance of monetary policy has been complicated by central banks' use of their balance sheet as a policy tool. Thus, it is better to use two of our proprietary indicators: the BCA Monetary Indicator (MI) and the Financial Conditions Indictor. The S&P 500 index has historically rallied strongly when the MI is above its long-term average. Similarly, equities tend to perform well when the FCI is above its 250-day moving average. The MI is sending a negative signal because interest rates have increased and credit growth has slowed. However, the broader FCI remains well in 'bullish' territory. Price Momentum: We simply use the S&P 500 relative to its 200-day moving average to measure momentum. Currently, the index is well above that level, providing a bullish signal for the Scorecard. Sentiment: Our research shows that stock returns have tended to be highest following periods when sentiment is bearish but improving. In contrast, returns have tended to be lowest following periods when sentiment is bullish but deteriorating. The Scorecard includes the BCA Speculation Indicator to capture sentiment, but virtually all measures of sentiment are very high. The next major move has to be down by definition. Thus, sentiment is assigned a negative value in the Scorecard. Value: As discussed above, value is poor based on the Shiller P/E and the BCA Composite Valuation indicator. Valuation may not help with timing, but we include it in our Scorecard because an overvalued signal means investors should err on the side of getting out early. Chart I-7Equity ScoreCard: Watch For A Dip Below 3 Equity ScoreCard: Watch For A Dip Below 3 Equity ScoreCard: Watch For A Dip Below 3 Chart I-8Timing The Exit (II) Timing The Exit (II) Timing The Exit (II) We demonstrated in previous research that a Scorecard reading of three or above was historically associated with positive equity total returns in subsequent months. A drop below three this year would signal the time to de-risk. Table I-1Exit Checklist February 2018 February 2018 To our Checklist we add the U.S. Leading Economic index, which has a good track record of calling recessions. However, we will use the LEI excluding the equity market, since we are using it as an indicator for the stock market. It is bullish at the moment. Our Global LEI is also flashing green. Table I-1 provides a summary checklist for trimming equity exposure. At the moment, 2 out of 9 indicators are bearish. Cross Asset Valuation Comparison Clients have asked our view on the appropriate order in which to scale out of risk assets. One way to approach the question is to compare valuation across asset classes. Presumably, the ones that are most overvalued are at greatest risk, and thus profits should be taken the earliest. It is difficult to compare valuation across asset classes. Should one use fitted values from models or simple deviations from moving averages? Over what time period? Since there is no widely accepted approach, we include multiple measures. More than one time period was used in some cases to capture regime changes. Table I-2 provides out 'best guestimate' for nine asset classes. The approaches range from sophisticated methods developed over many years (i.e. our equity valuation indicators), to regression analysis on the fundamentals (oil), to simple deviations from a time trend (real raw industrial commodity prices and gold). Table I-2Valuation Levels For Major Asset Classes February 2018 February 2018 We averaged the valuation readings in cases where there are multiple estimates for a single asset class. The results are shown in Chart I-9. Chart I-9Valuation Levels For Major Asset Classes February 2018 February 2018 U.S. equities stand out as the most expensive by far, at 1.8 standard deviations above fair value. Gold, raw industrials and EM equities are next at one standard deviation overvalued. EM sovereign bond spreads come next at 0.7, followed closely by U.S. Treasurys (real yield levels) and investment-grade corporate (IG) bonds (expressed as a spread). High-yield (HY) is only about 0.3 sigma expensive, based on default-adjusted spreads over the Treasury curve. That said, both IG and HY are quite expensive in absolute terms based on the fact that government bonds are expensive. Oil is sitting very close to fair value, despite the rapid price run up over the past couple of months. This makes oil exposure doubly attractive at the moment because the fundamentals point to higher prices at a time when the underlying asset is not expensive. Sequencing Around Past S&P 500 Peaks Historical analysis around equity market peaks provides an alternative approach to the sequencing question. Table I-3 presents the number of days that various asset classes peaked before or after the past major five tops in the S&P 500. A negative number indicates that the asset class peaked before U.S. equities, and a positive number means that it peaked after. Table I-3Asset Class Leads & Lags Vs. Peak In S&P 500 February 2018 February 2018 Unfortunately, there is no consistent pattern observed for EM equities, raw industrials, U.S. cyclical stocks, Tech stocks, or small-cap versus large-cap relative returns. Sometimes they peaked before the S&P 500, and sometime after. The EM sovereign bond excess return index peaked about 130 days in advance of the 1998 and 2007 U.S. equity market tops, although we only have three episodes to analyse due to data limitations. Oil is a mixed bag. A peak in the price of gold led the equity market in four out of five episodes, but the lead time is long and variable. The most consistent lead/lag relationship is given by the U.S. corporate bond market. Both investment- and speculative-grade excess returns relative to government bonds peaked in advance of U.S. stocks in four of the five episodes. High-yield excess returns provided the most lead time, peaking on average 154 days in advance. Excess returns to high-yield were a better signal than total returns. This leading relationship is one reason why we plan to trim exposure to corporate bonds within our bond portfolio in advance of scaling back on equities. But the 'return of vol' that we expect to occur later this year will take a toll on carry trades more generally. We are already underweight EM equities and bonds. This EM recommendation has not gone in our favor, but it would make little sense to upgrade them now given our positive views on volatility and the dollar. An unwinding of carry trades will also hit the high-yielding currencies outside of the EM space, such as the Kiwi and Aussie dollar. Base metal prices will be hit particularly hard if the 2019 U.S. recession spills over to the EM economies as we expect. We may downgrade base metals from neutral to underweight around the time that we downgrade equities, but much depends on the evolution of the Chinese economy in the coming months. Oil is a different story. OPEC 2.0 is likely to cut back on supply in the face of an economic downturn, helping to keep prices elevated. We therefore may not trim energy exposure this year. As for equity sectors, our recommended portfolio is still overweight cyclicals for now. Our synchronized global capex boom, rising bond yield, and firm oil price themes keep us overweight the Industrials, Energy and Financial sectors. Utilities and Homebuilders are underweight. Tech is part of the cyclical sector, but poor valuation keeps us underweight. That said, our sector specialists are already beginning a gradual shift away from cyclicals toward defensives for risk management purposes. This transition will continue in the coming months as we de-risk. We are also shifting small caps to neutral on earnings disappointments and elevated debt levels. The Dollar Pain Trade Market shifts since our last publication have largely gone in our favor; stocks have surged, corporate bonds spreads have tightened, oil prices have spiked, bonds have sold off and cyclical stocks have outperformed defensives. One area that has gone against us is the U.S. dollar. Relative interest rate expectations have moved in favor of the dollar as we expected at both the short- and long-ends of the curve. Nonetheless, the dollar has not tracked its historical relationship versus both the yen and euro. The Greenback did not even get a short-term boost from the passage of the tax plan and holiday on overseas earnings. Perhaps this is because the lion's share of "overseas" earnings are already held in U.S. dollars. Reportedly, a large fraction is even held in U.S. banks on U.S. territory. Currency conversion is thus not a major bullish factor for the U.S. dollar. The recent bout of dollar weakness began around the time of the release of the ECB Minutes in January which were interpreted as hawkish because they appeared to be preparing markets for changes in monetary policy. The European debt crisis and economic recession were the reasons for the ECB's asset purchases and negative interest rate policy. Neither of these conditions are in place now. The ECB is meeting as we go to press, and we expect some small adjustments in the Statement that remove references to the need for "crisis" level accommodations. Subsequent steps will be to prepare markets for a complete end to QE, perhaps in September, and then for rates hikes likely in 2019. The key point is that European monetary policy has moved beyond 'peak stimulus' and the normalization process will continue. Perhaps this is partly to blame for euro strength although, as mentioned above, interest rate differentials have moved in favor of the dollar. Does this mean that the dollar has peaked and has entered a cyclical bear phase that will persist over the next 6-12 months? The answer is 'no', although we are less bullish than in the past. We believe there is still a window for the dollar to appreciate against the euro and in broader trade-weighted terms by about 5%. First, a lot of euro-bullish news has been discounted (Chart I-10). Positive economic surprises heavily outstripped that in the U.S. last year, but that phase is now over. The euro appears expensive based on interest rate differentials, and euro sentiment is close to a bullish extreme. This all suggests that market positioning has become a negative factor for the currency. Chart I-10Euro: A Lot Of Bullish News Is Discounted EURO: A Lot Of Bullish News Is Discounted EURO: A Lot Of Bullish News Is Discounted Second, the chorus of complaints against the euro's strength is growing among European central bankers, including Ewald Nowotny, the rather hawkish Austrian central banker. Policymakers' concerns may partly reflect the fact that peripheral inflation excluding food and energy has already weakened to 0.6% from a high of 1.3% in April last year (Chart I-10, fourth panel). Third, U.S. consumer price and wage inflation have yet to pick up meaningfully. The dollar should receive a lift if core U.S. inflation clearly moves toward the Fed's 2% target, as we expect. The FOMC would suddenly appear to have fallen behind the curve and U.S. rate expectations would ratchet higher. Chart I-10, bottom panel, highlights that the euro will weaken if U.S. core inflation rises versus that in the Eurozone. The implication is that the Euro's appreciation has progressed too far and is due for a pullback. As for the yen, the currency surged in January when the Bank of Japan (BoJ) announced a reduction in long-dated JGB purchases. This simply acknowledged what has already occurred. It was always going to be impossible to target both the quantity of bond purchases and the level of 10-year yield simultaneously. Keeping yields near the target required less purchases than they thought. The market interpreted the BoJ's move as a possible prelude to lifting the 10-year yield target. It is perhaps not surprising that the market took the news this way. The economy is performing extremely well; our model that incorporates high-frequency economic data suggests that real GDP growth will move above 3% in the coming quarters. The Japanese economy is benefiting from the end of a fiscal drag and from a rebound in EM growth. Nonetheless, following January's BoJ policy meeting, Kuroda poured cold water on speculation that the BoJ may soon end or adjust the YCC. Recent speeches by BoJ officials reinforce the view that the MPC wants to see an overshoot of actual inflation that will lower real interest rates and thereby reinforce the strong economic activity that is driving higher inflation. Only then will officials be convinced that their job is done. Given that inflation excluding food and energy only stands at 0.3%, the BoJ is still a long way from the overshoot it desires. On the positive side, Japan's large current account surplus and yen undervaluation provide underlying support for the currency. Balancing the offsetting positive and negative forces, our foreign exchange strategists have shifted to neutral on the yen. The Euro remains underweight while the dollar is overweight. Similar to our dollar view, we still see a window for U.S. Treasurys to underperform the global hedged fixed-income benchmark as world bond yields shift higher this year. European government bonds will also sell off, but should outperform Treasurys. JGBs will provide the best refuge for bondholders during the global bond bear phase, since the BoJ will prevent a rise in yields inside of the 10-year maturity. Our global bond strategists upgraded U.K. gilts to overweight in January. Momentum in the U.K. economy is slowing, as a weaker consumer, slower housing activity, and softer capital spending are offsetting a pickup in exports. With the inflationary impulse from the 2016 plunge in the Pound now fading, and with Brexit uncertainty weighing on business confidence, the Bank of England will struggle to raise rates in 2018. FOMC Transition Monetary policy remains the main risk to a pro-cyclical investment stance, although not because of the coming change in the makeup of the FOMC. An abrupt shift in policy is unlikely. There was some support at the December 2017 FOMC meeting to study the use of nominal GDP or price level targeting as a policy framework, but this has been an ongoing debate that will likely continue for years to come. The Fed will remain committed to its current monetary policy framework once Powell takes over. Table I-4 provides a summary of who will be on the FOMC next year, including their policy bias. Chart I-11 compares the recent FOMC makeup with the coming Powell FOMC (voting members only). The hawk/dove ratio will not change much under Powell, unless Trump stacks the vacant spots with hawks. Table I-4Composition Of The FOMC February 2018 February 2018 Chart I-11Composition Of Voting FOMC Members 2017 Vs. 2018 February 2018 February 2018 In any event, history shows that the FOMC strives to avoid major shifts in policy around changeovers in the Fed Chair. In previous transitions, the previous path for rates was maintained by an average of 13 months. Moreover, Powell has shown that he is not one to rock the boat during his time on the FOMC. It will be the evolution of the economy and inflation, not the composition of the FOMC, that will have the biggest impact on markets at the end of the day. Recent speeches reveal that policymakers across the hawk/dove spectrum are moving modesty toward the hawkish side because growth has accelerated at a time when unemployment is already considered to be below full-employment by many policymakers. The melt-up in equity indexes in January did little to calm worries about financial excesses either. The Fed is struggling to understand the strength of the structural factors that could be holding down inflation. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 21, focusses on the impact of robot automation. While advances on this front are impressive, we conclude that it is difficult to find evidence that robots are more deflationary than previous technological breakthroughs. Thus, increased robot usage should not prevent inflation from rising as the labor market continues to tighten. The macro backdrop will likely justify the FOMC hiking at least as fast as the dots currently forecast. The risks are skewed to the upside. The median Fed dot calls for an unemployment rate of 3.9% by end-2018, only marginally lower than today's rate of 4.1%. This is inconsistent with real GDP growth well in excess of its supply-side potential. The unemployment rate is more likely to reach a 49-year low of 3.5% by the end of this year. As highlighted in last month's Report, a key risk to the bull market in risk assets is the end of the 'low vol/low rate' world. The selloff in the bond market in January may mark the start of this process. Conclusions We covered a lot of ground in this month's Overview of the markets, so we will keep the conclusions brief and focused on the risks. Our key point is that the fundamentals remain positive for risk assets, but that a lot of good news is discounted and it appears that we have entered a classic blow-off phase. This will be a transition year to a recession in the U.S. in 2019. Given that valuation for most risk assets is quite stretched, and given that the monetary taps are starting to close, investors must plan for the exit and keep an eye on our timing checklist. The main risk to our pro-cyclical portfolio is a rise in U.S. inflation and the Fed's response, which we believe will end the sweet spot for risk assets. Apart from this, our geopolitical strategists point to several other items that could upset the applecart this year:3 1. Trade China has cooperated with the U.S. in trying to tame North Korea. Nonetheless, President Trump is committed to an "America First" trade policy and he may need to show some muscle against China ahead of the midterm elections in November in order to rally his base. It is politically embarrassing to the Administration that China racked up its largest trade surplus ever with the U.S. in Trump's first year in office. A key question is whether the President goes after China via a series of administrative rulings - such as the recently announced tariffs on solar panels and white goods - or whether he applies an across-the-board tariff and/or fine. The latter would have larger negative macroeconomic implications. 2. Iran On January 12, President Trump threatened not to waive sanctions against Iran the next time they come due (May 12), unless some new demands are met. Pressure from the U.S. President comes at a delicate time for Iran. Domestic unrest has been ongoing since December 28. Although protests have largely fizzled out, they have reopened the rift between the clerical regime, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and moderate President Hassan Rouhani. Iranian hardliners, who control part of the armed forces, could lash out in the Persian Gulf, either by threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz or by boarding foreign vessels in international waters. The domestic political calculus in both Iran and the U.S. make further Tehran-Washington tensions likely. For the time being, however, we expect only a minor geopolitical risk premium to seep into the energy markets, supporting our bullish House View on oil prices. 3. China Last month's Special Report highlighted that significant structural reforms are on the way in China, now that President Xi has amassed significant political support for his reform agenda. The reforms should be growth-positive in the long term, but could be a net negative for growth in the near term depending on how deftly the authorities handle the monetary and fiscal policy dials. The risk is that the authorities make a policy mistake by staying too tight, as occurred in 2015. We are monitoring a number of indicators that should warn if a policy mistake is unfolding. On this front, January brought some worrying economic data. The latest figures for both nominal imports and money growth slowed. Given that M2 and M3 are components of BCA's Li Keqiang Leading Indicator, and that nominal imports directly impact China's contribution to global growth, this raises the question of whether December's economic data suggest that China is slowing at a more aggressive pace than we expect. For now, our answer is no. First, China's trade numbers are highly volatile; nominal import growth remains elevated after smoothing the data. Second, China's export growth remains buoyant, consistent with a solid December PMI reading. The bottom line is that we are sticking with our view that China will experience a benign deceleration in terms of its impact on DM risk assets, but we will continue to monitor the situation closely. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst January 25, 2018 Next Report: February 22, 2018 1 According to Thomson Reuters/IBES. 2 Please see U.S. Equity Sector Strategy Special Report "White Paper: Introducing Our U.S. Equity Sector Earnings Models," dated January 16, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 3 For more information, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Also see "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018. II. The Impact Of Robots On Inflation Media reports warn of a "Robot Apocalypse" that is already laying waste to jobs and depressing wages on a broad scale. Technological advance in the past has not prevented improving living standards or led to ever rising joblessness over the decades, but pessimists argue that recent advances are different. The issue is important for financial markets. If structural factors such as automation are holding back inflation by more than in previous decades, then the Fed will have to proceed very slowly in raising rates. We see no compelling evidence that the displacement effect of emerging technologies is any stronger than in the past. Robot usage has had a modest positive impact on overall productivity. Despite this contribution, overall productivity growth has been dismal over the past decade. If automation is increasing 'exponentially' and displacing workers on a broad scale as some claim, one would expect to see accelerating productivity growth, robust capital spending and more violent shifts in occupational shares. Exactly the opposite has occurred. Periods of strong growth in automation have historically been associated with robust, not lackluster, wage gains, contrary to the consensus view. The Fed was successful in meeting the 2% inflation target on average from 2000 to 2007, when the impact of the IT revolution on productivity (and costs) was stronger than that of robot automation today. This and other evidence suggest that it is difficult to make the case that robots will make it tougher for central banks to reach their inflation goals than did previous technological breakthroughs. For investors, this means that we cannot rely on automation to keep inflation depressed irrespective of how tight labor markets become. Recent breakthroughs in technology are awe-inspiring and unsettling. These advances are viewed with great trepidation by many because of the potential to replace humans in the production process. Hype over robots is particularly shrill. Media reports warn of a "Robot Apocalypse" that is already laying waste to jobs and depressing wages on a broad scale. In the first in our series of Special Reports focusing on the structural factors that might be preventing central banks from reaching their inflation targets, we demonstrated that the impact of Amazon is overstated in the press. We estimated that E-commerce is depressing inflation in the U.S. by a mere 0.1 to 0.2 percentage points. This Special Report tackles the impact of automation. We are optimistic that robot technology and artificial intelligence will significantly boost future productivity, and thus reduce costs. But, is there any evidence at the macro level that robot usage has been more deflationary than technological breakthroughs in the past and is, thus, a major driver of the low inflation rates we observe today across the major countries? The question matters, especially for the outlook for central bank policy and the bond market. If structural factors are indeed holding back inflation by more than in previous decades, then the Fed will have to proceed very slowly in raising rates. However, if low inflation simply reflects long lags between wages and the tightening labor market, then inflation may suddenly lurch to life as it has at the end of past cycles. The bond market is not priced for that scenario. Are Robots Different? A Special Report from BCA's Technology Sector Strategy service suggested that the "robot revolution" could be as transformative as previous General Purpose Technologies (GPT), including the steam engine, electricity and the microchip.1 GPTs are technologies that radically alter the economy's production process and make a major contribution to living standards over time. The term "robot" can have different meanings. The most basic definition is "a device that automatically performs complicated and often repetitive tasks," and this encompasses a broad range of machines: From the Jacquard Loom, which was invented over 200 years ago, on to Numerically Controlled (NC) mills and lathes, pick and place machines used in the manufacture of electronics, Autonomous Vehicles (AVs), and even homicidal robots from the future such as the Terminator. Our Technology Sector report made the case that there is nothing particularly sinister about robots. They are just another chapter in a long history of automation. Nor is the displacement of workers unprecedented. The industrial revolution was about replacing human craft labor with capital (machines), which did high-volume work with better quality and productivity. This freed humans for work which had not yet been automated, along with designing, producing and maintaining the machinery. Agriculture offers a good example. This sector involved over 50% of the U.S. labor force until the late 1800s. Steam and then internal combustion-powered tractors, which can be viewed as "robotic horses," contributed to a massive rise in output-per-man hour. The number of hours worked to produce a bushel of wheat fell by almost 98% from the mid-1800s to 1955. This put a lot of farm hands out of work, but these laborers were absorbed over time in other growing areas of the economy. It is the same story for all other historical technological breakthroughs. Change is stressful for those directly affected, but rising productivity ultimately lifts average living standards. Robots will be no different. As we discuss below, however, the increasing use of robots and AI may have a deeper and longer-lasting impact on inequality. Strong Tailwinds Chart II-1Robots Are Getting Cheaper Robots Are Getting Cheaper Robots Are Getting Cheaper Factory robots have improved immensely due to cheaper and more capable control and vision systems. As these systems evolve, the abilities of robots to move around their environment while avoiding obstacles will improve, as will their ability to perform increasingly complex tasks. Most importantly, robots are already able to do more than just routine tasks, thus enabling them to replace or aid humans in higher-skilled processes. Robot prices are also falling fast, especially after quality-adjusting the data (Chart II-1). Units are becoming easier to install, program and operate. These trends will help to reduce the barriers-to-entry for the large, untapped, market of small and medium sized enterprises. Robots also offer the ability to do low-volume "customized" production and still keep unit costs low. In the future, self-learning robots will be able to optimize their own performance by analyzing the production of other robots around the world. Robot usage is growing quickly according to data collected by the International Federation of Robotics (IFR) that covers 23 countries. Industrial robot sales worldwide increased to almost 300,000 units in 2016, up 16% from the year before (Chart II-2). The stock of industrial robots globally has grown at an annual average pace of 10% since 2010, reaching slightly more than 1.8 million units in 2016.2 Robot usage is far from evenly distributed across industries. The automotive industry is the major consumer of industrial robots, holding 45% of the total stock in 2016 (Chart II-3). The computer & electronics industry is a distant second at 17%. Metals, chemicals and electrical/electronic appliances comprise the bulk of the remaining stock. Chart II-2Global Robot Usage Global Robot Usage Global Robot Usage Chart II-3Global Robot Usage By Industry (2016) February 2018 February 2018 As far as countries go, Japan has traditionally been the largest market for robots in the world. However, sales have been in a long-term downtrend and the stock of robots has recently been surpassed by China, which has ramped up robot purchases in recent years (Chart II-4). Robot density, which is the stock of robots per 10 thousand employed in manufacturing, makes it easier to compare robot usage across countries (Chart II-5, panel 2). By this measure, China is not a heavy user of robots compared to other countries. South Korea stands at the top, well above the second-place finishers (Germany and Japan). Large automobile sectors in these three countries explain their high relative robot densities. Chart II-4Stock Of Robots By Country (I) Stock Of Robots By Country (I) Stock Of Robots By Country (I) Chart II-5Stock Of Robots By Country (II) (2016) February 2018 February 2018 While the growth rate of robot usage is impressive, it is from a very low base (outside of the automotive industry). The average number of robots per 10,000 employees is only 74 for the 23 countries in the IFR database. Robot use is tiny compared to total man hours worked. Chart II-6U.S. Investment In Robots U.S. Investment in Robots U.S. Investment in Robots In the U.S., spending on robots is only about 5% of total business spending on equipment and software (Chart II-6). To put this into perspective, U.S. spending on information, communication and technology (ICT) equipment represented 35-40% of total capital equipment spending during the tech boom in the 1990s and early 2000s.3 The bottom line is that there is a lot of hype in the press, but robots are not yet widely used across countries or industries. It will be many years before business spending on robots approaches the scale of the 1990s/2000s IT boom. A Deflationary Impact? As noted above, we view robotics as another chapter in a long history of technological advancements. Pessimists suggest that the latest advances are different because they are inherently more threatening to the overall job market and wage share of total income. If the pessimists are right, what are the theoretical channels though which this would have a greater disinflationary effect relative to previous GPT technologies? Faster Productivity Gains: Enhanced productivity drives down unit labor costs, which may be passed along to other industries (as cheaper inputs) and to the end consumer. More Human Displacement: The jobs created in other areas may be insufficient to replace the jobs displaced by robots, leading to lower aggregate income and spending. The loss of income for labor will simply go to the owners of capital, but the point is that the labor share of income might decline. Deflationary pressures could build as aggregate demand falls short of supply. Even in industries that are slow to automate, just the threat of being replaced by robots may curtail wage demands. Inequality: Some have argued that rising inequality is partly because the spoils of new technologies over the past 20 years have largely gone to the owners of capital. This shift may have undermined aggregate demand because upper income households tend to have a high saving rate, thereby depressing overall aggregate demand and inflationary pressures. The human displacement effect, described above, would exacerbate the inequality effect by transferring income from labor to the owners of capital. 1. Productivity It is difficult to see the benefits of robots on productivity at the economy-wide level. Productivity growth has been abysmal across the major developed countries since the Great Recession, but the productivity slowdown was evident long before Lehman collapsed (Chart II-7). The productivity slowdown continued even as automation using robots accelerated after 2010. Chart II-7Productivity Collapsed Despite Automation Productivity Collapsed Despite Automation Productivity Collapsed Despite Automation Some analysts argue that lackluster productivity is simply a statistical mirage because of the difficulties in measuring output in today's economy. We will not get into the details of the mismeasurement debate here. We encourage interested clients to read a Special Report by the BCA Global Investment Strategy service entitled "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians." 4 Our colleague Peter Berezin makes the case that the unmeasured utility accruing from free internet services is large, but so was the unmeasured utility from antibiotics, radio, indoor plumbing and air conditioning. He argues that the real reason that productivity growth has slowed is that educational attainment has decelerated and businesses have plucked many of the low-hanging fruit made possible by the IT revolution. Cyclical factors stemming from the Great Recession and financial crisis are also to blame, as capital spending has been slow to recover in most of the advanced economies. Some other factors that help to explain the decline in aggregate productivity are provided in Appendix II-1. Nonetheless, the poor aggregate productivity performance does not mean that there are no benefits to using robots. The benefits are evident at the industrial level, where measurement issues are presumably less vexing for statisticians (i.e., it is easier to measure the output of the auto industry, for example, than for the economy as a whole). Chart II-8 plots the level of robot density in 2016 with average annual productivity growth since 2004 for 10 U.S. manufacturing industries (robot density is presented in deciles). A loose positive relationship is apparent. Chart II-8U.S.: Productivity Vs. Robot Density February 2018 February 2018 Academic studies estimate that robots have contributed importantly to economy-wide productivity growth. The Centre for Economic and Business Research (CEBR) estimated that labor productivity growth rises by 0.07 to 0.08 percentage points for every 1% rise in the rate of robot density.5 This implies that robots accounted for roughly 10% of the productivity growth experienced since the early 1990s in the major economies. Another study of 14 industries across 17 countries by the Centre for Economic Performance (CEP) found that robots boosted annual productivity growth by 0.36 percentage points over the 1993-2007 period.6 This is impressive because, if this estimate holds true for the U.S., robots' contribution to the 2½% average annual U.S. total productivity growth over the period was 14%. To put the importance of robotics into historical context, its contribution to productivity so far is roughly on par with that of the steam engine (Chart II-9). It falls well short of the 0.6 percentage point annual productivity contribution from the IT revolution. The implication is that, while the overall productivity performance has been dismal since 2007, it would have been even worse in the absence of robots. What does this mean for inflation? According to the "cost push" model of the inflation process, an increase in productivity of 0.36% that is not accompanied by associated wage gains would reduce unit labor costs (ULC) by the same amount. This should trim inflation if the cost savings are passed on to the end consumer, although by less than 0.36% because robots can only depress variable costs, not fixed costs. There indeed appears to be a slight negative relationship between robot density and unit labor costs at the industrial level in the U.S., although the relationship is loose at best (Chart II-10). Chart II-9GPT Contribution To Productivity February 2018 February 2018 Chart II-10U.S.: Unit Labor Costs Vs. Robot Density February 2018 February 2018 In theory, divergences in productivity across industries should only generate shifts in relative prices, and "cost push" inflation dynamics should only operate in the short term. Most economists believe that inflation is a purely monetary phenomenon in the long run, which means that central banks should be able to offset positive productivity shocks by lowering interest rates enough that aggregate demand keeps up with supply. Indeed, the Fed was successful in meeting the 2% inflation target on average from 2000 to 2007, when the impact of the IT revolution on productivity (and costs) was stronger than that of robot automation today. Also, note that inflation is currently low across the major advanced economies, irrespective of the level of robot intensity (Chart II-11). From this perspective, it is hard to see that robots should take much of the credit for today's low inflation backdrop. Chart II-11Inflation Vs. Robot Density February 2018 February 2018 2. Human Displacement A key question is whether robots and humans are perfect substitutes. If new technologies introduced in the past were perfect substitutes, then it would have led to massive underemployment and all of the income in the economy would eventually have migrated to the owners of capital. The fact that average real household incomes have risen over time, and that there has been no secular upward trend in unemployment rates over the centuries, means that new technologies were at least partly complementary with labor (i.e., the jobs lost as a direct result of productivity gains were more than replaced in other areas of the economy over time). Rather than replacing workers, in many cases tech made humans more productive in their jobs. Rising productivity lifted income and thereby led to the creation of new jobs in other areas. The capital that workers bring to the production process - the skills, know-how and special talents - became more valuable as interaction with technology increased. Like today, there were concerns in the 1950s and 1960s that computerization would displace many types of jobs and lead to widespread idleness and falling household income. With hindsight, there was little to worry about. Some argue that this time is different. Futurists frequently assert that the pace of innovation is not just accelerating, it is accelerating 'exponentially'. Robots can now, or will soon be able to, replace humans in tasks that require cognitive skills. This means that they will be far less complementary to humans than in the past. The displacement effect could thus be much larger, especially given the impressive advances in artificial intelligence. However, Box II-1 discusses why the threat to workers posed by AI is also heavily overblown in the media. The CEP multi-country study cited above did not find a large displacement effect; robot usage did not affect the overall number of hours worked in the 23 countries studied (although it found distributional effects - see below). In other words, rather than suppressing overall labor input, robot usage has led to more output, higher productivity, more jobs and stronger wage and income growth. A report by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI)7 takes a broader look at automation, using productivity growth and capital spending as proxies. Automation is what occurs as the implementation of new technologies is incorporated along with new capital equipment or software to replace human labor in the workplace. If automation is increasing 'exponentially' and displacing workers on a broad scale, one would expect to see accelerating productivity growth, robust capital spending, and more violent shifts in occupational shares. Exactly the opposite has occurred. Indeed, the report demonstrates that occupational employment shifts were far slower in the 2000-2015 period than in any decade in the 1900s (Chart II-12). Box II-1 The Threat From AI Is Overblown Media coverage of AI/Deep Learning has established a consensus view that we believe is well off the mark. A recent Special Report from BCA's Technology Sector Strategy service dispels the myths surrounding AI.8 We believe the consensus, in conjunction with warnings from a variety of sources, is leading to predictions, policy discussions, and even career choices based on a flawed premise. It is worth noting that the most vocal proponents of AI as a threat to jobs and even humanity are not AI experts. At the root of this consensus is the false view that emerging AI technology is anything like true intelligence. Modern AI is not remotely comparable in function to a biological brain. Scientists have a limited understanding of how brains work, and it is unlikely that a poorly understood system can be modeled on a computer. The misconception of intelligence is amplified by headlines claiming an AI "taught itself" a particular task. No AI has ever "taught itself" anything: All AI results have come about after careful programming by often PhD-level experts, who then supplied the system with vast amounts of high quality data to train it. Often these systems have been iterated a number of times and we only hear of successes, not the failures. The need for careful preparation of the AI system and the requirement for high quality data limits the applicability of AI to specific classes of problems where the application justifies the investment in development and where sufficient high-quality data exists. There may be numerous such applications but doubtless many more where AI would not be suitable. Similarly, an AI system is highly adapted to a single problem, or type of problem, and becomes less useful when its application set is expanded. In other words, unlike a human whose abilities improve as they learn more things, an AI's performance on a particular task declines as it does more things. There is a popular misconception that increased computing power will somehow lead to ever improving AI. It is the algorithm which determines the outcome, not the computer performance: Increased computing power leads to faster results, not different results. Advanced computers might lead to more advanced algorithms, but it is pointless to speculate where that may lead: A spreadsheet from 2001 may work faster today but it still gives the same answer. In any event, it is worth noting that a tool ceases to be a tool when it starts having an opinion: there is little reason to develop a machine capable of cognition even if that were possible. Chart II-12U.S. Job Rotation Has Slowed February 2018 February 2018 The EPI report also notes that these indicators of automation increased rapidly in the late 1990s and early 2000s, a period that saw solid wage growth for American workers. These indicators weakened in the two periods of stagnant wage growth: from 1973 to 1995 and from 2002 to the present. Thus, there is no historical correlation between increases in automation and wage stagnation. Rather than automation, the report argues that it was China's entry into the global trading system that was largely responsible for the hollowing out of the U.S. manufacturing sector. We have also made this argument in previous research. The fact that the major advanced economies are all at, or close to, full employment supports the view that automation has not been an overwhelming headwind for job creation. Chart II-13 demonstrates that there has been no relationship between the change in robot density and the loss of manufacturing jobs since 1993. Japan is an interesting case study because it is on the leading edge of the problems associated with an aging population. Interestingly, despite a worsening labor shortage, robot density among Japanese firms is falling. Moreover, the Japanese data show that the industries that have a high robot usage tend to be more, not less, generous with wages than the robot laggard industries. Please see Appendix II-2 for more details. Chart II-13Global Manufacturing Jobs Vs. Robot Density February 2018 February 2018 The bottom line is that it does not appear that labor displacement related to automation has been responsible in any meaningful way for the lackluster average real income growth in the advanced economies since 2007. 3. Inequality That said, there is evidence suggesting that robots are having important distributional effects. The CEP study found that robot use has reduced hours for low-skilled and (to a lesser extent) middle-skilled workers relative to the highly skilled. This finding makes sense conceptually. Technological change can exacerbate inequality by either increasing the relative demand for skilled over unskilled workers (so-called "skill-biased" technological change), or by inducing companies to substitute machinery and other forms of physical capital for workers (so-called "capital-biased" technological change). The former affects the distribution of labor income, while the latter affects the share of income in GDP that labor receives. A Special Report appearing in this publication in 2014 focused on the relationship between technology and inequality.9 The report highlighted that much of the recent technological change has been skill-biased, which heavily favors workers with the talent and education to perform cognitively-demanding tasks, even as it reduces demand for workers with only rudimentary skills. Moreover, technological innovations and globalization increasingly allow the most talented individuals to market their skills to a much larger audience, thus bidding up their wages. The evidence suggests that faster productivity growth leads to higher average real wages and improved living standards, at least over reasonably long horizons. Nonetheless, technological change can, and in the future almost certainly will, increase income inequality. The poor will gain, but not as much as the rich. The fact that higher-income households tend to maintain a higher savings rate than low-income households means that the shift in the distribution of income toward the higher-income households will continue to modestly weigh on aggregate demand. Can the distribution effect be large enough to have a meaningful depressing impact on inflation? We believe that it has played some role in the lackluster recovery since the Great Recession, with the result that an extended period of underemployment has delivered a persistent deflationary impulse in the major developed economies. However, as discussed above, stimulative monetary policy has managed to overcome the impact of inequality and other headwinds on aggregate demand, and has returned the major countries roughly to full employment. Indeed, this year will be the first since 2007 that the G20 economies as a group will be operating slightly above a full employment level. Inflation should respond to excess demand conditions, irrespective of any ongoing demand headwind stemming from inequality. Conclusions Technological change has led to rising living standards over the decades. It did not lead to widespread joblessness and did not prevent central banks from meeting their inflation targets over time. The pessimists argue that this time is different because robots/AI have a much larger displacement effect. Perhaps it will be 20 years before we will know the answer. But our main point is that we have found no evidence that recent advances in robotics and AI, while very impressive, will be any different in their macro impact. There is little evidence that the modern economy is less capable in replacing the jobs lost to automation, although the nature of new technologies may be affecting the distribution of income more than in the past. Real incomes for the middle- and lower-income classes have been stagnant for some time, but this is partly due to productivity growth that is too low, not too high. Moreover, it is not at all clear that positive productivity shocks are disinflationary beyond the near term. The link between robot usage and unit labor costs over the past couple of decades is loose at best at the industry level, and is non-existent when looking across the major countries. The Fed was able to roughly meet its 2% inflation target in the 1990s and the first half of the 2000s, despite IT's impressive contribution to productivity growth during that period. For investors, this means that we cannot rely on automation to keep inflation depressed irrespective of how tight labor markets become. The global output gap will shift into positive territory this year for the first time since the Great Recession. Any resulting rise in inflation will come as a shock since the bond market has discounted continued low inflation for as far as the eye can see. We expect bond yields and implied volatility to rise this year, which may undermine risk assets in the second half. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Brian Piccioni Vice President Technology Sector Strategy Appendix II-1 Why Is Productivity So Low? A recent study by the OECD10 reveals that, while frontier firms are charging ahead, there is a widening gap between these firms and the laggards. The study analyzed firm-level data on labor productivity and total factor productivity for 24 countries. "Frontier" firms are defined to be those with productivity in the top 5%. These firms are 3-4 times as productive as the remaining 95%. The authors argue that the underlying cause of this yawning gap is that the diffusion rate of new technologies from the frontier firms to the laggards has slowed within industries. This could be due to rising barriers to entry, which has reduced contestability in markets. Curtailing the creative-destruction process means that there is less pressure to innovate. Barriers to entry may have increased because "...the importance of tacit knowledge as a source of competitive advantage for frontier firms may have risen if increasingly complex technologies were to increase the amount and sophistication of complementary investments required for technological adoption." 11 The bottom line is that aggregate productivity is low because the robust productivity gains for the tech-savvy frontier companies are offset by the long tail of firms that have been slow to adopt the latest technology. Indeed, business spending has been especially weak in this expansion. Chart II-14 highlights that the slowdown in U.S. productivity growth has mirrored that of the capital stock. Chart II-14U.S. Capex Shortfall Partly To Blame For Poor Productivity U.S. Capex Shortfall Partly To Blame For Poor Productivity U.S. Capex Shortfall Partly To Blame For Poor Productivity Appendix II-2 Japan - The Leading Edge Japan is an interesting case study because it is on the leading edge of the problems associated with an aging population. The popular press is full of stories of how robots are taking over. If the stories are to be believed, robots are the answer to the country's shrinking workforce. Robots now serve as helpers for the elderly, priests for weddings and funerals, concierges for hotels and even sexual partners (don't ask). Prime Minister Abe's government has launched a 5-year push to deepen the use of intelligent machines in manufacturing, supply chains, construction and health care. Indeed, Japan was the leader in robotics use for decades. Nonetheless, despite all the hype, Japan's stock of industrial robots has actually been eroding since the late 1990s (Chart II-4). Numerous surveys show that firms plan to use robots more in the future because of the difficulty in hiring humans. And there is huge potential: 90% of Japanese firms are small- and medium-sized (SME) and most are not currently using robots. Yet, there has been no wave of robot purchases as of 2016. One problem is the cost; most sophisticated robots are simply too expensive for SMEs to consider. This suggests that one cannot blame robots for Japan's lack of wage growth. The labor shortage has become so acute that there are examples of companies that have turned down sales due to insufficient manpower. Possible reasons why these companies do not offer higher wages to entice workers are beyond the scope of this report. But the fact that the stock of robots has been in decline since the late 1990s does not support the view that Japanese firms are using automation on a broad scale to avoid handing out pay hikes. Indeed, Chart II-15 highlights that wage deflation has been the greatest in industries that use almost no robots. Highly automated industries, such as Transportation Equipment and Electronics, have been among the most generous. This supports the view that the productivity afforded by increased robot usage encourages firms to pay their workers more. Looking ahead, it seems implausible that robots can replace all the retiring Japanese workers in the years to come. The workforce will shrink at an annual average pace of 0.33% between 2020 and 2030, according to the Japan Institute for Labour Policy and Training. Productivity growth would have to rise by the same amount to fully offset the dwindling number of workers. But that would require a surge in robot density of 4.1, assuming that each rise in robot density of one adds 0.08% to the level of productivity (Chart II-16). The level of robot sales would have to jump by a whopping 2½ times in the first year and continue to rise at the same pace each year thereafter to make this happen. Of course, the productivity afforded by new robots may accelerate in the coming years, but the point is that robot usage would likely have to rise astronomically to offset the impact of the shrinking population. Chart II-15Japan: Earnings Vs. Robot Density February 2018 February 2018 Chart II-16Japan: Where Is The Flood Of Robots? Japan: Where Is The Flood OF Robots? Japan: Where Is The Flood OF Robots? The implication is that, as long as the Japanese economy continues to grow above roughly 1%, the labor market will continue to tighten and wage rates will eventually begin to rise. 1 Please see Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "The Coming Robotics Revolution," dated May 16, 2017, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 2 Note that this includes only robots used in manufacturing industry, and thus excludes robots used in the service sector and households. However, robot usage in services is quite limited and those used in households do not add to GDP. 3 Note that ICT investment and capital stock data includes robots. 4 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Weak Productivity Growth: Don't Blame The Statisticians," dated March 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 Centre for Economic and Business Research (January 2017): "The Impact of Automation." A Report for Redwood. In this report, robot density is defined to be the number of robots per million hours worked. 6 Graetz, G., and Michaels, G. (2015): "Robots At Work." CEP Discussion Paper No 1335. 7 Mishel, L., and Bivens, J. (2017): "The Zombie Robot Argument Lurches On," Economic Policy Institute. 8 Please see BCA Technology Sector Strategy Special Report "Bad Information - Why Misreporting Deep Learning Advances Is A Problem," dated January 9, 2018, available at tech.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Rage Against The Machines: Is Technology Exacerbating Inequality?" dated June 2014, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 10 OECD Productivity Working Papers, No. 05 (2016): "The Best Versus the Rest: The Global Productivity Slowdown, Divergence Across Firms and the Role of Public Policy." 11 Please refer to page 27. III. Indicators And Reference Charts As we highlight in the Overview section, the earnings backdrop for the U.S. equity market remains very upbeat, as highlighted by the rise in the net earnings revisions and net earnings surprises indexes. Bottom-up analysts will likely continue to boost after-tax earnings estimates for the year as they adjust to the U.S. tax cut news. Our main concern is that a lot of good news is now discounted. Our Technical Indicator remains bullish, but our composite valuation indicator surpassed one sigma in January, which is our threshold of overvaluation. From these levels of overvaluation, the medium-term outlook for equity total returns is negligible. Our speculation index is at all-time highs and implied volatility is low, underscoring that investors are extremely bullish. From a contrary perspective, this is a warning sign for the equity market. Our Monetary Indicator has also moved further into 'bearish' territory for equities, although overall financial conditions remain positive for growth. It is also disconcerting that our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) shifted to a 'sell' signal for stocks, following five straight months on a 'buy' signal. This occurred because investors may be buying based on speculation rather than on a firm belief in the staying power of the underlying fundamentals. For now, though, our Willingness-to-Pay indicator for the U.S. rose sharply in January, highlighting that investor equity inflows are very strong and are favoring U.S. equities relative to Japan and the Eurozone. This is perhaps not surprising given the U.S. tax cuts just passed by Congress. The RPI indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. Our U.S. bond technical indicator shows that Treasurys are close to oversold territory, suggesting that we may be in store for a consolidation period following January's surge in yields. Treasurys are slightly cheap on our valuation metric, although not by enough to justify closing short duration positions. The U.S. dollar is oversold and due for a bounce. 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-4Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance Global Stock Market And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations U.S. Treasurys and Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components 10-Year Treasury Yield Components Chart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing U.S. Housing U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights A thorough audit of our trade book highlights that our country and sector allocation recommendations have been quite profitable for investors. Of the 12 active trades in our book, 11 have generated a positive return, including one with a 32% annualized rate of return. A review of the original basis and subsequent performance of our trades suggests that investors should close 6 out of 12 of our active positions, predominantly related to resource & construction and domestic stock market themes. We will be looking for opportunities to add new trades to our book over the coming weeks and months that have broad, "big-picture" relevance. Watch this space. Feature In this week's report we conduct a thorough audit of our trade book, by revisiting the original basis and subsequent performance of all 12 of our active trades. While these trades have been initiated at different points over the past five years, they can be broadly grouped into five different themes: Core Equity Allocation & General Pro-Risk Trades (4 Trades) Reform-Oriented Trades (2 Trades) Resource & Construction Plays (2 Trades) Domestic Stock Market Trades (2 Trades) Trades Linked To Hong Kong (2 Trades) Overall, our trade book performance has been excellent. Of the 12 active trades in our book, 11 have generated a positive return, including one with a 32% annualized rate of return (since December 2015). As a result of our trade book review, we recommend that investors close six trades and maintain six over the coming 6-12 months. The closed trades predominantly fall into the resource & construction and domestic stock market categories, although we also recommend closing our long China H-share / short industrial commodity trade as well as our long Hong Kong REITs / short Hong Kong broad market trade. We present our rationale for retaining or closing each trade below. Over the coming weeks and months we will be looking for opportunities to add new trades to our book. Stay tuned. Core Equity Allocation & General Pro-Risk Trades We have four open core equity allocation and pro-risk trades: Overweight MSCI China Investable stocks versus the emerging markets benchmark, initiated on May 2, 2012 Long China H-shares / short industrial commodities, initiated on March 16, 2016 Short MSCI Taiwan / Long MSCI China Investable, initiated on February 2, 2017 and Long China onshore corporate bonds, initiated on June 22, 2017 We recommend that investors stick with three of these trades, but close the long China H-shares / short industrial commodities position for the following reasons: Chart 1Be Overweight China Vs EM In This Environment Be Overweight China Vs EM In This Environment Be Overweight China Vs EM In This Environment Overweight MSCI China Investable Stocks Versus The EM Benchmark (Maintain) This trade represents one of the most important equity allocation calls for Chinese stocks, and is one of the ways that BCA expresses a view on the Chinese economy in our House View Matrix.1 While it hasn't always been the case, we noted in a recent Special Report that Chinese stocks have become a high-beta equity market versus both the global aggregate and the emerging market benchmark, even when excluding the technology sector.2 China's high-beta nature, the fact that EM equities remain in an uptrend (Chart 1), and our view that China's ongoing slowdown is likely to be benign and controlled all suggest that investors should continue to overweight Chinese stocks vs their emerging market peers. Long China H-Shares / Short Industrial Commodities (Close) We initiated this trade in March 2016, one month after Chinese stock prices bottomed following the significant economic slowdown in 2015. At that time it was not clear to global investors that a mini-cycle upswing in the Chinese economy had begun, and this pair trade was a way of taking a limited pro-risk bet. Given our view of a benign, controlled economic slowdown in China, this hedged trade is no longer needed, especially given the uncertain impact of ongoing supply side constraints in China on global commodity prices. As such, we recommend that investors close the trade, locking in an annualized return of 15.7%. Short MSCI Taiwan / Long MSCI China Investable (Maintain) Chart 2If The TWD Declines Materially, ##br##Upgrade Taiwan (From Short) If The TWD Declines Materially, Upgrade Taiwan (From Short) If The TWD Declines Materially, Upgrade Taiwan (From Short) We initiated our short MSCI Taiwan / long MSCI China investable trade last February, when the risk of protectionist action from the Trump administration loomed large. While there have been no negative trade actions levied against Taiwan this year, macro factors, particularly the strength of the currency, continue to argue for an underweight stance within the greater China bourses (China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan). We reviewed the basis of this trade in a report last month,3 and recommended that investors stick with the call despite significantly oversold conditions (Chart 2). A material easing in pressure on Taiwan's trade-weighted exchange rate appears to be the most likely catalyst to close the trade and to upgrade Taiwan within a portfolio of greater China equities. Long China Onshore Corporate Bonds (Maintain) Chinese corporate bond yields have risen materially since late-2016, largely in response to expectations of tighter monetary policy. These expectations have been validated, with 3-month interbank rates having risen over 200bps since late-2016. We argued last summer that the phase of maximum liquidity tightening was likely over, and that quality spreads and government bond yields would probably drop over the coming three to six months. While this clearly did not occur (yields and spreads rose), the total return from this trade has remained in the black owing to the significant yield advantage of these bonds versus similarly-rated bonds in the developed world. Chart 3 highlights that Chinese 5-year corporate bond spreads are also considerably less correlated with equity prices than their investment-grade peers in the U.S. This underscores that the rise in yields and spreads over the past year has reflected expectations of tighter monetary policy, not rising default risk. Our sense is that barring a significant improvement in China's growth momentum, significant further monetary policy tightening is improbable, meaning that corporate bond yields are not likely to rise much further. As a final point, as of today's report we are changing the benchmark for this trade from a BCA calculation based on a basket of 5-year AAA and AA-rated corporate bonds to the ChinaBond Corporate Credit Bond Total Return Index. Chart 3Chinese Corporate Spreads Aren't A Risk ##br##Barometer Like In The U.S. Chinese Corporate Spreads Aren't A Risk Barometer Like In The U.S. Chinese Corporate Spreads Aren't A Risk Barometer Like In The U.S. Reform-Oriented Trades We have two open trades related to China's rebooted reform initiative, both of which were initiated on November 16, 2017: Long China investable consumer staples / short consumer discretionary stocks and Long China investable environmental and social governance (ESG) leaders / short investable broad market These trades were recently opened, and we continue to recommend that investors maintain both positions: Long China Investable Consumer Staples / Short Consumer Discretionary Stocks (Maintain) The basis for the first trade stems from the current limitations of China's investable consumer discretionary index as a clear-cut play on retail-oriented consumer spending. We argued in our November 16 Weekly Report that Chinese investable consumer staples would be a better play on Chinese consumer spending owing to the material weight of the automobiles & components industry group in the discretionary sector, which may fare poorly over the coming year due to the environmental mandate of President Xi's proposed reforms. We argued in the report that this trade would likely be driven by alpha rather than beta, and indeed Chart 4 illustrates that staples continue to rise relative to discretionary against a backdrop of a rising broad market. Long China Investable ESG leaders / Short Investable Broad Market (Maintain) In the same report we recommended that investors overweight the China investable ESG leaders index, based on the goal of favoring firms that are best positioned to deliver "sustainable" growth in an era of heightened environmental reforms. The index overweights firms with the highest MSCI ESG ratings in each sector (using a proprietary MSCI ranking scheme), and maintains similar sector weights as the investable benchmark, which limits the beta risk of the trade. Chart 5 highlights that the trade is progressing in line with our expectations, suggesting that investors stick with the position over the coming 6-12 months. Chart 4Staples Vs Discretionary Isn't A Low Beta Trade Staples Vs Discretionary Isn't A Low Beta Trade Staples Vs Discretionary Isn't A Low Beta Trade Chart 5Likely To Continue To Outperform Likely To Continue To Outperform Likely To Continue To Outperform Resource & Construction Plays We have two open trades related to the resource sector: Long China investable oil & gas stocks / short global oil & gas stocks, initiated on April 26, 2014 and Long China investable construction materials sector / short investable broad market, initiated on December 9, 2015 We recommend that investors close both of these positions, based on the following rationale: Chart 6Similar Earnings Profile, ##br##But Weaker Dividend Payouts Similar Earnings Profile, But Weaker Dividend Payouts Similar Earnings Profile, But Weaker Dividend Payouts Long China Investable Oil & Gas Stocks / Short Global Oil & Gas Stocks (Close) This trade was initiated based on the view that the valuation gap between Chinese and global oil & gas companies is unjustifiable given that the earnings off both sectors are globally driven. Indeed, Chart 6 shows that the trailing EPS profiles of both sectors in US$ terms have been broadly similar over the past few years, and yet China's oil & gas sector trades at a 40% price-to-book discount relative to its global peers. However, panel 2 of Chart 6 highlights that this discount may represent investor concerns about earnings quality and/or state-owned corporate governance. The chart shows that while the earnings ROE for Chinese oil & gas companies is higher than that of the global average, the dividend ROE (dividends per share as a percent of shareholders equity) is considerably lower. While China's oil & gas dividend ROE has recently been rising, the gap remains wide relative to global oil & gas companies, suggesting that there is no significant re-rating catalyst that is likely to emerge over the coming 6-12 months. Close for an annualized return of 1.4%. Long China Investable Construction Material Stocks / Short China Investable Broad Market (Close) The relative performance of Chinese investable construction material stocks has been positive over the past two years, with the trade having generated an 8.1% annualized return since initiation. There are two factors contributing to our view that it is time for investors to book profits on this trade. The first is that China's investable construction materials are dominated by cement companies, which may suffer in relative terms from China's rebooted reform initiative this year.4 The second is that the relative performance of construction materials stocks is closely correlated with, and led by, the growth in total real estate investment (Chart 7). Residential investment makes up a significant component of total real estate investment, and Chart 8 highlights that a significant gap between floor space sold and completed has narrowed the inventory to sales ratio over the past three years. But the ratio remains somewhat elevated relative to its history which, when coupled with the ongoing growth slowdown in China and the deceleration in total real estate investment growth, implies a poor risk/reward ratio over the coming 6-12 months. Chart 7Cement Producers Trade Off Of Real Estate Investment Cement Producers Trade Off Of Real Estate Investment Cement Producers Trade Off Of Real Estate Investment Chart 8No Clear Construction Boom Is Imminent No Clear Construction Boom Is Imminent No Clear Construction Boom Is Imminent Domestic Stock Market Trades We have two open trades related to China's domestic stock market: Long China domestic utility sector / short domestic broad market, initiated on January 22, 2014 and Long China domestic food & beverage sector / short domestic broad market, initiated on December 9, 2015 Similar to our resource & construction plays, we recommend that investors close both of our recommended domestic stock market trades: Long China Domestic Utility Sector / Short Domestic Broad Market (Close) We initiated this trade in early-2014, following a comprehensive reform plan released in late-2013 by the Chinese government. The plan called for allowing market forces to play a decisive role in allocating resources, which we argued would grant utilities more pricing power, reduce their earnings volatility associated with policy risks, and lead to a structural positive re-rating. Chart 9 illustrates that this trade gained significant ground in 2014 and early-2015, even prior to the significant melt-up in domestic stock prices that began in Q2 2015. However, the trade has underperformed significantly since the middle of last year, which has been driven by a sharp deterioration in ROE. This decline in ROE appears to have been cost-driven, as coal is an important feedstock for Chinese utility companies and has risen substantially in price over the past two years. While domestic utilities are now significantly oversold in relative terms, we recommend that investors close this trade because the original reform-oriented basis has shifted significantly. The priorities that emanated from October's Party Congress were decidedly environmental in nature, meaning that coal prices may very well remain elevated over the coming 6-12 months (due to restricted supply). This means that a recovery in ROE would rest on the need to raise utility prices, which is a low-visibility event that will be difficult to predict. Close for an annualized return of 3%. Long China Domestic Food & Beverage Sector / Short Domestic Broad Market (Close) We initiated this trade in December 2015, based on this sector's superior corporate fundamentals and undemanding valuation levels. We argued that the anti-corruption campaign since late-2012 was likely the cause of prior underperformance, given that the group is dominated by a few high-end alcohol producers. The market overacted to the high-profile crackdown, and ultimately the fundamentals of the sector did not deteriorate materially. Our view has panned out spectacularly, with the trade having earned a 32% annualized return since inception5 (Chart 10 panel 1). While the group's ROE remains significantly above that of the domestic benchmark, valuation measures suggest that investors have more than priced this in (Chart 10 panel 2). The trade has mostly played out and we would not like to overstay our welcome. In addition, panel 3 illustrates that technical conditions are extremely overbought, suggesting that investors are being presented with an excellent opportunity to exit the position. Chart 9Sidelined By A Major Hit To ROE Sidelined By A Major Hit To ROE Sidelined By A Major Hit To ROE Chart 10Time To Book Profits Time To Book Profits Time To Book Profits Trades Linked To Hong Kong We have two open trades related to Hong Kong: Long U.S. / short Hong Kong 10-Year government bonds, initiated on January 15, 2014 and Short Hong Kong property investors / long Hong Kong broad market, initiated on January 21, 2015 We recommend that investors stick with the first and close the second, based on the following perspectives: Long U.S. / Short Hong Kong 10-Year Government Bonds (Maintain) Hong Kong has an open capital account and an exchange rate pegged to the U.S. dollar, meaning that its monetary policy is directly tied to that of the U.S. Yet, Hong Kong's 10-year government bond yield is non-trivially below that of the U.S., which argues for a short stance versus similar maturity U.S. Treasurys. While it is true that the Hong Kong - U.S. 10-year yield spread does vary and can widen over a 6-12 month horizon, Chart 11 highlights that the relative total return profile of the trade (in unhedged terms) trends higher over time due to the carry advantage. Short Hong Kong REITs / Long Hong Kong Broad Market (Close) There are cross-currents facing the outlook for Hong Kong REITs vs the broad market, arguing for a neutral rather than an underweight stance. Close this trade for an annualized return of 3.6%. While the relative performance of global REITs is typically negatively correlated with bond yields, Chart 12 shows that the relationship with Hong Kong property yields has been positive and lagging (i.e. falling yields lead declining relative performance, and vice versa). Under this regime, a rise in U.S. government bond yields, as we expect, would suggest an improvement in the relative performance of Hong Kong REITs. Chart 11A Straightforward Carry Pick Up Trade A Straightforward Carry Pick Up Trade A Straightforward Carry Pick Up Trade Chart 12Rising Bond Yields Implies ##br##Positive HK REIT Performance Rising Bond Yields Implies Positive HK REIT Performance Rising Bond Yields Implies Positive HK REIT Performance Chart 13 highlights that periods of positive yield / REIT performance correlation have tended to occur when Hong Kong property prices are rising significantly relative to income, as they have been for the past several years. One interpretation of this dynamic is that when house prices are overvalued and potentially vulnerable, REIT investors react positively to an improvement in economic fundamentals (which tends to push yields up due to higher interest rate expectations). The risk of an eventual collapse of Hong Kong property prices is clear, but we cannot identify an obvious catalyst for this to occur over the coming 6-12 months. Importantly, the fact that property prices have continued to rise during a period of tighter mainland capital controls suggests that only a significant economic shock will be enough to derail the uptrend in prices, circumstances that we do not expect over the coming year. Finally, Chart 14 highlights that Hong Kong REITs are deeply discounted relative to book value when compared against the broad market. This suggests that at least some of the risks associated with the property market have already been priced in by investors. Chart 13Yields & REITs Positively Correlated ##br##When House Prices Are Overvalued Yields & REITs Positively Correlated When House Prices Are Overvalued Yields & REITs Positively Correlated When House Prices Are Overvalued Chart 14Hong Kong REITs Are Cheap Hong Kong REITs Are Cheap Hong Kong REITs Are Cheap Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Analyst linx@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.bcaresearch.com/trades 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: No Longer A Low-Beta Market", dated January 11, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Taiwan: Awaiting A Re-Rating Catalyst", dated December 14, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Messages From The Market, Post-Party Congress", dated November 16, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please note that the total return from this trade had been erroneously reported for some time due a data processing error on BCA's part. The return since inception now properly sources the China CSI SWS Food & Beverage index from CHOICE. We sincerely regret the error and any confusion it may have caused. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights While bullish sentiment for copper remains high, concerns that policymakers' attempts at a managed slowdown in China this year goes too far will weigh on the market. Fundamentally, support for copper prices from potential supply shortfalls at both the mining and refining levels will be offset by a stronger USD and slower growth in China this year (Chart of the Week). Despite our expectation a slight physical supply deficit will emerge this year, we remain neutral copper. We do not believe this will be enough to rally prices in a meaningful way. Energy: Overweight. Ministers from Saudi Arabia and Russia confirmed OPEC 2.0 - the oil-producer coalition led by these states - will survive beyond the expiry of their production-management deal at the end of this year. What and how they will manage the production of coalition members, however, remains unknown. Base Metals: Neutral. Positive fundamentals for copper are at risk if the USD rallies on the back of Fed tightening this year or China's managed economic slowdown is too severe (see below). Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold prices remained well bid, despite expectations for three or four Fed rate hikes this year, suggesting the market is pricing in either fewer rate hikes and lower real rates, or geopolitical risk - most prominently in Venezuela or North Korea. We remain long gold as a strategic portfolio hedge. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Soybean has been gaining ground on concerns about yield damage due to droughts in parts of Argentina. Expectations of a bumper year for Brazil will mitigate the impact on global supply. Feature Bullish copper sentiment is at a multi-year high, with four bulls for every bear in the market (Chart 2). The strong global economy, weak USD, and elevated risk of further supply-side disruptions - at mines as well as at the refining level - are feeding into buyers' optimism. Chart of the WeekChina Fears Weighing##BR##On Copper Prices China Fears Weighing On Copper Prices China Fears Weighing On Copper Prices Chart 2Bullish Sentiment Remains##BR##At Multi-Year Highs Bullish Sentiment Remains At Multi-Year Highs Bullish Sentiment Remains At Multi-Year Highs Our outlook for 2018 calls for another, albeit smaller, refined copper deficit (Chart 3). This will come on the back of escalated risks from supply side disruptions at mines in Chile and Peru, and potential constraints on primary and secondary refined output from China, the largest refined copper producer (Table 1). Chart 3A (Smaller) Deficit##BR##In 2018 A (Smaller) Deficit In 2018 A (Smaller) Deficit In 2018 Table 1China Is Significant For##BR##Copper Supply And Demand Stronger USD, Slower China Growth Threaten Copper Stronger USD, Slower China Growth Threaten Copper China also is the world's largest refined-copper consumer, which makes the risk of a more severe downturn in China arising from too much policy-driven restraint in the metal's top consumer acute. In the following sections, we present our expectations for the fundamentals: copper mine output, refined copper production, and refined copper consumption. Industrial Action Will Threaten Mine Output Again In 2018 Copper had an exceptional year in 2017. The synchronized global upturn and weak USD set the stage for a memorable performance. On the supply-side, disruptions at some of the world's largest mines pushed prices up 8% in 1H17. Although the risk of further production shocks had subsided by 2H17, copper gained another 22% on the back of restrictive Chinese scrap import policies and better than expected demand fundamentals. Last year, the copper market registered a physical deficit, mainly on the back of a decline in copper mine supply. A 0.3% yoy fall in copper ores and concentrate output in the first eleven months of the year kept production broadly unchanged compared to the same period last year. In fact, this was the first yoy decline for that period since 2002, and contrasts with an average 5% expansion in ore and concentrate output for that period since 2012 (Chart 4). The most notable supply side disruptions last year were: Chart 4Supply Disruptions Put##BR##Copper In Deficit Last Year Supply Disruptions Put Copper In Deficit Last Year Supply Disruptions Put Copper In Deficit Last Year A 9% yoy decline in output from top producer Chile in 1H17. Chile accounts for more than a quarter of global ore & concentrate supply. The decline is a result of strikes at the Escondida mine as well as lower output from Codelco mines. The Indonesian government's ban on exports of copper ores in the first four months of the year led to a 6% yoy decline in production in the first eleven months. U.S. output, which accounts for~7% of global copper ores & concentrates supply is down 12% yoy in the first eleven months of 2017. In fact, the last time the U.S. recorded a positive yoy growth rate was in October 2016. The decline in U.S. output came mainly on the back of lower grade ores, a fall in mining rates, and poor weather conditions. The majority of these disruptions occurred in 1H17 - the first five months of the year witnessed a 1.6% yoy fall in output, while the Jun-Oct period experienced a 0.7% yoy increase. Nonetheless, the ramp up in second part of the year is significantly slower than the 6% yoy and 5% yoy increases in the same period in 2015 and 2016. Global supply was partially supported by Peruvian and European production. Peruvian output grew 3.6% yoy in the first eleven months of the year. However this rate is dwarfed in comparison to previous years. Output grew almost 40% yoy in 2016 and 23% yoy in 2015. Similarly, European output - which accounts for 8% of global supply - seems to be continuing its uptrend. It expanded by 2.4% in the first eleven months of 2017 to record the highest level of output for that period. In fact, growth in output is above the average 0.8% yoy pace in the same period in 2014-2016. We expect a small rebound in mine production in 2018. According to the International Copper Study Group, temporarily shut down capacity in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Zambia will resume operations, supporting mine supply this year. Supply-side disruptions pose a significant risk to mine supply again this year. An estimated more than 30 labor contracts, representing ~5mm MT of mined copper - a quarter of global production - will expire this year.1 While surely not all of these negotiations will result in strikes and supply disruptions, the figure is noteworthy as it is significantly above the average 1.7mm MT worth of annual copper supply at risk from contract renewal between 2011 and 2016. The most significant of these renewals is that which was most damaging last year. The 44-day strike at BHP Billiton's Escondida mine in Chile last year, which resulted in a 7.8% yoy fall at the world's most productive copper mine, ended without agreement. Although the contracts were extended, they are due for renegotiation in June. In fact, one of the unions at Escondida held a day long "warning strike" in November, an indication that they do not intend to back down from their demands. Unless management gives in, this implies a heightened risk of disruptions. Bottom Line: Supply disruptions negatively impacted mine supply in some of the world's top producers in 1H17. Although European and Peruvian supply has been somewhat supportive, global supply stagnated in 2017. Industrial action remains the major risk to mined copper this year. 5mm MT worth of copper ores and concentrates are at risk of supply side disruptions in 2018 - the highest figure since 2010. Environmental Reforms Limit Refined Production From China Chart 5China's Scrap Imports Cushion##BR##Against High Prices China's Scrap Imports Cushion Against High Prices China's Scrap Imports Cushion Against High Prices World refined production grew 1.3% yoy in the first eleven months of 2017, the slowest growth rate for that period since 2009. This reflects significant declines in refined copper production in Chile and the U.S. Supply disruptions at mines in Chile - the world's second-largest producer of refined copper - led to a 182k MT fall in refined output in the first eleven months of 2017, compared to the same period in 2016. Refined output from the U.S. fell by 91.4k MT in that period. However, the downside pressure on refined output from lower ore production was mitigated by increased secondary production from scrap, which accounts for ~20% of global refined copper production. Chinese copper producers took advantage of the oversupply in global scrap and ramped up their production. According to the ICSG global secondary output expanded by almost 10% yoy in the first ten months of last year. China's copper scrap imports increased 9% yoy in the first eleven months of last year, following four years of declines (Chart 5). China makes up less than 10% of global mined copper, but it is the largest producer of refined copper in the world, accounting for 36% of the global production. China is expected to remain the main contributor to world refined production growth (Chart 6). However, Beijing's environmental reforms, and measures to curb the imports of "foreign trash" will limit secondary refined production. Chart 6China Remains Most Significant Factor In Refined Production Growth Stronger USD, Slower China Growth Threaten Copper Stronger USD, Slower China Growth Threaten Copper New policies affecting refined output in China are supportive of copper prices this year: 1. In relation to scrap copper, Beijing recently imposed two policy changes, in line with its environmental reforms. First, since the start of 2018, only copper scrap end-users and processors will be granted import licenses. Second, a proposal to limit the hazardous impurity levels in scrap copper imports to 1% by March. Both these policies will curtail China's scrap copper imports. China imports an estimated 3mm MT of scrap copper annually, accounting for roughly half of its total scrap copper supply. Such limitations would severely dent China's scrap supply. Furthermore, scrap copper imports play a significant role in China. They act as a buffer against high prices, soaring during periods of high prices and dwindling when prices are low - as they were between 2013 and 2016. If China does in fact go through with the tighter regulations on scrap imports, Chinese copper consumers would not be able to fall back on the secondary metal when prices rise - as they have been over the past year - leading to greater demand for imports of primary products, chasing prices higher. However, over the long term, we are likely to see Chinese scrap traders move their businesses offshore, notably in Southeast Asia, where they will process the scrap until it meets the regulations necessary to be imported by China.2 In fact, this has already started to happen in the case of the category 7 scrap - derived from end-of-life electronics, households, cars and industrial products - which is widely believed will be banned by year-end. Nevertheless, these recycling plants do not yet exist. Thus, the transition cannot occur overnight, and we expect the tighter policies on scrap imports to support prices in the interim as China increases its imports of ores and refined copper in order to fill the supply gap. 2. China's environmental reforms also pose a risk on refined supply this year. Smelters and refiners risk being shut down if they do not comply with tighter pollution controls. This could limit copper output this year. Similar to the winter production cuts occurring at steel and aluminum producers, China's second largest copper smelter - Tongling Nonferrous Metals Group - announced plans to reduce its smelter capacity by up to 30% during the winter.3 In addition, late last month, China's largest smelter - Jiangxi Copper Co. - was forced to curb output while local pollution levels were assessed.4 The extent to which these measures are adopted by other producers will interrupt refined output this year. Given the more elevated pollution levels during the winter months, this risk is most notable in the November to March period. Bottom Line: The major risk to refined copper supply is China's environmental reforms which will likely constrain copper scrap imports, and could lead to temporary shutdowns of polluting smelters and refineries. If Beijing tightens these regulations, we are likely to witness disruptions in both primary and secondary refined output, while the copper supply chain readjusts to be able to comply with these policies. Slowdown In China Would Temper Copper World refined copper consumption grew 0.8% yoy in the first eleven months of 2017. Weaker consumption was mainly in the 1H17, during which global consumption fell 1.8% yoy, whereas consumption in the July-to-November period accelerated by 3.9% yoy. Weaker demand in the first half of the year came on the back of weaker demand from China, which accounts for half of global consumption. China recorded a 7.7% yoy fall in consumption of refined copper in the January-to-April period. However, Chinese copper demand subsequently strengthened, accelerating by 7.4% yoy in the May-to-November period. While demand from the rest of the world muted the impact of weaker Chinese consumption in the first half of the year, it weakened in the second half of the year, falling 3.3% yoy in the May-to-October period. This fall in copper demand was driven by a 5.5% yoy fall in the U.S., and to a lesser extent, a 2.0% yoy fall in demand in Japan in the May-to-November period. According to China Customs data, China's refined copper imports fell 5.1% in 2017 after growing 3.7% in 2016 (Chart 7). However, what is noteworthy is that while imports fell 18.3% yoy in H1, they picked up in H2, increasing by 11.3% yoy, mainly on the back of strong demand in Q3. This is in line with strong economic performance in China in 2H17 - an upside surprise which supported copper prices. Going into 2018, we expect a managed deceleration in China - and in China's demand for copper - to be mitigated by stronger demand from the rest of the world. In fact, the IMF revised up its 2018 and 2019 global growth forecasts in the latest WEO Update earlier this week (Table 2). Global growth is now forecast to reach 3.9% in 2018, up from the estimated 3.7% last year. Chart 7China's Q4 Imports Were Strong China's Q4 Imports Were Strong China's Q4 Imports Were Strong Table 2Upward Revisions To IMF Growth Projections Stronger USD, Slower China Growth Threaten Copper Stronger USD, Slower China Growth Threaten Copper Chart 8Speed Bump Ahead For China? Speed Bump Ahead For China? Speed Bump Ahead For China? That said, our China construction Indicator - which includes several variables measuring construction activity in China - shows strong growth in the main end-user for copper (Chart 8). Given that building construction accounts for 43% of copper end-use in China, this indicates demand for copper should remain healthy in the near term. Furthermore, despite concerns of a slowdown, China's manufacturing PMI still points to a healthy economy. Even so, a decline in the Li Keqiang Index, which tracks industrial activity, warrants caution and could be signaling trouble ahead for the Chinese economy. In addition, government spending has decelerated significantly from its mid-2017 peak. Against these risks, the global economy is expected to remain strong. Thus the biggest risk to our assessment is a pronounced deceleration in China which would hit demand for the red metal. Bottom Line: The major risk to refined copper demand this year is a slowdown from China. Downside Risk From A Stronger USD In addition to the fundamental variables highlighted above, U.S. monetary policy - and its effect on the USD - will also be an important driver of the copper market. We expect the Fed to embark on its interest rate normalization process more aggressively this year, hiking its policy rate up to four times. This would see copper prices weaken as the red metal becomes more expensive in USD terms. The USD is significant because a weaker dollar means that dollar-based commodities are cheaper for foreign buyers. Thus, foreigners tend to buy dollar-denominated commodities when the USD is weak, and sell when the USD is strong, in order to also benefit from exchange rate differentials. Continued weakness of the USD has been supportive of copper prices since the beginning of 2017. A risk to our outlook is an unexpectedly dovish Fed, which would keep the dollar muted and be favorable to copper. Bottom Line: We expect the copper market to record a small physical deficit this year. A stronger USD and deceleration in China will prevent a repeat of 2017's performance. However supply side disruptions at the mine and refined levels will provide opportunities for some upside in the market. Synchronized global demand will be a tailwind throughout the year. In the near term, we expect copper to continue gyrating around its current level of $3.10/lb. Absent a marked slowdown in China, we expect a rally into mid-year as contract renegotiations get underway. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Copper soars to 4-year high as funds bet on shortages," dated December 28, 2017, available at reuters.com. 2 Please see "As China restricts scrap metal companies look to process copper abroad," dated January 8, 2018, available at reuters.com. 3 Please see "Chinese Copper Smelter Halts Capacity to Ease Winter Pollution," dated December 7, 2017, available at Bloomberg.com. 4 Please see "Copper Rallies to Three-Year High as China Plant Halts Output," dated December 26, 2017, available at Bloomberg.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Stronger USD, Slower China Growth Threaten Copper Stronger USD, Slower China Growth Threaten Copper Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 Stronger USD, Slower China Growth Threaten Copper Stronger USD, Slower China Growth Threaten Copper

Highlights EM stocks are about one standard deviation above their fair value, according to several valuation indicators. Provided EM equities are neither extremely overvalued nor undervalued, the key to their performance over the next 12 months will be corporate profits. Having missed this rally, we are reluctant to chase it at current levels amid the prevailing investor euphoria and overbought conditions. Compared with DM equities, EMs are not cheap - relative valuations are neutral. Meanwhile, the corporate profit outlook is better in DM than EM. As a result, we are reiterating our underweight stance on EM stocks versus DM bourses. Feature This week we delve into overall emerging markets (EM) stock valuations. Next month we will publish another report outlining a valuation ranking among individual EM bourses and equity sectors. After the significant share price run up, the question for investors is whether EM equities are still cheap or have become overvalued. Our composite valuation indicator based on trimmed-mean multiples suggests that EM equity valuations are one standard deviation above their fair value (Chart I-1). The message is the same when using the medians of various multiples for 50 sub-sectors (Chart I-2). Chart I-1EM Equity Valuations: ##br##Trimmed-Mean Multiples bca.ems_sr_2018_01_24_s1_c1 bca.ems_sr_2018_01_24_s1_c1 Chart I-2EM Equity Valuations: ##br##Medians Of Multiples bca.ems_sr_2018_01_24_s1_c2 bca.ems_sr_2018_01_24_s1_c2 These two composite valuation indicators are the averages of the trailing P/E, forward P/E, price-to-cash earnings,1 price-to-book value (PBV) and price-to-dividend ratios. The 20%-trimmed mean excludes the top 10% and bottom 10% of sub-sectors - i.e., it removes outliers and then calculates an equal-weighted average. Finally, the composite valuation indicator using equal-weights (not market-cap weights) for all 11 sectors also corroborates that the overall EM universe is somewhat overvalued (Chart I-3). Interestingly, based on Chart I-1 and I-2, EM stocks did not become cheap at their 2016 bottom - they were only fairly valued in early 2016. The individual components of the composite median valuation indicator - based on medians of 50 EM sub-sectors - are presented in Chart I-4. The top three panels reveal that the trailing P/E, forward P/E and price-to-cash earnings ratios are all well above their historical mean, and close to their previous peaks. The components that keep the composite indicator from being extremely overvalued are the PBV and price-to-dividend ratios. These two variables are close to their historical means (Chart I-4, bottom two panels). Chart I-3EM Equity Valuation: ##br##Equal-Weighted Sector Multiples bca.ems_sr_2018_01_24_s1_c3 bca.ems_sr_2018_01_24_s1_c3 Chart I-4Components of Median ##br##Valuation Composite Components of Median Valuation Composite Components of Median Valuation Composite As to qualitative assessment of EM valuations, our sense is that EM equity segments that have good fundamentals are currently overvalued, while those that feature low multiples are "cheap" for a reason. Bottom Line: According to valuation indicators based on various multiples, EM stocks are moderately overvalued. Relative Valuations To DM Relative to DM, EM equity valuations are neutral. Both relative composite valuation indicators computed using 20% trimmed-mean and the median are at the middle of their historical range (Chart I-5). This signifies there is presently no valuation gap between EM and DM stocks. All these measures are determined using the MSCI indexes, and utilize comparable data for both DM and EM across all companies, industry groups and sectors. Using equal weighted-sector multiples, the EM versus DM relative composite valuation indicator also upholds that relative equity valuations are neutral (Chart I-6). This measure uses equal weights for all sectors in both the EM and DM stock indexes. Hence, this composite removes sector weight differences among various equity indexes. EM equity valuations are also on par with the U.S. stock market, based on 20% trimmed-mean, median or equal sector-weighted multiples (Chart I-7). Chart I-5EM Versus DM: Relative Trimmed-Mean##br## And Median Multiples bca.ems_sr_2018_01_24_s1_c5 bca.ems_sr_2018_01_24_s1_c5 Chart I-6EM Versus DM: Relative Equal-Weighted ##br##Sector Multiples bca.ems_sr_2018_01_24_s1_c6 bca.ems_sr_2018_01_24_s1_c6 Chart I-7EM Versus U.S.: Trimmed-Mean, Median And ##br##Equal-Weighted Sector Multiples bca.ems_sr_2018_01_24_s1_c7 bca.ems_sr_2018_01_24_s1_c7 The takeaway from these relative valuation composites is that EM stocks are neither cheap nor expensive compared with U.S. or other DM equities. This is contrary to the widely held view among many investors and commentators that EM stocks are cheap versus DM in general, and the U.S. in particular. Additionally, in absolute terms, EM, DM and U.S. equities are all - about one standard deviation - expensive, according to these valuation yardsticks. Bottom Line: After removing outlier sub-sectors with the lowest and highest multiples and using equal weights for all sectors in the equity benchmarks, EM valuations appear comparable to those in the DM universe and the U.S. The CAPE Ratio: A Structural Valuation Perspective Our cyclically-adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio for the EM equity universe currently stands at its fair value (Chart I-8). Due to the lack of historical data for EM, we were unable to use Robert Shiller's methodology for constructing the CAPE ratio for developing markets. The Shiller method uses a 10-year moving average of EPS to calculate the cyclically adjusted EPS. However, in the case of EM aggregate EPS, data go back only to 1986. If we were to calculate a 10-year moving average, we would lose 10 years of data, and the valuation indicator would only start in 1994. This is too short a time frame for a structural valuation indicator. Instead, we used the following methodology to construct the CAPE ratio: We deflated EM EPS and EM equity prices (both in U.S. dollar terms) by U.S. consumer price inflation (CPI) to get both EM EPS and EM share prices in real (inflation-adjusted) U.S. dollar terms. Then we regressed EM EPS in real U.S. dollar terms against a time trend. The resulting trend line represents the cyclically adjusted EPS in real U.S. dollar terms (Chart I-8, bottom panel). Finally, we divided EM stock prices in real U.S. dollar terms by the EM EPS trend line. The outcome is the EM CAPE ratio (Chart I-8, top panel). To be sure that our methodology produced a reasonable outcome, we computed a CAPE ratio using our methodology for the U.S. stock market and compared it with the Shiller CAPE ratio. Chart I-9 demonstrates that our methodology generated a CAPE ratio quite similar to Shiller's CAPE ratio from 1935 to the present. Consequently, we are comfortable that the results generated by our methodology are robust and sensible. When we calculate the EM versus U.S. relative CAPE ratio, the outcome is that EM appears cheap versus the U.S. stock market (Chart I-10). The degree of relative undervaluation is meaningful: one standard deviation. Chart I-8EM CAPE Ratio Is At Fair Value EM CAPE Ratio Is At Fair Value EM CAPE Ratio Is At Fair Value Chart I-9U.S. CAPE Ratio: EMS Vs. Shiller U.S. CAPE Ratio: EMS Vs. Shiller U.S. CAPE Ratio: EMS Vs. Shiller Chart I-10Relative CAPE Ratio: EM Versus U.S. Relative CAPE Ratio: EM Versus U.S. Relative CAPE Ratio: EM Versus U.S. The idea behind the CAPE model is to remove cyclicality of corporate profits when computing the P/E ratio. Our CAPE model gauges stock valuations under the assumption of EPS converging to their trend line. The latter is the cyclically adjusted EPS in real U.S. dollar terms. The slope of the time trend - the historical annual compound growth rate of EPS in inflation-adjusted U.S. dollar terms - is 2.8% for EM and 2% for the U.S. Please note that we determined the earnings time trend using the historical range of 1983-present for EM and 1935-present for the U.S. Hence, these CAPE models assume that EM EPS will grow 0.8% (2.8% - 2%) percentage points faster than U.S. corporate EPS in the inflation-adjusted U.S. dollar terms, as they have done historically. Under this assumption, EM stocks are materially cheaper than the U.S. market. Finally, the CAPE ratio is a structural valuation model, i.e., it works in the long term. Only investors with a time horizon greater than 3-5 years should use CAPE in their investment decisions. Bottom Line: According to our CAPE models, EM equities are fairly valued in absolute terms, but they are meaningfully cheaper than U.S. stocks. What About Interest Rates And Profits The above valuation measures did not incorporate one important variable: interest rates. The current high equity valuations in both DM and EM would in some way be justified if both global bond yields and EM local interest rates held at current low levels. Our bias is that U.S. bond yields will break out, dragging up other DM bond yields. DM government bond prices seem to be teetering on the edge of a technical breakdown (Chart I-11). The current robust growth in the U.S. and euro area justifies upward revisions to their interest rate expectations. In turn, higher U.S. bond yields will put a floor under the U.S. dollar. We anticipate that most of the potential U.S. dollar rally will occur versus EM and commodities currencies, and less so against the euro and other European currencies. Chart I-12 demonstrates that since January 2017, EM currencies have defied the rise in U.S. inflation-linked bond (TIPS) yields. We expect the negative correlation between EM currencies and U.S. TIPS yields - which existed from 2013 to 2017 - to re-establish itself. Chart I-11DM Bond Prices Are On Edge Of Breakdown DM Bond Prices Are On Edge Of Breakdown DM Bond Prices Are On Edge Of Breakdown Chart I-12EM Currencies And U.S. Real Yields EM Currencies And U.S. Real Yields EM Currencies And U.S. Real Yields This will likely occur as the recently approved tax cuts buoy the U.S. economy. Meanwhile, in China, regulatory tightening on banking and shadow banking as well as liquidity tightening will weigh on mainland growth. A shift in relative China-U.S. growth dynamics in favor of the U.S. will likely lead to a setback in the value of EM exchange rates. In turn, EM currency depreciation will produce higher local bond yields in a number of high-yielding developing markets (Chart I-13). Overall, the odds favor rising DM bond yields in the coming months. This, along with a slowdown in China, will trigger a selloff in EM currencies. The latter will produce widening EM credit (sovereign and corporate) spreads and lead to higher EM domestic bond yields. Altogether, this warrants a de-rating of EM versus DM equity multiples. On corporate profits, visible growth deceleration in China heralds a notable relapse in commodities prices and EM EPS growth. Our EM EPS model - based on narrow money (M1) growth - continues to flash red on the EM corporate profit outlook (Chart I-14). Chart I-13EM Currencies And Local Bond Yields EM Currencies And Local Bond Yields EM Currencies And Local Bond Yields Chart I-14EM EPS Is At Risk EM EPS Is At Risk EM EPS Is At Risk Investment Conclusions Chart I-15Bottom-Up Analysts Are ##br##Record Bullish On EM EPS Bottom-Up Analysts Are Record Bullish On EM EPS Bottom-Up Analysts Are Record Bullish On EM EPS Equity valuations matter most when valuations are at an extreme - two standard deviations overvalued or undervalued. This is presently not the case for EM stocks. Provided EM equities are neither extremely overvalued nor undervalued, the key to their performance over the next 12 months will be corporate profits. We expect EM corporate growth to downshift due to a slowdown in China and a setback in commodities prices. EM is more leveraged to China than to the U.S. or Europe. Hence, robust growth in DM is not inconsistent with our negative view on EM currencies and stocks. In the meantime, EM share prices continue to exhibit strong momentum. It is difficult to time a reversal amid such intense capital inflows. Nevertheless, from a big-picture perspective, such a stampede and the ensuing melt-up in stock prices typically precedes a major top. Having missed this rally, we are reluctant to chase it at current levels amid the prevailing investor euphoria (Chart I-15) and overbought conditions. Compared with DM equities, EMs are not cheap - relative valuations are neutral. Hence, there is no valuation justification to favor EM versus DM. Meanwhile, the corporate profit outlook is better in DM than in EM. As a result, we are reiterating our underweight stance on EM versus DM stocks. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Assistant andrijav@bcaresearch.com 1 MSCI defines cash earnings as earnings per share including depreciation and amortization as reported by the company. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights The U.S. government shutdown showed that the path of least resistance is for more fiscal spending; President Trump is turning to trade and foreign policy amid a lack of popularity at home; North Korean diplomacy is on track, but U.S.-China relations and Taiwan are potential black swans; Iran and the U.S. are playing a risky double game that will add geopolitical risk premium to oil; NAFTA will be a bellwether for Trump's future actions on issues that carry greater constraints, like Iran and China; Book profits on French vs German industrials and China volatility; close U.S. curve steepener and long PHP/TWD. Feature This weekend, investors woke up to the nineteenth government shutdown since 1976, a product of "grand standing" on both sides of the aisle. Our low-conviction view, which we elucidated last week, is that President Donald Trump will be forced to migrate to the middle on policy as the midterm election approaches.1 Chart 1Trump Hitting (And Building!) A Wall Watching Five Risks Watching Five Risks Despite a roaring stock market, strong economic fundamentals, and decade-low unemployment, President Trump's popularity continues to flounder. There is now even a perceptible decline in his support among GOP voters. Key problems for Trump have been the failure to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the intensification of the Mueller investigation (Chart 1). We suspect that he will try to preempt an electoral disaster in November by means of bipartisan deal-making and more orthodox policies. The government shutdown, although not entirely unexpected, undermined the view that President Trump is thinking about moderating his stance. That said, the Democrats are as much, if not more, to blame. With the Republicans in charge of Congress and the White House, it is clear that the Democrats thought that voters would ultimately see the shutdown as the GOP's fault. This was a dangerous assumption given that current polling suggests the Democrats have more to lose. One positive about the short-lived imbroglio is that it was the first government shutdown in twenty years that had little to do with government spending, whether the appropriations bill explicitly or entitlements. While immigration is an intractable issue, the disagreement between Republicans and Democrats is not about dollars. This is good news for the markets as it means that more spending will likely be necessary to grease the wheels of compromise. Our mantra continues to be that the political path of least resistance will lead towards profligacy. While the media's focus is on domestic politics, the real risks remain in the international arena. The two are connected. As political science theory teaches us, policymakers often play "two-level games," with the domestic arena influencing what is possible in the international one. As Donald Trump loses political capital on the domestic front, his options for affecting policy will become constrained. However, the U.S. constitution places almost no constraints on the president when it comes to foreign policy. To this arena we turn, starting with China-U.S. relations and the other potential risks in Asia (the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan). We also briefly turn to Iran and NAFTA. What binds all these risks is that it is essentially up to President Trump whether they become market-relevant or not. Korean Diplomacy Is On Track In mid-September North Korean tensions peaked (Chart 2).2 Leader Kim Jong Un chose to demonstrate known missile capabilities rather than escalate the crisis. Chart 2Markets Have Called Kim's Bluff Markets Have Called Kim's Bluff Markets Have Called Kim's Bluff Chart 3North Korea Is Running Out Of Cash North Korea Is Running Out Of Cash North Korea Is Running Out Of Cash We expected this choice given Pyongyang's considerable military constraints. Kim is a rational actor following his father Kim Jong Il's nuclear negotiations playbook.3 Just as brinkmanship reached new highs, Kim Jong Un declared victory and offered to play nice. Specifically, he launched his most advanced missile yet on November 28 (the Hwasong-15) and immediately thereafter North Korean state media declared that North Korea has "finally realized the great historic cause of completing the state nuclear force," complete with a fireworks celebration in Pyongyang.4 Kim confirmed this message personally on January 1 while offering an olive branch to South Korea for the New Year. Apparently, then, Kim is responsive to the United States' threats of devastating military retaliation against any attack. Kim is also responsive to the fact that China's President Xi Jinping has joined the U.S. coalition imposing sanctions on the North (Chart 3), squeezing North Korea's economy. The deep drop in exports to China suggests that the North will run into foreign-exchange problems if it does not adjust its posture - not to mention shortages of goods like fuel that China is gradually cutting off (Chart 4). In short, the U.S. established a credible military threat in 2017, just as it did with Iran in 2012 (Chart 5). China responded to the U.S. and established a credible economic threat of its own. Kim has de-escalated. Kim said in his New Year declaration that he would only use his nuclear deterrent if the U.S. committed an act of aggression. Rhetoric about destroying American cities is gone. Meanwhile Kim has engaged South Korea in direct negotiations, with military-to-military talks possibly to follow, and both sides will make a display of friendship at the Olympic Games in South Korea in February. Chart 4China Is Enforcing Sanctions China Is Enforcing Sanctions China Is Enforcing Sanctions Chart 5Credible Threat Cycle: North Korea Mirrors Iran Watching Five Risks Watching Five Risks While our view that diplomacy will reduce tensions is on track, we caution that the underlying disagreement is driven by North Korea's weapon capabilities and remains unresolved. The North Korean issue is not a red herring and the diplomatic route may continue to be bumpy from time to time.5 Markets could still be rattled by surprise North Korean provocations. Nevertheless, we do not expect a replay of the 2017 level of "fire and fury" that caused the U.S. 10-year treasury yield to drop from 2.31% to 2.05% between June and September 2017. If the North should jerk back toward a belligerent posture and decisively throw away this opportunity for diplomacy, then we will watch closely to determine whether its provocations truly alter the status quo and whether the U.S. shows any sign of greater willingness to respond with force. Otherwise we will simply monitor the diplomatic talks and watch for any signs of internal stress in North Korea as global sanctions tighten.6 Bottom Line: Korean risks remain market-relevant as the crisis is not resolved and talks are just beginning. Nevertheless, diplomacy is taking shape. We remain long the Korean two-year government bond versus the ten-year on the back of global trends and continued de-escalation. China-U.S. Relations May Sour Anyway Over the past year we have warned clients that U.S.-China tensions are the fundamental source of geopolitical risk globally and in Asia Pacific; that North Korea is a derivative of this fact; and that China's cooperation in policing North Korea would only temporarily dissuade the Trump administration from imposing punitive measures on China over trade. Despite China's assistance with North Korea, Trump will be driven by domestic American politics to slap tariffs on China in addition to those levied on January 22.7 First, Trump is committed to an "America First" trade policy and to economic nationalist voters. Thus he may need to show more muscle against China ahead of the midterm elections. This is particularly true for the key rust-belt states that handed him the election in 2016, where four Democratic senators' seats are in competition in November (not to mention nine other senate seats that could be swayed for similar reasons) (Chart 6). It is politically embarrassing to Trump that China racked up its largest trade surplus ever with the U.S. in his first year in office and is on track to continue racking up surpluses (Chart 7). While Beijing has vowed to open up market access and import more goods and services, these promises have yet to impress (Chart 8). Chart 6Trump's Base Expects Protectionism Trump's Base Expects Protectionism Trump's Base Expects Protectionism Chart 7China's Exports To U.S. Are Growing... China's Exports To U.S. Are Growing... China's Exports To U.S. Are Growing... Administrative rulings on several trade disputes early this year will give Trump ample opportunity to take additional trade action against China. The critical question, however, is whether Trump will continue to focus on item-by-item trade remedies (perhaps at an accelerated pace), or whether he goes beyond previous administrations and demands that China make progress on structural and systemic issues. The latter is more politically difficult and would have greater macro consequences. The U.S. has recently suggested that it made a mistake by bringing China into the WTO. This comes after the December WTO meeting in which the administration was able to secure a joint statement with Japan and Europe that increased the pressure on China.8 At the same time, Trump is weighing a significant decision (due by August, but possible any day now) on China's alleged systemic intellectual property theft, which Trump says is likely to require a "fine" (penalty). And comments by White House officials suggest that the administration may be going after China's promotion of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) as well as forced technology transfers (Chart 9).9 These are structural demands on China that will create much bigger frictions than tariffs on a few sub-sectors. Chart 8...While Imports Remain Tepid ...While Imports Remain Tepid ...While Imports Remain Tepid Chart 9Foreign Firms Forced To Transfer Tech Foreign Firms Forced To Transfer Tech Foreign Firms Forced To Transfer Tech Second, assuming that the U.S. and international community reach some kind of deal to reduce Korean tensions over the next six-to-eighteen months - for instance, a missile-test moratorium and corresponding easing of sanctions. It is likely still to be a complicated and ugly deal, as Pyongyang has no intention of giving up its nuclear and missile capabilities. The U.S. will have to make unpopular compromises with a rogue regime, comparable to the Iranian nuclear deal of 2015. The deal will leave a bitter taste in Trump's mouth and the administration will likely blame China for failing to prevent the North from achieving its nuclear status. It will rotate to address other long-standing disagreements with China, and may well look for compensation for Korea by taking a harder line on trade. Bottom Line: Korean diplomacy may delay or soften Trump's trade policies but cannot change his domestic political calculus. The Trump administration is more, not less, likely to impose further punitive trade measures on China as the midterm election draws near. We expect Chinese equity volatility to remain high. We are closing our recommendation to go long the CBOE China ETF Volatility Index, which has appreciated by 26.5%. This is not an investable index but an indicator of volatility in ETFs. A Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis? The rumor is going around that China and Taiwan are on the verge of a "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis." Clients all over the world - from Hong Kong to San Francisco to Toronto - are asking us about cross-strait tensions and the risk of war. As we go to press, Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen has just publicly acknowledged that war is possible. Taiwan could indeed be a geopolitical "black swan." It was one of our top five black swans for 2016,10 and several extraordinary events that year suggested that our concerns are warranted: China cut off all communication with the island; the Taiwanese navy accidentally fired a missile towards the mainland on the Communist Party's birthday; and a U.S. president-elect spoke directly with a Taiwanese president for the first time since 1979, creating an uproar in Beijing.11 Today, in the wake of Xi Jinping's concentration of power at the nineteenth National Party Congress,12 and Beijing's heavy-handed crackdown on Hong Kong throughout 2017,13 there is renewed concern that China is about to stage a major intervention to rein in Taiwan. There is even talk that China could be preparing to mount a surprise attack.14 The rumors are arising from a confluence of events. On the mainland side, Xi is personally powerful and has made it a priority to lead China into a "New Era" of greater Chinese influence globally. This means that a decision to take bolder action on Taiwan could come from individual whim rather than a collective decision within the party (which would tend to maintain the status quo). Xi has also taken personal control of the military through promotions, and reasserted that the "party controls the gun," making it less likely that he would meet institutional resistance in any major foreign policy initiative. Finally, Xi has hardened Communist Party policies toward Taiwan, reflected in increased military drills, controversial new air traffic routes, and tougher language in the five-year policy blueprint that he presented to the party congress. On the Taiwanese side, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which is the party that leans toward independence from the mainland, dominates the country's politics. The DPP not only won the presidency but also won legislative control for the first time in the January 2016 election.15 The DPP is also the leading party on lower levels of government. And young Taiwanese people increasingly identify as exclusively Taiwanese.16 While President Tsai has been relatively pragmatic so far, her party has fewer domestic political constraints than in the past - leaving room for the party's more radical side to have more influence or for Tsai to overreach. Internationally, Tsai has allies in Trump and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan - both nationalists who favor Taiwan and harbor deep suspicions about the reviving communism emanating from Beijing. Hence we still see Taiwan as a potential black swan event in the coming years. However, we would put a near 0% subjective probability on the likelihood that China will spring a massive surprise attack in the near future. Why? Xi is not yet breaking the status quo: Xi has not yet shown himself to be a reckless revisionist. China's foreign policy assertiveness is a gradual process that began in the mid-2000s - it traces the country's growing economic importance and need for supply-line security (Chart 10). Xi has trod carefully in both the East and South China Seas, and both of these strategic thrusts are connected with China's security vis-à-vis Taiwan, as well as vis-à-vis the U.S. and Japan. There is no reason to think that China is ready to launch a multi-front attack against the combined forces of the U.S., Taiwan, Japan, and the rest of the American alliance system. North Korea's new missile capabilities do not tip the scales in China's favor either. Incidentally, even Xi's tougher rhetoric at the party congress echoed the 2005 "Anti-Secession" law, so that more evidence would be needed to conclude that a drastic policy shift is under way.17 China may even want to avoid antagonizing the Taiwanese ahead of local elections later this year. Trump is not yet breaking the status quo: Trump's Asia policy has been consistent with that of previous administrations.18 And Trump's moves to assure Taiwan of U.S. commitment to its defense are status quo. After all, the Democratic Party is historically more enthusiastic about supplying Taiwan with arms (Chart 11). Trump has assured Xi Jinping he will adhere to the "One China" policy; and it is rarely observed that Trump's controversial phone call with Taiwanese President Tsai followed the first-ever tête-à-tête between a Chinese president and his Taiwanese counterpart.19 As long as Trump upholds the norm, the U.S. remains committed to Taiwan's defense yet will refuse to let Taiwan lock it into excessive tensions with China. This policy actually reduces the probability of a miscalculation by Beijing or Taipei. By contrast, the probability would rise if China and Taiwan perceived that the U.S. was withdrawing from its commitments, as Taiwan might want to suck the U.S. back in, or China might see Taiwan as vulnerable. Incidentally, if the Trump administration is not rushing into conflict over Taiwan, then Japan's Abe administration certainly is not. Tsai is not yet breaking the status quo: President Tsai has so far played a pragmatic role. While she is dissatisfied with the "1992 Consensus," which holds that there is only "One China" but two different interpretations of it, she has not rejected the status quo, and she has not implied that Taiwan should be its own state (either of which would cause a huge reaction from the mainland). And there is no serious prospect of a popular independence referendum ("Twexit"?) on the horizon, which would assuredly prompt Beijing to aggressive measures. Chart 10China's Assertiveness Grows With Trade China's Assertiveness Grows With Trade China's Assertiveness Grows With Trade Chart 11Trump Has Not Changed Status Quo Trump Has Not Changed Status Quo Trump Has Not Changed Status Quo In order for us to increase the probability of a Taiwanese war, we would have to see one of these three players start behaving in a way that truly violates the status quo that has prevailed since the U.S. and China normalized relations in 1979. The real risk for Taiwan comes if the U.S. and China fail to arrest the secular decline in relations that began in the mid-2000s. A serious misunderstanding between these two would have a range of global repercussions, and could lead to miscalculation over Taiwan. Unfortunately, a miscalculation is conceivable within Trump's and Tsai's terms, which last until 2020. Consider the following scenario as an example. The U.S. is currently demanding that China assist with the North Korean problem, and may believe that it can compensate China by delaying any punitive trade measures. However, China may be expecting something else - it may be expecting the U.S. to downgrade relations with Taiwan. (In other words, China says, we diminish the North Korean threat to the U.S. mainland, you diminish the Taiwanese threat to the Chinese mainland.) Instead of giving China what it wants, the U.S. may provide Taiwan with new weapon capabilities in response to China's militarization of the South China Sea. In this way, U.S.-China competition could shift to the Taiwan Strait in the aftermath of any Korean settlement. In the meantime, we see Taiwan as vulnerable to China's discrete economic sanctions, which China has not hesitated to use in this or other diplomatic spats (Chart 12).20 Chart 12Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Bottom Line: What is clear to us is that U.S.-China tensions continue to grow and Taiwan could become more frightened, or more emboldened, in the "security dilemma" between them. But until we see signs that any of the relevant powers are actively attempting to break the status quo, we see war as a distant prospect. More likely, today's robust trade between China and Taiwan could suffer a hit due to politics, and tit-for-tat cross-strait sanctions could be imposed. We are closing our tactical trade of long Philippine peso / short Taiwanese dollar for a loss of 5%. This was a speculative play on the divergence in diplomatic relations with China. Taiwan has allowed its currency to rise to avoid antagonizing President Trump, while China and Taiwan have so far avoided the diplomatic crisis that we expect eventually to occur, as outlined above. Iran: Could America Pivot Back To The Middle East? BCA's Geopolitical Strategy correctly forecast the U.S.-Iran détente two years before the nuclear deal was agreed in the summer of 2015.21 At the heart of this call was our read of global forces, namely the paradigm shift in the global distribution of power away from American hegemony towards multipolarity (Chart 13). As the U.S. pivoted its geopolitical focus towards China, Iran became a thorn in its side, forcing it to maintain considerable presence in the Middle East. Without a formal détente with Iran - of which the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is the fulcrum - such a pivot to Asia would be extremely difficult. On January 12, President Trump imperiled our forecast by threatening not to waive sanctions against Iran the next time they come due (May 12).22 To avoid that fate, President Trump wants to see three major changes to the JCPOA: An indefinite extension of limits on Iran's uranium enrichment; Immediate access for inspectors to all nuclear sites; Adding new provisions to limit development of ballistic missiles. These additions are likely to kill the deal, although Trump appears to have directed his comments to the European signatories only. This could potentially create a loophole in the crisis, by allowing Europe to agree to new thresholds for re-imposing sanctions outside of the deal's framework. Pressure from the U.S. president comes at a delicate time for Iran. Domestic unrest has been ongoing since December 28. Although protests have largely fizzled out, they have reopened the rift between the clerical regime, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and moderate President Hassan Rouhani. In a surprising statement, President Rouhani said, "it would be a misrepresentation and also an insult to Iranian people to say they only had economic demands ... people had economic, political, and social demands." He went on to say that "We cannot pick a lifestyle and tell two generations after us to live like that ... The views of the young generation about life and the world is different than ours." We agree with President Rouhani. First, 49% of Iran's population is under the age of 30 (Chart 14). Meanwhile, the Supreme Leader and the twelve members of the "Guardian Council" - which has the power to veto parliamentary legislation and to vet presidential candidates - have an average age of 73.23 As with the 2009 Green Revolution, which was brutally repressed, Iran's demographics provide the kindling for a potential regime change. Chart 13American Hegemony Ended,##br## Global Multipolarity Ascending American Hegemony Ended, Global Multipolarity Ascending American Hegemony Ended, Global Multipolarity Ascending Chart 14Iran's Youth:##br## A National Security Risk Iran's Youth: A National Security Risk Iran's Youth: A National Security Risk Second, Iran's economy is clearly not the main reason for the angst. While unemployment is elevated at 12%, it is only slightly above its two-decade average. Meanwhile, inflation is well below its average, with real GDP growth at 5.8% by the end of 2016 (Chart 15). Considering that inflation peaked at 44%, and real GDP growth bottomed at -16% during the most severe sanctions, the current situation is not dire. What has irked the population is that while the private sector suffered throughout the sanctions ordeal, government spending remained elevated (Chart 16). This is not merely because of automatic stabilizers amidst a deep recession. Instead, Iran has elevated its military spending as new geopolitical opportunities presented themselves in the region (Chart 17). It currently spends more on its military as a percent of GDP than any peer in the region (save for Saudi Arabia, its chief rival). It is openly engaged in military conflict in both Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, while it continues to support allies militarily, economically, and diplomatically across the region, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon. Chart 15Economic Situation Poor But Not Dire Economic Situation Poor But Not Dire Economic Situation Poor But Not Dire Chart 16Government Felt No Pain During Sanctions Government Felt No Pain During Sanctions Government Felt No Pain During Sanctions Chart 17Iran Overspends On Military Iran Overspends On Military Iran Overspends On Military Third, Chart 18 shows that Iran is becoming "dangerously wealthy." Both the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the 2009 Green Revolution occurred at, or near, the peak of Iran's wealth. The 25 years preceding each event saw the country's GDP per capita triple and double, respectively. Chart 18Wealth Is Also A National Security Risk Wealth Is Also A National Security Risk Wealth Is Also A National Security Risk Political scientists Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel have empirically shown that wealth changes people's basic values and beliefs, from political and economic beliefs to religion and sexual mores.24 This is the process of modernization. Economic development gives rise to cultural changes that make individual autonomy, gender equality, and even democracy likely. Iran has essentially come full circle since 1979. We suspect that the conservative hardliners in the regime understand the revolutionary context well. After all, they were themselves in their 30s when they rebelled against the old corrupt regime. As such, they will welcome President Trump's pressure as it gives them a raison d'être and an opportunity to undermine the moderate President Rouhani who staked his presidency on the success of the nuclear deal. The risk in this scenario is that the domestic arena of the ongoing "two-level game" will prevent both the U.S. and Iran from backing away from a confrontation. Iranian hardliners, who control part of the armed forces, could lash out in the Persian Gulf, either by rhetorically threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz - as they did repeatedly in 2011 - or by boarding foreign vessels in international waters.25 Geopolitical tensions would therefore serve to undermine President Rouhani's embrace of diplomacy and to de-legitimize any further protests, which would be deemed treasonous. For Trump, a belligerent Iranian response to his pressure would in turn legitimize his suspicion of the nuclear deal. What about the global constraints of multipolarity that compelled the U.S. to seek a détente with Iran in order to pivot to Asia? They remain in place. As such, President Trump's simultaneous pressure on Iran and China runs counter to U.S. strategy, given its limited material resources and diplomatic bandwidth. It is therefore unsustainable. What we cannot forecast, however, is whether the White House will realize this before or after it commits the U.S. to a serious confrontation. Bottom Line: Domestic political calculus in both Iran and the U.S. make further Tehran-Washington tensions likely. The two countries are playing a dangerous two-level game that could spiral out of control in the Middle East. For the time being, however, we expect merely a minor geopolitical risk premium to seep into the energy markets, supporting our bullish BCA House View on oil prices. NAFTA: Of Global Relevance On a recent client trip through Toronto and Ottawa we were unsurprisingly asked a lot of questions regarding the fate of NAFTA. The deal is not just of importance to Canada but to the world. It is a bellwether for our low-conviction view that President Trump is going to moderate to the middle on policy issues ahead of the midterm elections. We encourage clients to read our November Special Report titled "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism."26 In it, we cautioned clients that the probability of NAFTA being abrogated by Trump is around 50%. Why so high? Because there are few constraints: Economic: The U.S. economy has been largely unaffected by NAFTA (Chart 19) and would likely experience no disruption if Trump abrogated the deal and began negotiations on bilateral trade agreements with Canada and Mexico. Political: Investors and the media are overstating the importance of the Midwest automotive and agricultural sectors to Trump's base. Trump's Midwest voters knew well his view on NAFTA when they voted for him. In fact, they voted for him because of his NAFTA view. Investors have to realize that Americans do not support unbridled free trade (Chart 20). Constitutional/Legal: There is an argument that Congress could stop President Trump from withdrawing from NAFTA, but the only way to do so would be to nullify his executive orders or legislate a law that prevents the president from withdrawing. However, given the point from above, Congress is afraid to go against the median voter. The immediate implications for investors are that both the CAD and MXN could face downside pressure following the Montreal round of negotiations ending January 29. Both fell by 1.2% and 1.9% respectively in the week of trading following the third round of negotiations in September (Chart 21). Chart 19U.S. Economy:##br## Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA Chart 20America Belongs To##br## The Anti-Globalization Bloc Watching Five Risks Watching Five Risks Chart 21NAFTA Negotiations##br## Are FX-Relevant NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant More broadly, NAFTA is an important bellwether for the direction of Trump's policy. He has practically no constraints to abrogating the deal. If his intention is to renegotiate two separate deals - or simply reactivate the 1988 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement - then it makes sense for him to end NAFTA and score political points at home. As such, if he does not, it will indicate that the White House is not truly populist but has been captured by the Republican establishment. Bottom Line: If President Trump does not abrogate NAFTA, which comes with few constraints, then he has clearly decided to throw his lot in with the U.S. establishment, which has consistently been more pro-trade than the American voter. This would be highly bullish for investors as it would suggest that the (geo)political risk premium would dissipate going forward. In fact, the decision on NAFTA could be a broad indicator for future decisions on trade relations with China, Iranian sanctions, and policy writ large. For if Trump sides with the establishment on an issue with minimal constraints, then he is more likely to do so on issues with greater constraints. This month, we are closing our 2/30 curve steepener recommendation, which is down 90bps since inception. The two alternative ways we have played rising U.S. growth and inflation prospects - shorting the 10-year Treasury vs. the Bunds and shorting the Fed Funds December 2018 futures - are in the money, 27bps and 46bs respectively. We are keeping both open for now. In addition, we are closing our long French industrial equities relative to German industrials for a gain of 10.26%. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 The playbook is really Nikita Khruschev's. 4 Please see "NK celebrates completion of nuke arsenal with fireworks," The Korea Herald, December 2, 2017, available at www.koreaherald.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Trump decided to impose tariffs on solar panels and washing machine, mostly affecting China and South Korea, on January 22. On steel and aluminum, Trump has until late April to decide, i.e. 90 days after reports from the Commerce Department due Jan. 15 and Jan. 22. Please see Andrew Restuccia and Doug Palmer, "White House preparing for trade crackdown," Politico, dated January 7, 2018, available at www.politico.com. 8 The U.S. Trade Representative's latest edition of an annual report to Congress over China's compliance with World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments declares that the U.S. "erred in supporting China's entry into the WTO on terms that have proven to be ineffective in securing China's embrace of an open, market-oriented trade regime." Please see "Joint Statement by the United States, European Union and Japan at MC11," December 2017, and "USTR Releases Annual Reports on China's and Russia's WTO Compliance," dated January 2018, available at ustr.gov. 9 Please see Lesley Wroughton, "Trump administration says U.S. mistakenly backed China WTO accession in 2001," Reuters, January 19, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see "China cuts communication with Taiwan," Al Jazeera, June 25, 2016, available at www.aljazeera.com; "Taiwan mistakenly fires supersonic missile killing one," BBC, July 1, 2016, available at www.bbc.com; Mark Landler and David E. Sanger, "Trump Speaks With Taiwan's Leader, An Affront To China," New York Times, December 2, 2016, available at www.nytimes.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see "U.S.-China: From Rivalry To Proxy Wars" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Xi Jinping is rumored to have told Communist Party leaders in 2012 that the country would invade Taiwan by 2020. Please see Ian Easton, The Chinese Invasion Threat: Taiwan's Defense and American Strategy in Asia (Project 2049 Institute, 2017). 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan's Election: How Dire Will The Straits Get?" dated January 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 National Chengchi University's long-running data series on Taiwanese identity shows that 58% of Taiwanese people identify as Taiwanese, and 70% under the age of 40. However, 77.5% of twenty-year olds also support the political status quo, i.e. do not seek political independence. Please see Marie-Alice McLean-Dreyfus, "Taiwan: Is there a political generation gap?" dated June 9, 2017, available at lowyinstitute.org. 17 Please see Richard C. Bush, "What Xi Jinping Said About Taiwan At The 19th Party Congress," Brookings Institution, October 19, 2017, available at www.brookings.edu. 18 Even the North Korea threat portfolio was bequeathed to him from former President Barack Obama, and it is being managed largely by the Pentagon and navy. 19 In other words, the incoming Trump administration implied that if China's leader Xi Jinping can speak directly to Taiwan's leader Ma Ying-jeou, then U.S. President Donald Trump can speak to Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. This is a sign that alliances are alive and well, and that there are tensions, but it is not a harbinger of war. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Does It Pay To Pivot To China?" dated July 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 The JCPOA did not actually legislate the removal of sanctions against Iran as the Obama administration was unable to get the Republican-controlled Senate to agree. Instead, the president has to use his executive authority to continue waiving sanctions against Iran. 23 That is only two years away from the average life expectancy in Iran. 24 Please see Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 25 Iranian military personnel - almost always the Navy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards - seized British Royal Navy personnel in 2007 and U.S. Navy personnel in 2016. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Slower global demand growth, coupled with surging production from the U.S. shales and higher OPEC 2.0 production, risks reversing the progress made in draining global commercial oil storage and tanking prices in 2019.1 Our updated balances modelling is in agreement with the backwardation in forward Brent and WTI curves, but, if anything, indicates the backwardation should be more pronounced: We are forecasting Brent and WTI prices next year will average $55 and $53/bbl, respectively, vs. $62.80/bbl and $57.40/bbl average prices for 2019's forward curves. For 2018, we are maintaining our $67 and $63/bbl expectation for Brent and WTI, although our modelling indicates higher prices are a distinct possibility, given our fundamental assumptions of falling supply and rising demand this year (Chart of the Week). Energy: Overweight. We liquidated our May and July Brent and WTI $55 vs. $60/bbl call spreads last week with gains of 110.1% and 129.0%. We will be liquidating our Dec/18 Brent and WTI $55 vs. $60/bbl call spreads at tonight's close; they were up 62.3% and 82.1% as of Tuesday. We remain long Jul/18 vs. Dec/18 WTI (up 47.4%), and long the S&P GSCI (up 8.5%), expecting backwardation. We will get long $55 Brent Puts vs. short $50 Brent Puts in 4Q19 at tonight's close. Base Metals: Neutral. We continue to expect base metals to remain well supported in 1H18 by environmental reforms in China, and supply uncertainty around contract renegotiations at the copper mines. The global expansion underpinning demand will compensate for slower Chinese growth in 2H18. Precious Metals: Neutral. Our long gold portfolio hedge is up 8.5% since inception in May/17. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Soybean markets rallied following last week's USDA WASDE report, but grains fell amid data indicating these markets will remain oversupplied. Feature If there is one truth in commodity markets it is this: The best cure for high prices is high prices, and vice versa. This is being dramatically demonstrated by OPEC 2.0 in its collective action to remove 1.8mm b/d of production from the market following disastrously low prices in 2015 - 16. Higher prices in 4Q17 and 1H18 oil futures are incentivizing a surge in U.S. shale output, and will give OPEC 2.0 comfort in slowly feeding output taken offline at the beginning of 2017 back into the market in 2H18 and 2019 (Chart 2). Higher prices and tightening monetary conditions globally will slow the rate of growth in demand next year (Chart 3). Chart of the WeekFundamentals##BR##Support Oil In 2018 Fundamentals Support Oil In 2018 Fundamentals Support Oil In 2018 Chart 2Non-OPEC Production##BR##Will Surge Non-OPEC Production Will SurgeV Non-OPEC Production Will SurgeV Chart 3Strong Consumption Growth In 2018,##BR##Tempered By Higher Prices In 2019 Strong Consumption Growth In 2018, Tempered By Higher Prices In 2019 Strong Consumption Growth In 2018, Tempered By Higher Prices In 2019 Given these fundamental inputs, we expect to see Brent averaging $55/bbl next year, and WTI averaging $53/bbl next year. Our forecast is highly uncertain, given the actual evolution of prices will, once again, depend on actions taken by OPEC 2.0 and the forward guidance provided by its leadership, KSA and Russia. Our forecast for 2018 - $67/bbl for Brent and $63/bbl for WTI - remains unchanged. If anything, our unconstrained models (Chart of the Week) have more upside risk than our forecast suggests, largely from falling production and surging demand - not to mention unplanned production outages. Looking to the end of 2019 from today, the backwardation we expect is greater than what is being priced into the Brent and WTI forward curves presently. Growth In U.S. Shales Dominates Non-OPEC Gains We are expecting U.S. crude oil production growth will dominate the increase in non-OPEC output in 2018 and 2019 (Chart 2, top panel). U.S. shale-oil output rises by 970k b/d and another 1.18mm b/d, respectively, this year and in 2019. By our reckoning, this will lift total U.S. crude oil production to 10.22mm b/d this year, a record level of output, and to 11.44mm b/d on average next year. Total U.S. crude and liquids output therefore rises from just under 17mm b/d in 2018 to 18.5mm b/d by the end of 2019. If our estimates are correct, the U.S. will join Russia in producing more than 11mm b/d of crude oil next year, and may even exceed it. Russia is expected to raise production slightly. As one of the putative leaders of OPEC 2.0, we expect Russia to maintain its 300k b/d production cut in 1H18, which will keep its overall liquids production steady at ~ 11.17mm b/d through June. In 2H18, Russia will gradually restore production to an average of 11.24mm b/d, reaching 11.4mm b/d by December. For 2019, we expect total Russian liquids production to average 11.35mm b/d, up ~ 140k b/d yoy. OPEC's return will be led by the Cartel's Gulf producers, which are expected to raise crude production 450k b/d this year and 350k b/d next year (Chart 2, bottom panel). Total production in Gulf OPEC states will reach 25.25mm b/d on average in 2019. This will, of course, be dominated by KSA, which we expect will lift crude production to ~ 10.36mm b/d in 2H18 after holding crude output steady at ~ 10mm b/d in 1H18 over-delivering vs. its quota under the OPEC 2.0 Agreement. For 2019, we expect KSA to maintain production above 10.1mm b/d.2 Non-Gulf OPEC producers, on the other hand, will see their production fall 140k b/d this year, and another 240k b/d next year, leaving it at 7.49mm b/d on average in 2019, in our estimation. The contribution of these states to the OPEC 2.0 production cuts has been "managing" their respective decline curves. It is highly unlikely they will see production surge following the expiration of the OPEC 2.0 agreement at the end of this year. Overall, we expect global crude and liquids production to reach 100mm b/d this year, and 102.2mm b/d next year (Table 1). Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (mm b/d) Lower Oil Prices In 2019 Will Test OPEC 2.0 Lower Oil Prices In 2019 Will Test OPEC 2.0 Oil Demand Surges This Year, But Slows In 2019 The global economic expansion will lift oil demand above 100mm b/d this year to 100.3mm b/d. This will be led, as always, by non-OECD growth, which we expect to increase 1.24mm b/d this year to 52.8mm b/d (Chart 3, top panel). DM demand - i.e., OECD consumption - will increase 440k b/d this year, to 47.5mm b/d, based on our estimates. Overall global demand rises 1.68mm b/d this year, by our reckoning (Chart 3). We expect tighter financial conditions this year and next will, with the lags typical of monetary policy, slow the rate of growth in oil demand next year. This will be delivered by tightening monetary policy, led by the U.S. Fed, and a mild recession next year, most likely in 2H19. We expect global demand to grow 1.57mm b/d next year, rising to just under 102mm b/d. EM demand will grow 1.21mm b/d, while DM demand will be up 360k b/d next year. Tightening Balances Will Reverse In 2H18 The yeoman effort put forth by OPEC 2.0 in reducing output and draining commercial inventories globally will reach its apotheosis by the end of 1H18 (Charts 4). Thereafter, as production grows and demand begins to slow, our balances indicate inventories will start to grow again (Chart 5). Chart 4Supply-Demand Balances##BR##No Longer Tightening In 2019 ... Supply-Demand Balances No Longer Tightening In 2019... Supply-Demand Balances No Longer Tightening In 2019... Chart 5... Leading To##BR##Inventory Accumulation ... Leading To Inventory Accumulation ... Leading To Inventory Accumulation Markets likely will start focusing on the implications of OPEC 2.0 returning production to the market and the surge in shale in 2H18 and during 2019. Non-forecastable events notwithstanding - e.g., a breakdown in Venezuela's production and exports - markets will be looking to OPEC 2.0 leadership for guidance on how the coalition will manage member-state production from 2H18 forward. If the OPEC 2.0 coalition is allowed to dissolve - something we do not expect - and a production free-for-all resumes similar to that of 2015 - 16, another round of supply destruction, brought about by lower prices, likely will ensue. This would greatly restrict E&P and services companies' access to capital, should it occur, and would, once again, imperil the economies of OPEC 2.0. In addition, because such volatility would discourage investment once again, it would set up a powerful price rally in the early 2020s following the attendant collapse in capex and E&P spending, as occurred in the previous down-cycle. We doubt this is the desired outcome of the OPEC 2.0 leadership, particularly KSA, as the Kingdom will be looking to IPO Saudi Aramco later this year to fund its Vision 2030 diversification efforts. We also doubt this is the desired outcome of Russia, given the economic pain it endured in the 2015 - 16 episode. More Frequent OPEC 2.0 Guidance Expected Given these considerations, we expect KSA and Russia to increase the frequency of forward guidance, directing market participants toward a preferred price band. Right now, this looks like a $50 to $60/bbl range - the 2018 forecast given by Russia's Energy Minister Alexander Novak earlier this week.3 It would be incumbent on OPEC 2.0 leadership to guide markets to expect production and inventory responses consistent with such guidance. We think the combination of OPEC 2.0 production restraint and the powerful synchronized global growth already in place puts Energy Minister Novak's guidance out of range for this year, and we are sticking with our forecasts for Brent and WTI. However, beginning in 2H18, a 2019 Brent forecast in Novak's range appears reasonable, based on the fundamentals discussed above. And, our WTI forecast of $53/bbl also is reasonable, given the average marginal cost of producing in the most prolific fields in the U.S. are at or below $50/bbl, according to the Dallas Fed's periodic Energy Survey.4 We believe the massive drawdown in global oil inventories to be the first step in a longer-term strategy by OPEC 2.0 countries. Lower OECD commercial inventory levels will diminish their shock-absorbing capacity, leading to a higher responsiveness of oil prices to supply-demand shocks. This will allow the coalition to exert greater control over oil prices via rapid, flexible storage adjustments and spare capacity management. Therefore, this year's out-of-range prices will be tolerated by Russia and KSA to achieve their optimal level of global inventories. A $50-to-$60/bbl Brent range for OPEC 2.0 would be consistent with a longer-term strategy to maximize the period of time hydrocarbons are the primary transportation fuel in the world. This is the only way to achieve the development goals set out by leaders of various oil-exporting states seeking to diversify the economic underpinnings of these economies. To do so, they have to keep oil-based transportation competitive for decades. Too much volatility - i.e., frequent excursions between very high and very low prices - will severely limit the access to capital these societies need to pull off this diversification. Managing production in a way that limits this volatility and keeps oil competitive in transport markets therefore is critical. Bottom Line: High prices will cause crude oil production to surge this year and next, particularly in the U.S. shales, and demand growth to slow. We expect Brent prices to average $67/bbl this year and $55/bbl next year. WTI prices will average $63/bbl this year and $53/bbl next year. We expect OPEC 2.0 to increase the frequency of its forward guidance - and to follow through on production and inventory adjustment in a manner that supports a desired price range for Brent prices in 2019 and into the 2020s. Right now, that range looks like $50 to $60/bbl. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 OPEC 2.0 is a name we coined to describe the oil-producer coalition led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia, which was formed at the end of 2016 to rein in out-of-control global oil production by cutting production some 1.4 to 1.5mm b/d last year (vs. a target of 1.8mm b/d). The coalition has been remarkably successful in maintaining production discipline in 2017 and extending their deal to the end of 2018 with an option to review quotas in June. We expect OPEC 2.0 to gradually return production taken off the market over the course of 2H18, which will, by next year, most likely reverse the draws seen in global inventories. 2 KSA's production should lift next year as pipeline repairs at its giant Manifa field are completed. Corrosion problems took some 300k of 900k b/d total production offline. In addition, there is another 500k b/d of capacity offline in the Neutral Zone shared with Kuwait. KSA's capacity likely will remain ~ 11.7mm b/d, versus its historical 12.5mm level, but as Energy Intelligence notes, it will have to balance actual production with spare capacity for the next year or so. Please see "A Headache for Aramco," published July 2017 by Energy Intelligence on its website. 3 Please see "CORRECTED-UPDATE 5-Brent oil falls by $1 but demand underpins near $70/barrel," published by uk.reuters.com on January 16, 2018. 4 In its December 2017 Dallas Fed Energy Survey, the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas reported the WTI price shale operators needed to profitably drill a new well in Texas and Oklahoma averaged $49/bbl (simple, unweighted survey average). The lowest cost was in the Permian Midland formation ($46/bbl) and the highest costs was in so-called Other U.S. (shale) at $55/bbl. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Lower Oil Prices In 2019 Will Test OPEC 2.0 Lower Oil Prices In 2019 Will Test OPEC 2.0 Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017 Lower Oil Prices In 2019 Will Test OPEC 2.0 Lower Oil Prices In 2019 Will Test OPEC 2.0