Emerging Markets

Highlights Clients frequently ask us what long-term returns they should assume when constructing strategic portfolios. In this report, we use a range of methodologies to arrive at reasonable return assumptions for bonds, equities, alternative assets, and currencies on a 10-15 year investment horizon. We conclude that global bonds are likely to return around 1.5% in nominal terms (compared to 5.3% over the past 20 years), and global equities 4.6% (compared to 6.1%). Alternative assets look rather more attractive with, for example, private equity projected to return 9% and real estate 7.1%. Nonetheless, the typical pension fund portfolio, consisting of 50% equities, 30% fixed income, and 20% alts, will be unable to achieve its return target (still typically 7% or higher). Feature Pension plan sponsors and wealth managers need realistic assumptions about the likely returns from different assets in order to construct strategic portfolios, for example when calculating the efficient frontier using a mean-variance optimizer (MVO). Using historical data is the simplest way to do this, but can be very misleading: for example, global bonds have delivered an annual nominal return of 5.3% over the past 20 years but, with bond yields currently so low, it is almost mathematically impossible for them to return anything close to that over coming years (our estimate for future returns is 1.5%). This Special Report is our attempt to produce long-run return assumptions for strategic portfolios, something that GAA clients frequently ask us for. We want to emphasize that these are reasonable assumptions, not forecasts. The value of forecasting the world economy over the next decade or more is questionable. Consider if we had carried out this exercise in 2002: how likely is it that we would have predicted the rise and fall of emerging markets, the U.S. housing crisis, and the subsequent "secular stagnation"? Our analysis, therefore, is mostly based on the philosophy that long-run historical relationships (for example, credit spreads, or the excess return of small cap stocks) are fairly constant, and that most variables (profit margins, valuation, productivity) mean revert over the long term. Our time horizon is 10-15 years. We chose this - rather than the five or seven years that is perhaps more common in such analyses - because it is closer to the investment horizon of pension funds and most individual investors. It also allows us to avoid making a call on where we are currently in the cycle, and how long the next recession and expansion will last. It is likely we are close to the peak of the current economic expansion and equity bull market (the "X" on Chart 1): choosing a shorter time horizon would mean making judgements about the timing of the cycle. Conceptually, we prefer to forecast the trend line on the chart. Chart 1Stylized Trend Versus Cyclical Movements Our assumptions are inevitably approximate. In many cases (particularly for equity returns), we use multiple methodologies and take the average result. Does it matter that the estimation error of our assumptions is likely to be large? Most academic evidence finds not.1 The reason is that, for closely correlated assets, errors in the return estimates (and therefore the optimal weights in a portfolio) will not greatly affect a portfolio's risk and return; while, for assets that are very different, errors in the estimates will not have much effect on the optimal portfolio weights. Rough estimates, therefore, are sufficient for portfolio construction purposes. In any case, using common-sense projections is better than unrealistic historical averages, and investors do need some assumptions to work with when constructing portfolios. How To Forecast Economic Growth A key input (especially when considering earnings growth, which is one factor driving equity returns) is the likely rate of economic growth in various countries and regions over our time horizon. Our simplified way of deriving this is to assume that GDP growth is a factor of (1) demographics (specifically, the growth in the population of working age), and (2) productivity growth. (We assume that capital intensity is steady.) For the demographic assumptions, we use the United Nations' median forecast of the annual growth in population aged 25-64 between 2015 and 2030 (Table 1). Productivity growth is harder to estimate. Productivity has been poor in recent years compared to history (Chart 2). There is significant uncertainty about whether this is caused by cyclical factors (the Great Recession, for example) or structural factors (the end of positive effects from the IT revolution etc.), and whether a potential new wave of technology (artificial intelligence, self-driving vehicles) will raise productivity in future. Table 1Demographic Assumptions Chart 2Productivity Growth Our approach is to assume that productivity in the U.S. will return to its 40-year average, and that productivity growth in the main European economies will be 50 bp lower than the U.S. and in Japan 80 bp lower (in line with recent averages). The estimate is harder for emerging markets, so we use two scenarios: one in which structural reforms, particularly in China, bring productivity growth back up to the average of the past 10 years, 3.5%; and a second scenario in which governments fail to reform, and therefore productivity growth continues to fall to only 1%. For inflation, we assume that central banks over the long-term largely achieve their current inflation goals. The results of our assumptions for GDP growth are shown in Table 2. Table 3 shows the summary of our results: the 10-15 year return assumptions for all the assets in our analysis. We also show historic returns and volatility for comparison (for the past 20 years, where data is available). Below, we describe in detail how we arrived at these numbers. Table 2GDP Growth Assumptions Table 3BCA Assumed Returns All our results are shown in nominal terms and in local currencies. While strictly speaking, it might be theoretically better to estimate real returns, in practice most investors and advisers tend to work on a nominal basis. Moreover, since we have made assumptions for inflation in each region, it is simple to translate our nominal returns into real ones. There is also a trade-off between inflation and currency movements (and interest rates). At the end of the report, we consider the impact of relative inflation rates on currency returns, allowing investors to work the returns back into their own currencies. 1. Fixed income We start from a base that is known: the return on long-term government bonds. If an investor today buys a 10-year U.S. Treasury bond, his or her annual nominal return over the next 10 years will almost certainly be 2.3% (today's yield). The only uncertainties come from (1) reinvesting coupons at the future rate of interest, but the impact of this is small, and (2) the (presumably minimal) risk of a U.S. government default. Of course, investors do not own just 10-year bonds, and indeed the average duration of U.S. Treasuries is currently 5.7 years. But changes in interest rates make relatively little difference to future returns: a rise in interest rates causes a capital loss but a higher yield on rolled-over positions after bonds mature (though, admittedly, the convexity effect is greater when rates are low, as they are now). Even if interest rates were to double over the next decade, the return from U.S. Treasuries would fall only to around 1.5% and, if interest rates fell to 0%, the return would be only about 3%. Moreover, the effect diminishes over time as more bonds are redeemed at par. Empirically, we can see that there is a strong correlation between starting yield on 10-year bonds and long-term returns from U.S. Treasuries (Chart 3). Chart 3Government Bond Returns Driven By The Starting Yield For our cash assumption, we first calculate a proxy for the current cash yield using the average spread between 10-year government bonds and three-month bills over a long-run history (using data from Dimson, Marsh and Staunton which goes back to 1900 and covers a range of countries, Table 4).2 While it is true that the yield curve steepens and flatten along with the cycle, the average yield curve shape should be a good proxy for long-term future expected returns. Of course, this assumes that the term premium comes back. It may not if bonds now are a good hedge against recession risk. However, we also need to take into account that interest rates and inflation are likely to change over the next 10-15 years. We assume that both will rise to an equilibrium level over that time. Our assumption is that central banks will get close to hitting their inflation targets (in the U.S., 2% on PCE inflation, which translates into 2.5% on CPI; in Europe, "around but below 2%"; and in Japan, 2%). For the equilibrium real rate, we take BCA's current estimate (Chart 4) and assume a small rise over the next decade as some of the after-effects of the Great Recession and secular stagnation wear off: to 0.4% in the U.S., -0.1% in the euro area, and -0.2% in Japan. Table 4Historic Spread Government Bonds To Bills (1900-2016) Chart 4Current Equilibrium Real Rates Our calculation of the return from cash over the 10-15 year horizon is based on a steady rise from the current cash return to that implied by the inflation and equilibrium real rate assumptions (Table 5). Table 5Calculation Of Assumption For Cash Return For other fixed-income instruments, we make the following assumptions: Government bonds. We assume that the spread between 10-year and 7-year bonds and 3-month bills will be similar to the historical average (Chart 5), and calculate the return from the government bond index based on this and our estimate for 10-year returns, adjusted by the duration of outstanding bonds in the index: 5.7 years for the U.S., 7.1 for Europe and 8.6 for Japan. For U.S. investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds, we take the average spread, default rate, and recovery rate in history (Table 6). Obviously, spreads and default rates, especially for high-yield bonds, also jump around massively over the cycle (Chart 6), but we think it is reasonable to assume in our long-term projections that they revert to the mean. Reliable data for European and Japanese credit has a short history but, over the past 10 years, spreads and default rates have been similar to the U.S., so we use the U.S. assumptions for these markets too. Chart 5Yield Curves Table 6U.S. Corporate Credit Assumptions Chart 6Credit Spreads And Default Rates Move With The Cycle Government-related bonds and securitized bonds (MBS, ABS etc.) are an important part of the Barclay's Aggregate Bond indexes: in the U.S., for example, securitized bonds comprise 31% of the index, and government-related ones 7%; in Europe, the weights are 8% and 17% respectively. For our projections of government-related bonds, we assume historic average spreads will continue (Table 7). For securitized bonds, we assume that the historic average spread in the U.S. will continue, and will be the same in Europe and Japan (where historic data is less readily available). Inflation-linked bonds. We assume that the average real yield of the past 10 years, 0%, will continue in future (Chart 7). Table 7Spreads Over Government Bonds Chart 7Real Yield On U.S. TIPs 2. Equities There are a number of ways to think about forward equity returns, all with a high degree of uncertainty. These could be based on starting valuations (but which valuation measure to use?); related to likely earnings growth in future years (hard to forecast); or based on a reversion to the mean of valuations and profits. We decided to take a range of different measures, and average the results. In practice, the results are similar, except for emerging markets (see below for more on EM). Table 8 summarizes the equity return calculations. Table 8Equity Return Calculations AVERAGE EQUITY The thinking behind the six measures we use is as follows. Equity risk premium (ERP). The most obvious methodology: historically, over the long run equities have returned more than government bonds. But which risk premium to use? Dimson, Marsh and Staunton's work includes the excess performance of equities over bonds since 1900 for a range of countries (Table 9). We decided not to choose a different ERP for each developed region, as the historical data would suggest, since it is difficult to argue that the U.S. is likely to be riskier in future than Europe and since, for parts of this history, Japan and the U.S. were essentially emerging markets. We, therefore, take a rounded average of world ERP over the past 116 years, 3.5%. For emerging markets, we multiply this by the average beta of EM relative to global equities over the past 30 years, 1.2, to give an ERP of 4.2%. Growth model. Think of a Gordon Growth Model, which defines the return from equities as the starting dividend yield plus future earnings growth (strictly speaking, dividend growth; we are assuming that the payout ratio will stay constant). We need to make a couple of adjustments to this. First, earnings growth has historically been correlated to nominal GDP growth but has lagged it - in the U.S. by 1.5 percentage points in the period 1918-2016 - although, since 1981, earnings have grown significantly faster than GDP (Chart 8). For the future, we assume that the long-run lag returns. Second, we need to add share buybacks to the dividend yield since, in some countries, such as the U.S., for tax reasons companies prefer to buy back shares rather than increase dividends. However, we should do this on a net basis since equity holders are penalized by companies that issue new shares. In the U.S. net equity withdrawal has been 0.3% over the past 10 years, but in both Europe and Japan, annual net new equity issuance has averaged 1.6% (Chart 9). In EM, the dilution has been even more extreme, averaging 6% over the past 10 years (and much more over the past 25 years). We subtract this dilution from future returns. Table 9Equity Excess Return Over Bonds Chart 8U.S. EPS Growth Versus Nominal GDP Growth Chart 9Net Equity Issuance Growth plus reversion to the mean. This takes the Gordon Growth Model but adds to it an assumption that PE multiples and profit margins revert to the historical mean. We again use dividend yield adjusted by net equity issuance. We assume that the current trailing PE and profit margin revert to the average since 1980 (see Table 8 above for the data) over the next 10 years. In the U.S., PE and margins are currently somewhat higher than history, but this is less the case in Europe or Japan (Charts 10 and 11). Additionally, assuming that the mean reversion happens over 10 years means that the effect on annual returns is not especially large, even for the U.S. Chart 10Net Profit Margin Chart 11Trailing PE History Earnings yield (EY). The simplest of the three valuation measures we use, the assumption is that companies reward shareholders either by paying them a dividend this year, or by reinvesting retained earnings to pay dividends in future. If you assume (admittedly a rash assumption) that the future return on investment will be similar to the current return on investment, it should be immaterial how the company pays out to shareholders. Therefore, the trailing earnings yield (1/PE ratio) should be a good proxy for future returns. Empirically, the relationship between earnings yield and 10-year future returns has been quite strong (Chart 12). However, returns have been somewhat higher on average than the EY would indicate (between 1900 and 2006, 9.7% versus an average EY of 7.5%) mainly because of rising PE multiples since 1980 (Chart 13). We think it unlikely that valuations will continue to rise, and so the EY should be a reasonable guide to future returns. Chart 12Earnings Yield And 10-Year Future Returns Chart 13Trailing Price/Earnings Multiple S&P500 Shiller PE. The cyclically-adjusted price/earnings ratio (CAPE, or Shiller PE) - the current share price divided by the 10 year average of historic inflation-adjusted earnings - has historically had a good correlation with future long-term returns (Chart 14). A regression model of this indicates that the current Shiller PE points to long-run forward returns for the U.S. of 4.9%, for Japan 3.6%, Europe 8.5% and EM 10.8%. Valuation composite. The Shiller PE has some flaws, for example in using a fixed 10-year period for earnings when the length of cycles varies. It has not necessarily mean-reverted in history (perhaps because of long-term trends in interest rates, which it doesn't take into account). It may be more reasonable, then, to use a mixture of different valuation metrics. BCA's Composite Valuation Indicator has had a good correlation with long-run future returns (Chart 15).3 A regression model of this indicator against 15-year returns currently points to returns from the U.S. of 5.2%, Europe of 4.1%, Japan 5.1% and EM 11.0%. Small-cap stocks. We take the 2.4% excess annual return of small cap stocks over large caps in the U.S. for 1926-2016, as calculated by Dimson, Marsh & Staunton. Chart 14Shiller PE Versus ##br##15-Year Equity Return Chart 15Composite Valuation Measure Versus ##br##Long-Run Future Returns Emerging Markets The return assumption for emerging market equity returns has a much higher degree of uncertainty. On our three valuation measures, EM equities look attractive: the average return expectation of the three valuation indicators points to an annual return of 9.4%. However, the growth outlook is murky: as described above, a wave of structural reform in emerging markets, especially China, would be necessary to keep productivity - and, therefore, earnings growth - up, in order for returns to be as good as the current valuation level suggests. Another worry is the degree of equity dilution: it has averaged 6% a year over the past 10 years, and is unlikely to fall much unless corporate governance improves significantly. The range of expected returns derived from our various methodologies, therefore, varies from -1% to +11% a year. Moreover, as described in the currency section below, investors should expect a depreciation in some EM currencies over the next decade, which will also eat into returns. However, due to the influence of China, where the currency is projected to appreciate almost 2% a year against the USD, the EM equity index will see an overall boost to USD-based returns due to the currency effect. 3. Alternative Assets We consider the likely future returns for nine of the 10 alternative assets that Global Asset Allocation regularly covers (we omit wine, which is hard to value on the basis of fundamental macro factors and, anyway, is owned by few institutional investors).4 Alts are harder to forecast than public securities since data is less easily available (and may be only quarterly and based on estimated values), and since some alternative assets have not existed in their current form for very long (venture capital, for example). Moreover, alternative assets tend to have non-normal returns with skewed distributions. Table 10 shows the historical returns and volatility of the nine alternative asset classes both over the longest period for which we have data, and since 1997, when we have data for all of them. Table 10Returns And Volatility For Alternative Assets We, therefore, take a more ad hoc approach, projecting each asset class differently. Generally, we assume that future returns will look similar to historical ones. Specifically, the assumptions we use are as follows. Hedge funds. We assume a return of cash + 3.5%. Hedge fund returns have trended down over time (Chart 16), as more entrants have arbitraged away alpha. We choose to use the average return over cash of the past 10 years, 3.5% (net of fees). It is unlikely that hedge funds returns will rise back anywhere close to earlier levels, for example that of the 1990s when they returned cash +14%. Chart 16Hedge Fund Historic Returns U.S. Direct real estate. We find reasonably good results (R2 = 24%) from regressing U.S. nominal GDP growth against real estate returns. The regression equation is 1.25 x nominal GDP growth + 1.9%. Conceptually, this probably represents a cap rate plus growth of capital values slightly higher than economic growth due to supply shortages in certain key locations. We project real estate to return 7.2% annually. One risk to this assumption, however, is that commercial real estate prices are already above the previous peak from 2007; high valuations may dampen future returns. U.S. REITs. We find only weak correlations with direct real estate investment, although REITs have outperformed real estate over time (perhaps because of the inbuilt leverage of REITs). Over time, REITs have become increasingly correlated with equities. We, therefore, use a regression against U.S. equity returns (R2 = 42%), with REIT returns 0.49 x equity returns + 7.7%. This indicates 10.1% annual return from REITs in the long run. U.S. Private equity (PE). In the past, returns from private equity have been 5 or 6 percentage points higher than from public equities. This is most likely due to their higher leverage, bias towards small-cap companies, and stronger shareholder control over the companies they invest in; it can also be thought of as an illiquidity premium. However, it seems likely that excess returns will be lower in future given the bigger size of the PE industry now and relatively high valuations currently. Moreover, the PE industry currently has almost USD 1 Trn in dry power (uninvested capital), a sign that investment opportunities are limited. We assume, therefore, a slightly lower premium over public equities in future of 4 ppts. This results in a total annual return of 9.5%. U.S. Venture capital (VC). Historically (using data since 1986) VC returns have been 0.6 ppts higher than for PE (probably representing a premium for greater risk and smaller size of the companies invested in). We assume 0.5 ppt higher return in future. This leads to a return assumption of 10%. U.S. Structured products. As discussed in the fixed income section above, we use the 20-year average spread over the aggregate bond index of 0.7 ppt. Total assumed return, therefore, is 3.3%. U.S. Farmland. The value of farmland has risen by an average of 4.4% a year since 1920, a period which included five agricultural cycles. We assume that the value of land will continue to rise at the same rate. We think this is a reasonable assumption since, although nominal GDP growth in the U.S. may be lower in future than in the past, global demand for food is likely to continue to grow rapidly. The total return from investment in farm land, using a regression, produces: growth of farm land value x 1.81 + 0.64% = 8.6%. Chart 17Long-Term Commodity Prices U.S. Timberland is more defensive than farmland since trees can be stored "on the stump" and don't need to be harvested each year in the way that crops do even when prices are unattractive. Historically, timberland has returned about 1 ppt less a year than farmland, and we assume that this will continue. Commodities move in long-run cycles, with a commodity super-cycle of around 10 years, in which prices rise by 3-4x, followed by a bear market of 20 or 30 years in which they fall or stagnate (Chart 17). This is driven by a build-up of excess supply, because of the capex done during the super-cycle, and often by a structural shift on the demand side too. We see no reason why this pattern should change, with China's re-engineering of its economy away from dependence on infrastructure spending likely to be a particularly important factor over the next decade. We assume that commodity prices will, over the current bear market (now about five years old), fall by the same amount and over the same number of years as the average of previous bear markets since the 19th century. This means they have 16% further to fall over 200 months, giving a return of -1% a year. 4. Currencies Most investors are unable or unwilling to fully hedge currency exposure over very long periods. So, a consideration of how returns from different countries' assets might be affected by relative currency movements over the next 10-15 years is an important element in calculating likely returns. Fortunately, for developed market currencies at least, there is a simple, and historically fairly reliable, way to make assumptions of currency movements: reversion to purchasing power parity. As shown in Chart 18, major currencies have fairly consistently reverted to their PPP over the long run. So we can forecast likely future currency movements as a combination of 1) how far away the currency is currently from PPP against the U.S. dollar, and 2) the likely change in the PPP over the period. The latter we calculate from the IMF's forecasts of relative consumer inflation between each country and the U.S. (the IMF makes this forecast only for the next five years, but we assume that the differential continues at the same rate after 2022). Table 11 shows that most major currencies are expected to rise against the U.S. dollar over the coming decade or so. Except for Australia, they are likely to have slightly lower inflation. And - again with the exception of Australia - they all look a little undervalued currently relative to the USD. Table 11Assumed Annual Change Versus U.S. Dollar Over Next 10-15 Years Unfortunately, this approach does not work for EM currencies. They have historically traded at a level consistently well below PPP. This is mainly because, while tradable goods prices tend to be driven by international prices movements and relative unit labor costs, local services prices (which cannot be arbitraged across borders) do not. Also, inflation in emerging markets has historically been much higher than in the U.S. (Chart 19), meaning that their PPP has shifted significantly lower over time. However, China's inflation is now not dissimilar to that of the U.S. (the IMF forecasts it will be only 50 basis points a year higher over the coming five years). And China has shown some tendency for the currency to move towards PPP - 20 years ago the RMB was 190% below PPP; now it is "only" 97% below. Chart 18Reversion To PPP Chart 19U.S. And Emerging Market Inflation We, therefore, take an alternative approach to estimating currency returns for EM economies. We run a regression analysis of the annual change in each country's exchange rate versus the U.S. dollar against its CPI inflation relative to the U.S. We find mostly acceptable r-squared scores (ranging from 57% for Turkey to 1% for Taiwan). For most countries, the intercept is positive (suggesting the currency is trending over time towards PPP) and the coefficient for CPI is, as expected, negative (Table 12). Table 12Calculations For EM Currency Moves A number of EM currencies, on this analysis, would be expected to depreciate against the U.S. dollar over coming years, including Indonesia, Mexico and Turkey. But, weighting the countries by their weights in the MSCI ACWI index, on average the EM universe would be expected to see a currency appreciation against the U.S. dollar of around 2% a year. This is largely due to the influence of China, which has a 29% weight in the EM index. This would be a much better result than the past 10 years when, for example, the Brazilian real has depreciated by 12% a year, the Indonesian rupiah by 16% and the Turkish lira by 37%. This could be because the IMF forecasts of future inflation (4.9% for India, 4.5% for Brazil and 4.1% for Russia), are too optimistic. They are certainly much better than these countries have achieved in the past 10 years (8.0% in India, 6.2% in Brazil, and 9.2% in Russia). Conclusion Arriving at assumptions for future returns is as much an art as a science. Our analysis is based principally on the concept that the future will be similar to long-term history (but not necessarily to the history of the past 30 years, which in many ways were abnormal for financial markets with, for example, a continuous decline in interest rates and inflation). Obviously, therefore, a very different macro environment over the next 10-15 years (for example, one in which inflation spiked, or secular stagnation deepened) would produce a very different results for economic growth and interest rates. However, it will be clear from our analysis that a great deal of the long-term return for equities and bonds is derived from the valuation at the start. Given that current valuations in almost all asset classes are expensive relative to history, this implies that future portfolio returns will be poor compared to recent, and long-term, history. Based on our return assumptions, a typical global portfolio (with 50% equities, 30% bonds, and 20% alternatives) will produce a nominal return of only 4.1% a year over the next decade or so, and a similar U.S. portfolio only 4.6%. This compares to 6.3% and 7.0% over the past 20 years. For pension funds which assume an 7.5% or 8% annual return (as many in the U.S. do), or individual investors planning their retirement on the basis of, say, a 5% annual real return, that outcome would come as a nasty shock. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 For the best summary of the evidence on this, please see A Practitioner's Guide To Asset Allocation, by William Kinlaw, Mark Kritzman and David Turkington, Wiley 2017. 2 Please see Credit Suisse Global Investment Returns Yearbook 2017 by Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh and Mike Staunton, February 2017 3 BCA's Composite Valuation Indicator comprises, for the U.S.: market value of equities / non-financial gross value added adjusted for foreign revenues, trailing PE, Shiller PE, and price to sales. And for other regions: divided yield, market Cap/GDP, trailing PE, price to book, forward PE, price to cash flow, price to sales, and enterprise value/total assets. 4 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Alternative Assets: More Important Than Ever", dated 11 March 2016, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com Appendix Correlation Matrix

Highlights Stay short the rand. The South African currency has broken down, and further downside is looming. The rand is cheap for a reason. A lack of import substitution has hampered the benefits of a depreciated currency for the economy. The trade balance will deteriorate as metals prices drop due to growth deceleration in China. Lingering political uncertainty, a poor structural backdrop and reliance on foreign portfolio flows that are at risk of reversal all argue for material downside in the rand's value from current levels. Dedicated EM equity and bond portfolios should continue to underweight South Africa. Feature The South African rand posted an impressive rally in 2016 and early 2017, despite the economy's technical recession (Chart I-1). Yet recently, the rand has started breaking down, despite domestic demand data showing modest improvement. We have argued in the past that lower commodities prices and rising U.S. interest rates along with a negative political backdrop and a weak economy would put downward pressure on the rand. However, domestic demand has recently ticked up, and according to our broad money (M3) impulse, domestic demand will likely continue to improve modestly in the next several months (Chart I-2) - barring the intensifying political headwinds hurting business and consumer sentiment. The M3 impulse is the second derivative of outstanding broad money M3. Chart I-1South Africa: ##br##Economy And Currency Chart I-2South Africa: Modest ##br##Upside In Domestic Demand Therefore, today we are posing the following question: Can South African risk assets sell off even as domestic demand continues to recover moderately? Our answer is yes. The basis is that the balance of payments (BoP) is set to deteriorate again. What Drives The Rand? The narrative that a high carry will support high-yielding EM currencies including the rand is misplaced. Chart I-3 illustrates that there has been no positive correlation between the rand's exchange rate and its short-term interest rate differential with those in the U.S. Notably, neither the level nor direction of interest rate differential correlates positively with the value of the rand. If anything, it is the exchange rate that drives interest rates in South Africa and in many high-yielding EM markets, not the other way around. The bottom panel of Chart I-3 demonstrates that the rand's appreciation typically leads to lower interest rates, and vice versa. While in the near term the rand could be under pressure from rising U.S. interest rate expectations and a U.S. dollar rebound, the currency's medium-term outlook will continue be shaped by commodities prices. Chart I-4 demonstrates that the rand's exchange rate is strongly correlated with industrial and precious metals prices. Chart I-3Rand Drives Interest ##br##Rates Not Other Way Around Chart I-4Rand Is Correlated ##br##With Metal Prices The fundamental basis for rand depreciation going forward is a worsening BoP: Industrial metals prices will drop as China's growth slows (Chart I-5). Meanwhile, a moderate pick-up in domestic demand will lead to rising imports and a deteriorating trade balance (Chart I-2, bottom panel on page 2). Precious metals prices will also be under pressure in the near term as U.S. interest rate expectations rise, supporting the U.S. dollar. In fact, the most reliable factor driving gold prices has historically been U.S. real (TIPS) yields (Chart I-6). Chart I-5China's Money/Credit Impulses ##br##Are Bearish For Industrial Metals Chart I-6Gold Is Driven By U.S. ##br##Real Rates (TIPS Yields) We expect the rand to depreciate considerably and make new lows against the euro and European currencies. This will contrast with what occurred in 2014-'15, when the rand's depreciation versus the euro and European currencies was much less pronounced than versus the dollar. Chart I-7Foreigners Are Record ##br##Long South African Bonds As the rand falls versus the majority of DM currencies, foreign investors will be prompted to reduce their holdings of South African local currency bonds and equities. Given foreigners own 42% of the country's local government bonds (Chart I-7, top panel), the bond market will sell off further, and outflows could be meaningful. Another angle to consider is whether a revival in domestic demand would be enough to offset the above negatives and attract enough foreign capital to finance the BoP. In our opinion, not this time around. First, any domestic demand recovery in South Africa will be muted. Given lingering political uncertainty, upside in business spending and job creation will remain subdued. Notably, risks are skewed to the downside for domestic demand due to lingering political uncertainty. Second, in 2016 the rand rallied considerably, even as domestic demand was falling. During 2016 and early 2017, the rand was supported by external forces such as rising metals prices and capital flows to EM. In turn, weakening domestic demand induced an imports contraction, helping the trade balance. Presently, all of these factors are reversing. Finally, portfolio flows have been much more important than FDIs for South Africa in recent years (Chart I-8). This implies that as portfolio flows dry up, FDIs will not finance the BoP. Bottom Line: South Africa's BoP dynamics are set to deteriorate markedly, leading to a major currency downleg. Is The Rand Cheap? A Look At Import Substitution Our valuation measures show that the rand is one standard deviation cheap (Chart I-9). Chart I-8South Africa: FDI Versus Portfolio Flows Chart I-9The Rand's Valuation Profile However, we believe it is "cheap for a reason." Structural forces have been and remain currency bearish. Chart I-10No Import Substitution In South Africa A cheap currency leads to import substitution - i.e., domestic producers become more competitive than foreign ones, and they replace imports with locally produced goods. This in turn improves the trade balance and boosts domestic jobs and income. Stronger output growth and higher return on capital allow the economy to withstand higher interest rates. Rising return on capital and interest rates attract foreign capital (both portfolio inflows and FDI), leading to currency appreciation. In South Africa, the inherent problem is that despite substantial weakness in the currency since 2011, there has been very little import substitution. This is true across the most basic types of goods that do not require sophisticated production methods such as footwear, plastic, rubber products and textiles (Chart I-10). Astonishingly, this has continued to hold true even after the collapse of the rand in 2015 to two-standard-deviations below its fair value. Given import substitution has not materialized, economic growth has not benefited much from a depreciated currency, and all the usual drivers that typically mark a bottom in the exchange rate and jump-start sustainable currency appreciation are thus still lacking. Hence, the rand will have to stay cheap. Interestingly, in the absence of a shift from foreign to locally produced goods, a recovery in domestic demand will boost imports, benefiting foreign producers relative to local ones - i.e., "leaking" growth to the rest of the world. Bottom Line: An ongoing lack of import substitution in South Africa has been due to lingering structural malaise. Therefore, the rand will have to stay structurally cheap. Productivity Demise It is not surprising that import substitution has been non-existent, given the demise of productivity within the South African economy. When assessing competitiveness, it is essential to analyze a country's unit labor costs in U.S. dollar terms. South African unit labor costs in U.S. dollar terms have risen by 50% in the manufacturing sector, and by 160% in the overall economy since 2000 (Chart I-11). Chart I-11Comparative Unit Labor Costs In US$: ##br##South Africa & U.S. For comparison, in the U.S., overall non-farm unit labor costs in U.S. dollars have risen by 20% since 2000, and have been more or less flat in the manufacturing sector. In brief, in the past 17 years, unit labor costs in U.S. dollar in South Africa have risen substantially more than in the U.S. There are also other ramifications of lingering productivity malaise: First, in South Africa, fiscal and monetary stimuli typically widen the current account deficit more than in countries where manufacturing is able to compete with global manufacturers. Second, inflation dynamics in South Africa are even more sensitive to exchange rate movements. A large share of imports for domestic consumption ensures that South African inflation remains correlated with the exchange rate rather than with the domestic business cycle. Third, for monetary policy, the South African Reserve Bank (SARB) has been forced to pursue more pro-cyclical monetary policy - raising rates when metals prices drop and the rand depreciates. Higher interest rates amid a negative terms-of-trade shock - i.e. falling metals prices - has historically reinforced boom-bust cycles in the South African economy and created less visibility for domestic investments, further hindering long-term growth. That said, there are presently low odds that the SARB will hike rates materially, even if the rand drops substantially. The monetary authorities did not significantly cut rates amid the rand's rally in 2016-'17. Hence, odds of rate hikes are low, which heralds yield curve steepening. Bottom Line: Poor productivity has been and remains a major constraint on South African growth and a major drag on the currency. An Update On Politics The December African National Congress (ANC) presidential election is around the corner, and it is worth asking if any positive outcome for the economy and markets may emerge. We do not expect so. At this point, there are two scenarios to consider. The first is that current Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa wins. Given his recent strong performance in key swing provinces and lack of competition from Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma, Ramaphosa has decent chances of winning the ANC presidency. However, as our colleagues from the Geopolitical Strategy service argued, the structural reality is that the median voter in South Africa is not in a position to support a pro-market reformer willing to pursue painful structural reforms.1 In a system where policymakers are price takers in the political marketplace and not price makers, even if Ramaphosa wins, he is unlikely to address the majority of South Africa's lingering structural issues in a meaningful way. Furthermore, the rising popularity of the left-wing radical Economic Free Fighters, led by ex-Youth League Leader Julius Malema, will also be a constraint on Ramaphosa in terms of enacting supply side reforms. The second scenario is that Ramaphosa does not win, in which case he and his supporters could split from the ANC and perhaps form a new party with the Democratic Alliance (DA). It is hard to tell at the moment what this scenario would entail for the general elections in 2019. Historically, given the ANC's stronghold on the country's politics, the winner of the ANC Congress has moved on to become President of South Africa. However in the event of an ANC split, some revaluation of the political landscape would be required. Regardless of who wins the elections in 2019, a general lack of appetite for structural and painful reforms point to fiscal policy remaining lax - and being used to boost growth (Chart I-12). At 51% of GDP, the public debt burden is not yet at alarming levels. In the meantime, easy or easing fiscal stance will continue to put downward pressure on the rand. Bottom Line: Odds of structural reforms are low, regardless of who wins the December elections. Fiscal policy will remain easy, and public debt will continue to rise. This is a bad omen for the currency. Investment Recommendations We continue to recommend the following strategy: Continue shorting the ZAR versus the USD. The rand has broken down from a key resistance level, and has much more downside (Chart I-13). Chart I-12South Africa: Fiscal Deficit Is Wide Chart I-13The Rand: A Breakdown Underweight South African domestic bonds and sovereign credit relative to their EM benchmarks. Sovereign spreads have hit a strong technical resistance and are starting to bounce off (Chart I-14). Continue betting on yield-curve steepening. A lack of economic vigor will keep the SARB on hold for now, yet the country's populist fiscal stance and withdrawals by foreigners from the bond market will push up long-dated bond yields. For EM local fixed-income portfolios, we maintain the following trade: short South African and Turkish 5-year bonds / long Polish and Hungarian ones. Lastly, a few words on the stock market: Our cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio for the MSCI South Africa equity index suggests that this bourse is one standard deviation expensive (Chart I-15, top panel). Chart I-14South Africa: Sovereign Spreads ##br##To Move Above EM Benchmark Chart I-15South African Equites: ##br##Valuation & Technicals Interestingly, the relative performance of this bourse versus the EM benchmark might be on a precipice of a major breakdown (Chart I-15, bottom panel). Continue underweighting South African stocks. Chart I-16Banks To Outperform As Yield Curve Steepens As to sectors, we recommend an overweight position in banks and materials. A steepening yield curve typically benefits bank stocks (Chart I-16), while materials will in turn benefit from a depreciating currency. Stephan Gabillard, Senior Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report titled, "South Africa: Crisis Of Expectations," dated June 28, 2017, link available at gps.bcaresearch.com

Highlights There are a number of cracks emerging in global risk assets. Not only have U.S. junk bond prices recently posted sharp declines, but a number of economic and financial market developments within EM also warrant investors' close attention. In particular: Feature The EM manufacturing PMI has rolled over at relatively low levels, despite continued strength in advanced economies' manufacturing PMI (Chart 1). Importantly, the trend in relative manufacturing PMIs heralds EM equity underperformance against DM bourses (Chart 2). Chart 1EM Manufacturing: Rolling Over Chart 2EM Stocks To Underperform DM Stocks The Shanghai Container Freight Index has relapsed in recent months. This index has been a good indicator for EM/Asian export volumes (Chart 3, top panel). That said, DRAM semiconductor prices continue to surge (Chart 3, bottom panel). DRAM prices have jumped five-fold in less than two years, justifying the massive rally in semiconductors' stock prices. It is hard to know how long and how far the ascent in DRAM prices will continue. Nevertheless, our hunch is that non-technology exports in Asia will slow down, regardless of what happens in the global technology sector. Consistently, we expect EM non-technology stocks to relapse sooner than later, even as tech stocks remain a wild card. Global and EM tech stocks rallied exponentially and appear to be in a mania phase that could make any reasonable assessment and investment strategy off-mark. Weighing the pros and cons, we continue to recommend overweighting the tech sector within the EM universe, even as the outlook for their absolute performance remains highly uncertain. Within EM tech, we favor semi stocks (Samsung and TSMC) versus internet and social media stocks. The sheer magnitude of the EM equity rally has been driven by a few names such as Tencent, Alibaba, Baidu, Samsung and TSMC. Their combined market cap as a share of the overall MSCI EM equity index has risen to 19%. Remarkably, the equal-weighted MSCI EM stock index has massively underperformed the market cap-weighted MSCI EM equity index (Chart 4, top panel). In contrast, the same measure for DM equities has held up much better (Chart 4, bottom panel). Chart 3Asian/EM Exports At Risk Chart 4A Perspective On Internal Equity Dynamics: EM And DM EM stock prices have been firm so far despite the rebound in the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar (Chart 5). As the greenback continues to advance, odds are that EM share prices will dive, as occurred in 2014 and 2015. In China, the effects of triple tightening - the liquidity squeeze by the central bank, the regulatory clampdown on banks and shadow banking by the Banking Regulatory Commission, and the anti-corruption drive that is targeting the financial industry - are gaining momentum. Onshore corporate bond yields and credit spreads over government bonds have risen further since the end of the most recent Party Congress. One of the reasons why policymakers are tightening is to rein in the enormous excesses prevalent in the credit, money and property markets that have developed in recent years. Given that advanced economies have now recovered, the Chinese authorities feel more confident to tighten domestically. Finally, while less recognized by the investment community, inflationary pressures have been rising in China. Although still at 2.25%, core consumer price inflation is clearly trending up, warranting a policy response (Chart 6, top panel). This is especially true given that real deposit rates - deflated by core consumer price inflation - have plummeted into negative territory (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chart 5U.S. Dollar Rebound = EM Pullback Chart 6China: Beware Of Rising Inflation Consistent with tightening, China's official broad money growth has decelerated to an all-time low (Chart 7, top panel). In the meantime, narrow money (M1) growth is falling rapidly. Remarkably, M1 growth has been correlated with Chinese H-share prices (Chart 7, bottom panel). We have extensively documented in past reports1 that China's money and credit impulses are good leading indicators of the mainland's business cycle. The current readings of these indicators signal considerable growth deceleration. In addition, general (central and local) government spending growth has already slowed a lot (Chart 8). Chart 7China: Broad Money Growth Is At Record Low Chart 8China: Aggregate Fiscal Spending Growth Is Also Weak The fundamentally weakest EM currencies such as the South African rand and the Turkish lira have already broken down. Some others have so far been only marginally weak. A chain, however, typically cracks at its weakest link. Hence, it makes sense that the selloff has begun with the fundamentally weakest currencies. We expect other EM currencies to follow. Currency depreciation in EM will undermine returns for foreign investors, and the latter will become marginal sellers in both EM equity markets and local currency bonds. Meanwhile, EM currency depreciation and potentially falling commodities prices will trigger credit spread widening in EM sovereign and corporate bonds. Investment Positioning Global equity portfolios should continue underweighting EM versus DM. The risk-reward profile for EM stocks' absolute performance is extremely unfavorable. We continue to recommend underweighting EM credit markets relative to U.S. investment grade bonds. Our strongest conviction shorts are a basket of the following currencies: ZAR, TRY, BRL, IDR and MYR. We are also shorting the COP and CLP. For traders who prefer a market neutral currency portfolio, our recommended longs are TWD, THB, SGD, ARS, RUB, PLN and CZK. INR and CNH will also outperform other EM currencies. Unlike in 2014-2015, EM currencies will depreciate not only versus the U.S. dollar but also the euro. This will erode EM returns for European investors, and temporarily halt or reverse capital inflows into EM. Among local currency bond markets, the most vulnerable are Turkey, South Africa, Indonesia and Malaysia. The least vulnerable are Korea, Russia, India, Argentina2 and Central Europe. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Questions From The Road", dated September 20, 2017. 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Argentina: A Genuine Bull Market", dated October 25, 2017. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Dear Client, Instead of our Weekly Report, we are sending you this Special Report written by my colleague Marko Papic, BCA's Chief Geopolitical Strategist. Marko argues that while there is considerable risk that NAFTA is abrogated, the Trump administration would quickly move to alleviate the effects to trade flows. The risk to our view is that President Trump is a genuine populist, a view that his actions thus far do not support. I hope you will find this report both interesting and informative. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlights NAFTA is truly at risk - as currency markets suggest; NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy is positive but marginal; The key question is whether Trump is a true populist or a "pluto-populist"; If the former, then NAFTA's failure is likely and portends worse to come; NAFTA's collapse would be bearish MXN, bearish U.S. carmakers versus DM peers, and supportive of higher inflation in the U.S. Feature Fifty years ago at the end of World War II, an unchallenged America was protected by the oceans and by our technological superiority and, very frankly, by the economic devastation of the people who could otherwise have been our competitors. We chose then to try to help rebuild our former enemies and to create a world of free trade supported by institutions which would facilitate it ... Make no mistake about it, our decision at the end of World War II to create a system of global, expanded, freer trade, and the supporting institutions, played a major role in creating the prosperity of the American middle class. - President Bill Clinton, Remarks at the Signing Ceremony for the Supplemental Agreements to the North American Free Trade Agreement, September 14, 1993 No Free Trade Agreement (FTA) has been more widely maligned than the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It is, after all, the world's preeminent FTA. Signed in December 1992 by President George H. W. Bush and implemented in January 1994, it preceded the founding agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and launched a two-decade, global expansion of FTAs (Chart 1). By including environmental and labor standards, as well as dispute settlement mechanisms, it created a high standard for all subsequent FTAs. President Trump's presidency began with much fear that his populist preferences would imperil globalization and trade deals such as NAFTA. Other than his withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, much of the concern has been proven to be misplaced - including our own.1 Even Sino-American trade tensions have eased, with President Trump and President Xi Jinping enjoying a good working relationship so far. So should investors relax and throw caution to the wind? Chart 1NAFTA: Tailwind To Globalization Chart 2U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA In this report, we argue that the answer is a resounding no. The White House rhetoric on NAFTA - a trade deal that has been mildly positive for the U.S. economy and, at worst, neutral for its workers - suggests that greater trade conflicts loom, not only within NAFTA but also with China and others. Furthermore, a rejection of NAFTA would be a symbolic blow to free trade at least as consequential as the concrete ramifications of nixing the deal itself. The deal with Mexico and Canada is not as significant to the U.S. economy as its proponents suggest (Chart 2), but by mathematical logic its detractors therefore overstate its negatives. The opposition to NAFTA by the Trump administration therefore reveals preferences that would become far more investment-relevant if applied to major global economies like China. If NAFTA negotiations are merely a ploy to play to the populist base, however, then the impact of its demise will be temporary and muted. At this time, however, it is unclear which preference is driving the Trump White House strategy and thus risks are to the downside. The Decaying Context Behind NAFTA The North American Free Trade Agreement is more than a trade deal: it is the symbolic beginning of late twentieth-century globalization. According to our trade globalization proxy, this period has experienced the fastest pace of globalization since the nineteenth century (Chart 3). Both NAFTA and the WTO enshrined new rules and standards for global trade upon which trade and financial globalization are based. Underpinning this surge in globalization was the apex of American geopolitical power and the collapse of the socialist alternative, the Soviet Union. As President Clinton's remarks from 1993 suggest (quoted at the beginning of the report), NAFTA was the culmination of a "creation myth" for an American Empire. The myth narrates how the geopolitical and economic decisions made by the U.S. in the aftermath of its victory in World War II laid a foundation for both American prosperity and a new global order. With the ruins of Communism still smoldering in the early 1990s, the U.S. decided to double-down on those same, globalist impulses. Today those impulses are waning if not completely dead. As we argued in our 2014 report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," three trends have conspired to turn the tides against globalization:2 Chart 3Globalization Has Peaked Chart 4Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Multipolarity - Every period of intense globalization has rested on strong pillars of geopolitical "hegemony," i.e. the existence of a single world leader. Chart 3 shows that the most recent such eras consisted of British and American hegemony, respectively. However, the relative decline of American geopolitical power has imperiled this process, as rising powers look to carve out regional spheres of influence that are by definition incompatible with a globalized political and economic framework. In parallel, the hegemon itself - the U.S. - has begun to vacillate over whether the framework it designed is still beneficial to it, given its declining say in how the global system operates. Great Recession - The 2008 global financial crisis cracked the ideological, macroeconomic, and policy foundations of globalization. Deflation - Globalization is deflationary, which works swimmingly when real household incomes are rising and debts falling. Unfortunately, neither of those has been the case for American households over the past forty years (Chart 4). This is in large part the consequence of globalization, which opened trade with emerging markets and thus suppressed low-income wage growth in developed economies. What is striking about the U.S. is that its social safety net has done such a poor job redistributing the gains of free trade, at least compared to its OECD peers (Chart 5). Chart 5The "Great Gatsby" Curve Chart 6America Belongs To The Anti-Globalization Bloc President Donald Trump shrewdly understood that the tide had turned against free trade in the U.S. (Chart 6). Ahead of the 2016 election, no one (except BCA!) seriously believed that trade and globalization would become the fulcrum of the election.3 Candidate Trump, however, returned to it repeatedly, and singled out NAFTA as "the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere."4 Bottom Line: President Trump's opposition to globalization did not fall from the sky. Trump is the product of his time and geopolitical and macroeconomic context. Trends we identified in 2014 are today headwinds to globalization. Myths About NAFTA The geopolitical and macroeconomic context may be dire for globalization, but does NAFTA actually fit that narrative? The short answer is no. The long answer is that there are three myths about NAFTA that the Trump administration continues to propagate. We assume that U.S. policymakers can do simple math. As such, their ignorance of the below data suggests a broad strategy toward free trade that is based in ideology, not factual reality. Alternatively, flogging NAFTA may be motivated by narrower, domestic, political concerns and may not be indicative of a deeply held worldview. Time will tell which is true. Myth #1: NAFTA Has Widened The U.S. Trade Deficit NAFTA has resulted in a huge trade deficit for the United States and has cost us tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. The agreement has become very lopsided and needs to be rebalanced. We of course have a five-hundred-billion-dollar trade deficit. So, for us, trade deficits do matter. And we intend to reduce them. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 Chart 7Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities When it comes to the U.S. trade deficit, NAFTA has had a negligible impact. Three facts stand out: The U.S. has an insignificant trade deficit with Canada - 0.06% of GDP in 2016, or $12 billion. It has a larger one with Mexico - 0.33% of GDP, or $63 billion. However, when broken down by sectors, the deepest trade deficit has been in energy. The U.S. has actually run a surplus in manufactured products with Mexico and Canada for much of the post-2008 era, which only recently dipped back into deficit (Chart 7). The U.S. has consistently run a trade deficit with the rest of the world since 1980, but the size of its trade deficit with Mexico and Canada did not significantly increase as a share of GDP post-implementation of NAFTA. The real game changer has been the widening of the trade deficit with China and the rest of the EM economies outside of China and Mexico (Chart 8). The trade relationship with Mexico and Canada, relative to that with the rest of the world, therefore remains stable. The net energy trade balance with Mexico and Canada has significantly improved due to surging U.S. shale production (Chart 9). Rising shale production has accomplished this both by lowering the need for imports from NAFTA peers, surging refined product exports to Mexico, and by inducing lower global energy prices. In addition, Canada-U.S. energy trade is governed by NAFTA's Chapter 6 rules, which prohibit the Canadian government from intervention in the normal operation of North American energy markets.5 Chart 8U.S. Trade Imbalance Is Not About NAFTA Chart 9Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Myth #2: NAFTA Has Destroyed The U.S. Auto Industry Before NAFTA went into effect ... there were 280,000 autoworkers in Michigan. Today that number is roughly 165,000 - and would have been heading down big-league if I didn't get elected. - Donald Trump, U.S. President, March 15, 2017 Chart 10NAFTA Has Made U.S. Auto Manufacturing More Competitive What about the charge that NAFTA has negatively impacted the U.S. automotive industry by shipping jobs to Mexican and, to lesser extent, Canadian factories? Again, this reasoning is flawed. In fact, NAFTA appears to have allowed the U.S. automotive industry to remain highly competitive on a global scale, more so than its Mexican and Canadian peers. U.S. exports outside of NAFTA as a percent of total exports have surged since the early 2000s and have remained buoyant recently. Meanwhile, Mexican exports to the rest of the world have fallen, suggesting that Mexico is highly reliant on servicing Detroit (Chart 10). The truth is that the American automotive industry's share of overall manufacturing activity has risen since 2008. In part, this is because American manufacturers have been able to integrate with Canadian and Mexican plants, allowing production to remain on the continent and move seamlessly across the value chain. In other words, Mexico serves as a low-wage outlet for the least-skilled part of the production chain, allowing the rest of the manufacturing process to remain in the U.S. and Canada. Without that cheap "escape valve," the entire production chain might have migrated to EM Asia. Or, worse, the American automotive industry would have become uncompetitive relative to European and Japanese peers. Either way, the U.S. would have potentially faced greater job losses were it not for easier access to Mexican auto production. Both European and Japanese manufacturers have similar low-skilled, low-cost, "labor escape valves" in the region. For Germany and France, this escape valve is in Spain and Central and Eastern Europe; for Japan, it is in Thailand. Myth #3: Mexico And Canada Cannot Retaliate Against The U.S. As far as I can tell, there is not a world oversupply of agricultural products. Unless countries are going to be prepared to have their people go hungry or change their diets, I think it's more of a threat to try to frighten the agricultural community. - Wilbur Ross, Commerce Secretary, October 11, 2017 Chart 11Mexico's Growing Population Is A Potential Market U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico only account for about 2.6% of GDP, whereas exports to the U.S. from Mexico and Canada account for 28% and 18% of GDP respectively. Nonetheless, this does not mean that the U.S. suffers from NAFTA. As we discussed above, NAFTA has been a boon for the global competitiveness of the U.S. automotive industry. In addition, NAFTA gives American and Canadian exporters access to a large and growing Mexican middle class (Chart 11). Furthermore, the U.S. would gain little benefit from leaving NAFTA vis-à-vis Canada and Mexico. By reverting back to WTO tariff levels, the U.S. would be able to raise tariffs from 0% (under NAFTA) to the maximum of 3.4%, where the U.S. average "bound tariff" would remain. Bound tariffs differ across products and countries and represent the maximum rate of tariffs under WTO rules (i.e., without violating those rules). They are indicative of a hostile trade relationship, as trade would otherwise be set at much lower "most favored nation" tariff levels. As Table 1 shows, however, Canada and particularly Mexico have the ability to raise their bound tariffs considerably higher than the U.S. can do. Mexico, in fact, has one of the highest average bound tariff rates for an OECD member state, at a whopping 36.2%! This means that, if NAFTA were to be abrogated, the U.S. would be allowed to raise tariffs, on average, to 3.4%, whereas Mexico would be free to do so by ten times more. Given that Mexico is America's main export destination for steel and corn output, the retaliation would be non-negligible for these two politically powerful sectors. This aspect of the WTO agreement is a latent geopolitical risk, as it feeds into the Trump administration's broader antagonism toward the WTO itself. Table 1WTO Tariff Schedule Despite the hard evidence, we suspect that the Trump administration is driven by ideological and strategic goals and therefore the probability of a calamitous end to the ongoing NAFTA negotiations is high. Nevertheless, the data shows: The North American Free Trade Agreement has allowed trade between its member states to accelerate at a faster pace than global trade for much of the first decade after its signing and at the average global pace over the past decade (Chart 12); U.S. manufacturing employment as a percent of total labor force has been declining for much of the past half-century, with absolute numbers falling off a cliff as China joined the WTO and, along with EM Asia, became integrated into the global supply chain (Chart 13); Employment in auto-manufacturing follows the same pattern as overall manufacturing employment (Chart 13, bottom panel), suggesting that it was not NAFTA that caused job flight but rather competition from the rest of the world along with automation. In fact, auto-manufacturing employment has recovered post-2008, as American car manufacturers underwent structural reforms to improve competitiveness. Chart 12NAFTA Trade Has Beaten Global Trade Chart 13Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment: China Or NAFTA? As with any free trade agreement, some wages in some sectors may have been lowered by NAFTA's implementation and some jobs were definitely lost due to the agreement. However, the vast majority of academic studies point out that the negative labor market impacts of NAFTA have been negligible. The most authoritative work on the subject, by economists Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, found that the upper-bound of NAFTA-related job losses in the U.S. is 1.9 million over the first decade of the agreement. Given that U.S. employment rose by 34 million over the same period, the job losses represent "a fraction of one percent of jobs 'lost' through turnover in the dynamic U.S. economy over a decade."6 A June 2016 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) provides a good review of academic studies on the trade deal since 2002. Overall, it concludes that NAFTA led "to a substantial increase in trade volumes for all three countries; a small increase in U.S. welfare [overall economic benefit]; and little to no change in U.S. aggregate employment."7 In addition, NAFTA had "essentially no effect on real wages in the United States of either skilled or unskilled workers." This academic work could, of course, be the product of a vast conspiracy by globalist, neo-liberal academics financed by the deep state and its corporate overlords. However, the other side of the debate has little to offer as a counter to the empirical evidence. For example, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, a notable trade hawk, posited that the U.S. government had "certified" that 700,000 Americans had lost their jobs owing to NAFTA. This would represent 30,000 job losses per year over the 24 years of NAFTA's existence. Lighthizer also did not say whether he was speaking in net or gross terms, probably because it is practically impossible to competently answer that question! If that is the best retort to the academic research, there is then no real counter to the conclusion that NAFTA has had a mildly positive effect on the U.S. economy and labor market. Bottom Line: NAFTA has had some positive effects on the U.S. automotive sector, allowing it to integrate the low-cost Mexican labor into its production chain and thus remain competitive vis-à-vis Asian and European manufacturers. It also holds the promise of future export gains to Mexico's growing middle class. Its overall effects on the U.S. budget deficit, wages, and employment are largely overstated. If the impact of NAFTA has largely been marginal to the U.S. economy outside of a select few sectors, why is the Trump administration so dead-set on renegotiating it? And why has the process been so acrimonious? What Does The Trump White House Want? Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed by the resistance to change from our negotiating partners ... As difficult as this has been, we have seen no indication that our partners are willing to make any changes that will result in a rebalancing and reduction in these huge trade deficits. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 Chart 14NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. trade representative, closed the fourth round of negotiations with a bang, implying that Canada and Mexico would have to help the U.S. close its $500 billion trade deficit, even though the U.S. trade deficit with its two NAFTA partners is only 15% of the total. The Canadian dollar and the Mexican peso fell by 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively, in the subsequent week of trading. In fact, both the CAD and MXN have faced extended losses since the third round of NAFTA negotiations ended on September 27 (Chart 14). Is the market overreacting? We do not think so. First, the list of demands presented by the White House are quite harsh, with the first two below considered deal-breakers: Dispute Settlement: The White House wants to end the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism (under Chapter 11), which allows corporations to sue governments for breach of obligations under the treaty.8 More importantly, the U.S. also wants to eliminate trade dispute panels (under Chapter 19), which allow NAFTA countries to protest anti-dumping and countervailing duties. The real issue is that Chapter 19 trade dispute panels have acted as a constraint on the U.S. administration in imposing antidumping and countervailing duties in the past. Sunset clause: The White House has also proposed that NAFTA automatically expire unless it is approved by all three countries every five years. Buy American: The White House wants its "Buy American" rules in government procurement to be part of the new NAFTA deal, and yet for Canadian and Mexican government contracts to remain open to U.S. businesses. Rules of origin: The White House has called for an increase in NAFTA's regional automotive content requirement from the current 62.5% to 85%, including that 50% of the value of all NAFTA-produced cars, trucks, and large engines come from the U.S.9 Second, the U.S. Commerce Department - headed by trade hawk Wilbur Ross - has signaled that it is open to aggressively pursuing trade disputes on behalf of American companies. Since President Trump's inauguration, U.S. policy interventions have on balance harmed the commercial interests of its G20 trade partners by higher frequency than during the last three years of Barack Obama's presidency (Chart 15).1 0Specific to NAFTA partners, the Commerce Department has slapped a 20% tariff on Canadian softwood lumber in April and a 300% tariff on Bombardier C-Series in October. When combined with the demand to end trade dispute panels under NAFTA's Chapter 19 - which would resolve such trade disputes - the pickup in activity by the Commerce Department is a clear signal that the new U.S. administration intends to break the spirit of NAFTA whether the agreement remains in place or not. Chart 15Trump: Game Changer In U.S. Trade Policy Third, and more broadly speaking, the Trump administration is playing a "two-level game."11 Two-level game theory posits that domestic politics creates acceptable "win-sets," which are then transported to the geopolitical theatre. Politicians cannot conclude foreign agreements that are outside of those domestic win-sets. For President Trump, his win-set on NAFTA negotiations is set by a domestic coalition that allowed him to win the election. This includes voters in the Midwest states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania where Trump outperformed polls by 10%, 3%, and 3% respectively (Chart 16), and where Secretary Hillary Clinton garnered less votes in 2016 than President Barack Obama in 2012 (Chart 17). Trump promised this blue-collar base a respite from globalization and he has to deliver it if he intends to win in four years' time. Chart 16Trump Owes The Midwest Chart 17Hillary Lost Rust Belt Voters At the same time, Trump's domestic policy has thus far fallen far short of other campaign promises. First, there has been no movement on immigration or the promised border wall. Second, the Obamacare repeal and replace effort has failed in Congress. Third, proposed tax cuts are likely to benefit the country's elites, as previous tax reform efforts have tended to do. As such, we fear that the Trump White House may double down on playing hardball with NAFTA in order to fulfill at least one of its promised strategies. But why single out NAFTA if its impact on U.S. jobs and wages is miniscule compared to, for example, the U.S.-China trade relationship?12 There are two ways to answer this question: Pluto-populist scenario: President Trump is in fact a pluto-populist and not a genuine populist, i.e. he is not committed to economic nationalism.13 As such, he does not intend to fulfill any of the demands he has promised to his voters, as the current corporate and household tax cuts suggest. Given NAFTA's limited impact on the U.S. economy, abrogating that deal would have far less detrimental impact than if President Trump went after other trade relationships. As such, the NAFTA deal will either be renegotiated, or, at worst, abrogated and quickly replaced with bilateral deals with both Canada and Mexico. It is a "cheap" and "safe" way to satisfy voter demands without actually hurting business or the economy. Genuinely populist scenario: President Trump is a genuine populist and NAFTA renegotiations are setting the stage for a 2018 in which trade protectionism becomes a genuine, global market risk. Bottom Line: President Trump's negotiation stance on NAFTA is non-diagnostic. We cannot establish with any certainty whether his demands mark the start of a broader, global, protectionist trend, or whether he is merely bullying two trade partners who will ultimately have to kowtow to U.S. demands. Nonetheless, we agree with the market's pricing of a higher probability that NAFTA is abrogated, as witnessed by the currency markets. In both of our political scenarios, NAFTA's fate is uncertain. If Trump is a pluto-populist, NAFTA is an easy target and its abrogation will score domestic political points with limited economic impact. If he is a genuine economic nationalist, failed NAFTA renegotiations are the first step on the path to clashing with the WTO and rewriting global trade rules. Investment And Geopolitical Implications Can President Trump withdraw from NAFTA unilaterally? The short answer is yes. As Table 2 illustrates, Congress has passed several laws that delegate authority to the executive branch to administer and enforce trade agreements and to exercise prerogative amid exigencies.14 Article 2205 of NAFTA states that any party to the treaty can withdraw within six months after providing notice of withdrawal. We see no evidence in U.S. law that the president has to gain congressional approval of such withdrawal. Table 2Trump Faces Few Constraints On Trade Moreover, the past century has produced a series of laws that give President Trump considerable latitude - not only the right to impose a 15% tariff for up to 150 days, as in the Trade Act of 1974, but also unrestricted tariff and import quota powers during wartime or national emergencies, as in the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917.15 The White House has already signaled that it considers budget deficits a "national security issue," which suggests that the White House is preparing for a significant tariff move in the future.16 Could President Trump's moves be challenged by Congress or the courts? Absolutely. However, time is on the executive's side. Even assuming that Congress or the Supreme Court oppose the executive, it will likely be too late to avoid serious ramifications and retaliations from abroad. Other countries will not wait on the U.S. system to auto-correct. Congress is unlikely to vote to overrule the president until the damage has already been done - especially given Trump's powers delegated from Congress. As for the courts, the executive could swamp them with justifications for its actions; the courts would have to deem the executive likely to lose every single one of these cases in order to issue a preliminary injunction against each of them and halt the president's orders. Any final Supreme Court ruling would take at least a year. International law would be neither speedy nor binding. What are the investment implications of a NAFTA collapse? Short term: Short MXN; short North American automotive sector relative to European/Asian peers. We would expect more downside risk to MXN from a collapse in NAFTA talks, similar in magnitude to the decline of the GBP after the Brexit vote. The Mexican central bank would likely take on a dovish stance towards monetary policy, creating a negative feedback loop for the peso. The automotive sectors across the three economies that make up NAFTA would obviously suffer, given the benefits of the integrated supply-chains, as would U.S. steel and select agricultural producers that export to NAFTA peers. Medium term: Canadian exports largely unaffected, buy CAD on any NAFTA-related dip. Given that 20% of Canadian exports to the U.S. are energy - and thus highly unlikely to come under higher tariffs post-NAFTA - we do not expect exports to decline significantly.17 In fact, the 1987 Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, which laid the foundation for NAFTA, could quickly be resuscitated given that it was never formally terminated, only suspended. Canada and the U.S. have a balanced trade relationship, which means that it is highly unlikely that America's northern neighbor is in the sights of the White House administration. Long term: marginally positive for inflation. Economic globalization and immigration have both played a marginally deflationary role on the global economy. If abrogation of NAFTA is the first step towards less of both trends, than the economic effect should be mildly inflationary. This could feed into inflation expectations, reversing their recent decline. In broader terms, it is impossible to assess the long-term impact of NAFTA abrogation until we answer the question of whether the Trump administration is pluto-populist or genuinely populist. If pluto-populist, NAFTA's demise would be largely designed for domestic political consumption and would be the end of the matter. No long-term implications would really exist as, the Trump White House would conclude bilateral deals with Canada and Mexico to ensure that trade is not interrupted and that crucial constituencies - Midwest auto workers and farmers - do not turn against the administration. If genuinely populist, however, the White House would likely have to abrogate WTO rules as well in order to make a real dent to its trade deficit. The U.S. has no way to raise tariffs above an average bound tariff of 3.4%, other than for selective imports and on a temporary basis, or through a flagrant rejection of the WTO's authority. Given the likely currency moves post-NAFTA's demise, those levels would have an insignificant effect on U.S. trade with its North American neighbors. President Trump hinted as much when he sent a 336-page report to Congress titled "The President's Trade Policy Agenda," which argued that the administration would ignore WTO rules that it deems to infringe on U.S. sovereignty. The NAFTA negotiations, put in the context of that document, are a much more serious matter that might be part of a slow rollout of global trade policy that only becomes apparent in 2018.18 From a geopolitical perspective, ending NAFTA would make the U.S. less geopolitically secure. If the U.S. turned its back on its own neighbors, one of which is its closest military ally, then Canada and Mexico may seek closer trade relations with Europe and China. This could lead to the diversification of their export markets, including - most critically for U.S. national security - energy. In addition, Canada could allow significant Chinese investment into its technology sector, particularly in AI and quantum computing where the country is a global leader. Additionally, any negative consequences for the Mexican economy would likely be returned tenfold on the U.S. in the form of greater illegal immigration flows, a greater pool of recruits for Mexican drug cartels, and a rise in anti-Americanism in the country. The latter is particularly significant given the upcoming July 2018 presidential election and current solid polling for anti-establishment candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (Chart 18). Obrador is in the lead, but his new party - National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) - is unlikely to gain a majority in Congress (Chart 18, bottom panel). However, acrimonious NAFTA negotiations and a nationalist U.S. could change the fortunes for both Obrador and MORENA. Ultimately, everything depends on whether Trump's campaign rhetoric on trade is real. At this point, we lean towards Trump being a pluto-populist. The proposed tax cuts are clearly not designed with blue-collar workers in mind. They are largely a carbon-copy of every other Republican tax reform plan in the past and thus we assume that their consequences will be similar. If the signature legislation of the Trump White House through 2017-2018 will be a tax plan that skews towards the wealthy (Chart 19), than why should investors assume that its immigration and free trade rhetoric are real? Chart 18Populism On The March In Mexico Chart 19Tax Cuts Are Not Populist If ending NAFTA is merely red meat for the Midwestern base, and is quickly replaced with bilateral "fixes," then long-term implications will be muted. If, on the other hand, it is pursued as a new U.S. policy, then the significance will be much greater: it will mark the dawn of a new trend of twenty-first century mercantilism coming from the former bulwark of international liberalism. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Candidate Donald Trump made this comment during his first debate with Secretary Hillary Clinton. The September 26 debate focused heavily on free trade and globalization. 5 Mexico is exempt from several crucial articles in Chapter 6 due to the political sensitivity of the domestic energy industry. 6 Please see Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, "NAFTA Revisited," dated October 1, 2007, available at piie.com, and Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, NAFTA Revisited, New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. 7 Please see United States International Trade Commission, "Economic Impact of Trade Agreements Implemented Under Trade Authorities Procedures," Publication Number: 4614, June 2016, available at usitc.gov. First accessed via Congressional Research Service, "The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)," dated May 24, 2017, available at fas.org. 8 Since 1994, Canada has been sued 39 times and has paid out a total of $215 million in compensation. The U.S. is yet to lose a single case! 9 On average, vehicles produced in NAFTA member states average 75% local content; therefore, the first part of the demand is reachable if the White House is willing to budge. 10 Please see Evenett, Simon J. and Johannes Fritz, "Will Awe Trump Rules?" Global Trade Alert, dated July 3, 2017, available at globaltradealert.org. 11 Please see Robert Putnam, "Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games," International Organization 42:3 (summer 1988), pp. 427-460. 12 Please see Autor, David H., David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Reviews of Economics, dated August 8, 2016, available at annualreviews.org. 13 Pluto-populists use populist rhetoric that appeals to the common person in order to pass plutocratic policies that benefit the elites. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 See in particular the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232b), the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 301), the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 (Section 5b), and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. 16 Peter Navarro, director of the White House's National Trade Council, has argued throughout March that the U.S. chronic deficits and global supply chains were a threat to national security. 17 Unless President Trump and his advisors ignore the reality that the U.S. still imports 40% of its energy needs and will likely be doing so for the foreseeable future. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights NAFTA is truly at risk - as currency markets suggest; NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy is positive but marginal; The key question is whether Trump is a true populist or a "pluto-populist"; If the former, then NAFTA's failure is likely and portends worse to come; NAFTA's collapse would be bearish MXN, bearish U.S. carmakers versus DM peers, and supportive of higher inflation in the U.S. Feature Fifty years ago at the end of World War II, an unchallenged America was protected by the oceans and by our technological superiority and, very frankly, by the economic devastation of the people who could otherwise have been our competitors. We chose then to try to help rebuild our former enemies and to create a world of free trade supported by institutions which would facilitate it ... Make no mistake about it, our decision at the end of World War II to create a system of global, expanded, freer trade, and the supporting institutions, played a major role in creating the prosperity of the American middle class. - President Bill Clinton, Remarks at the Signing Ceremony for the Supplemental Agreements to the North American Free Trade Agreement, September 14, 1993 No Free Trade Agreement (FTA) has been more widely maligned than the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It is, after all, the world's preeminent FTA. Signed in December 1992 by President George H. W. Bush and implemented in January 1994, it preceded the founding agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and launched a two-decade, global expansion of FTAs (Chart 1). By including environmental and labor standards, as well as dispute settlement mechanisms, it created a high standard for all subsequent FTAs. President Trump's presidency began with much fear that his populist preferences would imperil globalization and trade deals such as NAFTA. Other than his withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, much of the concern has been proven to be misplaced - including our own.1 Even Sino-American trade tensions have eased, with President Trump and President Xi Jinping enjoying a good working relationship so far. So should investors relax and throw caution to the wind? In this report, we argue that the answer is a resounding no. The White House rhetoric on NAFTA - a trade deal that has been mildly positive for the U.S. economy and, at worst, neutral for its workers - suggests that greater trade conflicts loom, not only within NAFTA but also with China and others. Furthermore, a rejection of NAFTA would be a symbolic blow to free trade at least as consequential as the concrete ramifications of nixing the deal itself. The deal with Mexico and Canada is not as significant to the U.S. economy as its proponents suggest (Chart 2), but by mathematical logic its detractors therefore overstate its negatives. Chart 1NAFTA: Tailwind To Globalization Chart 2U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA The opposition to NAFTA by the Trump administration therefore reveals preferences that would become far more investment-relevant if applied to major global economies like China. If NAFTA negotiations are merely a ploy to play to the populist base, however, then the impact of its demise will be temporary and muted. At this time, however, it is unclear which preference is driving the Trump White House strategy and thus risks are to the downside. The Decaying Context Behind NAFTA The North American Free Trade Agreement is more than a trade deal: it is the symbolic beginning of late twentieth-century globalization. According to our trade globalization proxy, this period has experienced the fastest pace of globalization since the nineteenth century (Chart 3). Both NAFTA and the WTO enshrined new rules and standards for global trade upon which trade and financial globalization are based. Chart 3Globalization Has Peaked Chart 4Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Underpinning this surge in globalization was the apex of American geopolitical power and the collapse of the socialist alternative, the Soviet Union. As President Clinton's remarks from 1993 suggest (quoted at the beginning of the report), NAFTA was the culmination of a "creation myth" for an American Empire. The myth narrates how the geopolitical and economic decisions made by the U.S. in the aftermath of its victory in World War II laid a foundation for both American prosperity and a new global order. With the ruins of Communism still smoldering in the early 1990s, the U.S. decided to double-down on those same, globalist impulses. Today those impulses are waning if not completely dead. As we argued in our 2014 report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," three trends have conspired to turn the tides against globalization:2 Multipolarity - Every period of intense globalization has rested on strong pillars of geopolitical "hegemony," i.e. the existence of a single world leader. Chart 3 shows that the most recent such eras consisted of British and American hegemony, respectively. However, the relative decline of American geopolitical power has imperiled this process, as rising powers look to carve out regional spheres of influence that are by definition incompatible with a globalized political and economic framework. In parallel, the hegemon itself - the U.S. - has begun to vacillate over whether the framework it designed is still beneficial to it, given its declining say in how the global system operates. Great Recession - The 2008 global financial crisis cracked the ideological, macroeconomic, and policy foundations of globalization. Deflation - Globalization is deflationary, which works swimmingly when real household incomes are rising and debts falling. Unfortunately, neither of those has been the case for American households over the past forty years (Chart 4). This is in large part the consequence of globalization, which opened trade with emerging markets and thus suppressed low-income wage growth in developed economies. What is striking about the U.S. is that its social safety net has done such a poor job redistributing the gains of free trade, at least compared to its OECD peers (Chart 5). Chart 5The 'Great Gatsby' Curve Chart 6America Belongs To The Anti-Globalization Bloc President Donald Trump shrewdly understood that the tide had turned against free trade in the U.S. (Chart 6). Ahead of the 2016 election, no one (except BCA!) seriously believed that trade and globalization would become the fulcrum of the election.3 Candidate Trump, however, returned to it repeatedly, and singled out NAFTA as "the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere."4 Bottom Line: President Trump's opposition to globalization did not fall from the sky. Trump is the product of his time and geopolitical and macroeconomic context. Trends we identified in 2014 are today headwinds to globalization. Myths About NAFTA The geopolitical and macroeconomic context may be dire for globalization, but does NAFTA actually fit that narrative? The short answer is no. The long answer is that there are three myths about NAFTA that the Trump administration continues to propagate. We assume that U.S. policymakers can do simple math. As such, their ignorance of the below data suggests a broad strategy toward free trade that is based in ideology, not factual reality. Alternatively, flogging NAFTA may be motivated by narrower, domestic, political concerns and may not be indicative of a deeply held worldview. Time will tell which is true. Myth #1: NAFTA Has Widened The U.S. Trade Deficit Chart 7Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities NAFTA has resulted in a huge trade deficit for the United States and has cost us tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. The agreement has become very lopsided and needs to be rebalanced. We of course have a five-hundred-billion-dollar trade deficit. So, for us, trade deficits do matter. And we intend to reduce them. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 When it comes to the U.S. trade deficit, NAFTA has had a negligible impact. Three facts stand out: The U.S. has an insignificant trade deficit with Canada - 0.06% of GDP in 2016, or $12 billion. It has a larger one with Mexico - 0.33% of GDP, or $63 billion. However, when broken down by sectors, the deepest trade deficit has been in energy. The U.S. has actually run a surplus in manufactured products with Mexico and Canada for much of the post-2008 era, which only recently dipped back into deficit (Chart 7). The U.S. has consistently run a trade deficit with the rest of the world since 1980, but the size of its trade deficit with Mexico and Canada did not significantly increase as a share of GDP post-implementation of NAFTA. The real game changer has been the widening of the trade deficit with China and the rest of the EM economies outside of China and Mexico (Chart 8). The trade relationship with Mexico and Canada, relative to that with the rest of the world, therefore remains stable. The net energy trade balance with Mexico and Canada has significantly improved due to surging U.S. shale production (Chart 9). Rising shale production has accomplished this both by lowering the need for imports from NAFTA peers, surging refined product exports to Mexico, and by inducing lower global energy prices. In addition, Canada-U.S. energy trade is governed by NAFTA's Chapter 6 rules, which prohibit the Canadian government from intervention in the normal operation of North American energy markets.5 Chart 8U.S. Trade Imbalance Is Not About NAFTA Chart 9Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Myth #2: NAFTA Has Destroyed The U.S. Auto Industry Before NAFTA went into effect ... there were 280,000 autoworkers in Michigan. Today that number is roughly 165,000 - and would have been heading down big-league if I didn't get elected. - Donald Trump, U.S. President, March 15, 2017 What about the charge that NAFTA has negatively impacted the U.S. automotive industry by shipping jobs to Mexican and, to lesser extent, Canadian factories? Again, this reasoning is flawed. In fact, NAFTA appears to have allowed the U.S. automotive industry to remain highly competitive on a global scale, more so than its Mexican and Canadian peers. U.S. exports outside of NAFTA as a percent of total exports have surged since the early 2000s and have remained buoyant recently. Meanwhile, Mexican exports to the rest of the world have fallen, suggesting that Mexico is highly reliant on servicing Detroit (Chart 10). Chart 10NAFTA Has Made U.S. Auto##br## Manufacturing More Competitive The truth is that the American automotive industry's share of overall manufacturing activity has risen since 2008. In part, this is because American manufacturers have been able to integrate with Canadian and Mexican plants, allowing production to remain on the continent and move seamlessly across the value chain. In other words, Mexico serves as a low-wage outlet for the least-skilled part of the production chain, allowing the rest of the manufacturing process to remain in the U.S. and Canada. Without that cheap "escape valve," the entire production chain might have migrated to EM Asia. Or, worse, the American automotive industry would have become uncompetitive relative to European and Japanese peers. Either way, the U.S. would have potentially faced greater job losses were it not for easier access to Mexican auto production. Both European and Japanese manufacturers have similar low-skilled, low-cost, "labor escape valves" in the region. For Germany and France, this escape valve is in Spain and Central and Eastern Europe; for Japan, it is in Thailand. Myth #3: Mexico And Canada Cannot Retaliate Against The U.S. As far as I can tell, there is not a world oversupply of agricultural products. Unless countries are going to be prepared to have their people go hungry or change their diets, I think it's more of a threat to try to frighten the agricultural community. - Wilbur Ross, Commerce Secretary, October 11, 2017 U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico only account for about 2.6% of GDP, whereas exports to the U.S. from Mexico and Canada account for 28% and 18% of GDP respectively. Nonetheless, this does not mean that the U.S. suffers from NAFTA. As we discussed above, NAFTA has been a boon for the global competitiveness of the U.S. automotive industry. In addition, NAFTA gives American and Canadian exporters access to a large and growing Mexican middle class (Chart 11). Furthermore, the U.S. would gain little benefit from leaving NAFTA vis-à-vis Canada and Mexico. By reverting back to WTO tariff levels, the U.S. would be able to raise tariffs from 0% (under NAFTA) to the maximum of 3.4%, where the U.S. average "bound tariff" would remain. Bound tariffs differ across products and countries and represent the maximum rate of tariffs under WTO rules (i.e., without violating those rules). They are indicative of a hostile trade relationship, as trade would otherwise be set at much lower "most favored nation" tariff levels. Table 1WTO Tariff Schedule As Table 1 shows, however, Canada and particularly Mexico have the ability to raise their bound tariffs considerably higher than the U.S. can do. Mexico, in fact, has one of the highest average bound tariff rates for an OECD member state, at a whopping 36.2%! This means that, if NAFTA were to be abrogated, the U.S. would be allowed to raise tariffs, on average, to 3.4%, whereas Mexico would be free to do so by ten times more. Given that Mexico is America's main export destination for steel and corn output, the retaliation would be non-negligible for these two politically powerful sectors. This aspect of the WTO agreement is a latent geopolitical risk, as it feeds into the Trump administration's broader antagonism toward the WTO itself. Despite the hard evidence, we suspect that the Trump administration is driven by ideological and strategic goals and therefore the probability of a calamitous end to the ongoing NAFTA negotiations is high. Nevertheless, the data shows: The North American Free Trade Agreement has allowed trade between its member states to accelerate at a faster pace than global trade for much of the first decade after its signing and at the average global pace over the past decade (Chart 12); U.S. manufacturing employment as a percent of total labor force has been declining for much of the past half-century, with absolute numbers falling off a cliff as China joined the WTO and, along with EM Asia, became integrated into the global supply chain (Chart 13); Employment in auto-manufacturing follows the same pattern as overall manufacturing employment (Chart 13, bottom panel), suggesting that it was not NAFTA that caused job flight but rather competition from the rest of the world along with automation. In fact, auto-manufacturing employment has recovered post-2008, as American car manufacturers underwent structural reforms to improve competitiveness. Chart 12NAFTA Trade Has ##br##Beaten Global Trade Chart 13Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment:##br## China Or NAFTA? As with any free trade agreement, some wages in some sectors may have been lowered by NAFTA's implementation and some jobs were definitely lost due to the agreement. However, the vast majority of academic studies point out that the negative labor market impacts of NAFTA have been negligible. The most authoritative work on the subject, by economists Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, found that the upper-bound of NAFTA-related job losses in the U.S. is 1.9 million over the first decade of the agreement. Given that U.S. employment rose by 34 million over the same period, the job losses represent "a fraction of one percent of jobs 'lost' through turnover in the dynamic U.S. economy over a decade."6 A June 2016 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) provides a good review of academic studies on the trade deal since 2002. Overall, it concludes that NAFTA led "to a substantial increase in trade volumes for all three countries; a small increase in U.S. welfare [overall economic benefit]; and little to no change in U.S. aggregate employment."7 In addition, NAFTA had "essentially no effect on real wages in the United States of either skilled or unskilled workers." This academic work could, of course, be the product of a vast conspiracy by globalist, neo-liberal academics financed by the deep state and its corporate overlords. However, the other side of the debate has little to offer as a counter to the empirical evidence. For example, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, a notable trade hawk, posited that the U.S. government had "certified" that 700,000 Americans had lost their jobs owing to NAFTA. This would represent 30,000 job losses per year over the 24 years of NAFTA's existence. Lighthizer also did not say whether he was speaking in net or gross terms, probably because it is practically impossible to competently answer that question! If that is the best retort to the academic research, there is then no real counter to the conclusion that NAFTA has had a mildly positive effect on the U.S. economy and labor market. Bottom Line: NAFTA has had some positive effects on the U.S. automotive sector, allowing it to integrate the low-cost Mexican labor into its production chain and thus remain competitive vis-à-vis Asian and European manufacturers. It also holds the promise of future export gains to Mexico's growing middle class. Its overall effects on the U.S. budget deficit, wages, and employment are largely overstated. If the impact of NAFTA has largely been marginal to the U.S. economy outside of a select few sectors, why is the Trump administration so dead-set on renegotiating it? And why has the process been so acrimonious? What Does The Trump White House Want? Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed by the resistance to change from our negotiating partners ... As difficult as this has been, we have seen no indication that our partners are willing to make any changes that will result in a rebalancing and reduction in these huge trade deficits. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. trade representative, closed the fourth round of negotiations with a bang, implying that Canada and Mexico would have to help the U.S. close its $500 billion trade deficit, even though the U.S. trade deficit with its two NAFTA partners is only 15% of the total. The Canadian dollar and the Mexican peso fell by 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively, in the subsequent week of trading. In fact, both the CAD and MXN have faced extended losses since the third round of NAFTA negotiations ended on September 27 (Chart 14). Chart 14NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant Is the market overreacting? We do not think so. First, the list of demands presented by the White House are quite harsh, with the first two below considered deal-breakers: Dispute Settlement: The White House wants to end the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism (under Chapter 11), which allows corporations to sue governments for breach of obligations under the treaty.8 More importantly, the U.S. also wants to eliminate trade dispute panels (under Chapter 19), which allow NAFTA countries to protest anti-dumping and countervailing duties. The real issue is that Chapter 19 trade dispute panels have acted as a constraint on the U.S. administration in imposing antidumping and countervailing duties in the past. Sunset clause: The White House has also proposed that NAFTA automatically expire unless it is approved by all three countries every five years. Buy American: The White House wants its "Buy American" rules in government procurement to be part of the new NAFTA deal, and yet for Canadian and Mexican government contracts to remain open to U.S. businesses. Rules of origin: The White House has called for an increase in NAFTA's regional automotive content requirement from the current 62.5% to 85%, including that 50% of the value of all NAFTA-produced cars, trucks, and large engines come from the U.S.9 Second, the U.S. Commerce Department - headed by trade hawk Wilbur Ross - has signaled that it is open to aggressively pursuing trade disputes on behalf of American companies. Since President Trump's inauguration, U.S. policy interventions have on balance harmed the commercial interests of its G20 trade partners by higher frequency than during the last three years of Barack Obama's presidency (Chart 15).10 Chart 15Trump: Game Changer In U.S. Trade Policy Specific to NAFTA partners, the Commerce Department has slapped a 20% tariff on Canadian softwood lumber in April and a 300% tariff on Bombardier C-Series in October. When combined with the demand to end trade dispute panels under NAFTA's Chapter 19 - which would resolve such trade disputes - the pickup in activity by the Commerce Department is a clear signal that the new U.S. administration intends to break the spirit of NAFTA whether the agreement remains in place or not. Third, and more broadly speaking, the Trump administration is playing a "two-level game."11 Two-level game theory posits that domestic politics creates acceptable "win-sets," which are then transported to the geopolitical theatre. Politicians cannot conclude foreign agreements that are outside of those domestic win-sets. For President Trump, his win-set on NAFTA negotiations is set by a domestic coalition that allowed him to win the election. This includes voters in the Midwest states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania where Trump outperformed polls by 10%, 3%, and 3% respectively (Chart 16), and where Secretary Hillary Clinton garnered less votes in 2016 than President Barack Obama in 2012 (Chart 17). Trump promised this blue-collar base a respite from globalization and he has to deliver it if he intends to win in four years' time. Chart 16Trump Owes The Midwest Chart 17Hillary Lost Rust Belt Voters At the same time, Trump's domestic policy has thus far fallen far short of other campaign promises. First, there has been no movement on immigration or the promised border wall. Second, the Obamacare repeal and replace effort has failed in Congress. Third, proposed tax cuts are likely to benefit the country's elites, as previous tax reform efforts have tended to do. As such, we fear that the Trump White House may double down on playing hardball with NAFTA in order to fulfill at least one of its promised strategies. But why single out NAFTA if its impact on U.S. jobs and wages is miniscule compared to, for example, the U.S.-China trade relationship?12 There are two ways to answer this question: Pluto-populist scenario: President Trump is in fact a pluto-populist and not a genuine populist, i.e. he is not committed to economic nationalism.13 As such, he does not intend to fulfill any of the demands he has promised to his voters, as the current corporate and household tax cuts suggest. Given NAFTA's limited impact on the U.S. economy, abrogating that deal would have far less detrimental impact than if President Trump went after other trade relationships. As such, the NAFTA deal will either be renegotiated, or, at worst, abrogated and quickly replaced with bilateral deals with both Canada and Mexico. It is a "cheap" and "safe" way to satisfy voter demands without actually hurting business or the economy. Genuinely populist scenario: President Trump is a genuine populist and NAFTA renegotiations are setting the stage for a 2018 in which trade protectionism becomes a genuine, global market risk. Bottom Line: President Trump's negotiation stance on NAFTA is non-diagnostic. We cannot establish with any certainty whether his demands mark the start of a broader, global, protectionist trend, or whether he is merely bullying two trade partners who will ultimately have to kowtow to U.S. demands. Nonetheless, we agree with the market's pricing of a higher probability that NAFTA is abrogated, as witnessed by the currency markets. In both of our political scenarios, NAFTA's fate is uncertain. If Trump is a pluto-populist, NAFTA is an easy target and its abrogation will score domestic political points with limited economic impact. If he is a genuine economic nationalist, failed NAFTA renegotiations are the first step on the path to clashing with the WTO and rewriting global trade rules. Investment And Geopolitical Implications Can President Trump withdraw from NAFTA unilaterally? The short answer is yes. As Table 2 illustrates, Congress has passed several laws that delegate authority to the executive branch to administer and enforce trade agreements and to exercise prerogative amid exigencies.14 Article 2205 of NAFTA states that any party to the treaty can withdraw within six months after providing notice of withdrawal. We see no evidence in U.S. law that the president has to gain congressional approval of such withdrawal. Table 2Trump Faces Few Constraints On Trade Moreover, the past century has produced a series of laws that give President Trump considerable latitude - not only the right to impose a 15% tariff for up to 150 days, as in the Trade Act of 1974, but also unrestricted tariff and import quota powers during wartime or national emergencies, as in the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917.15 The White House has already signaled that it considers budget deficits a "national security issue," which suggests that the White House is preparing for a significant tariff move in the future.16 Could President Trump's moves be challenged by Congress or the courts? Absolutely. However, time is on the executive's side. Even assuming that Congress or the Supreme Court oppose the executive, it will likely be too late to avoid serious ramifications and retaliations from abroad. Other countries will not wait on the U.S. system to auto-correct. Congress is unlikely to vote to overrule the president until the damage has already been done - especially given Trump's powers delegated from Congress. As for the courts, the executive could swamp them with justifications for its actions; the courts would have to deem the executive likely to lose every single one of these cases in order to issue a preliminary injunction against each of them and halt the president's orders. Any final Supreme Court ruling would take at least a year. International law would be neither speedy nor binding. What are the investment implications of a NAFTA collapse? Short term: Short MXN; short North American automotive sector relative to European/Asian peers. We would expect more downside risk to MXN from a collapse in NAFTA talks, similar in magnitude to the decline of the GBP after the Brexit vote. The Mexican central bank would likely take on a dovish stance towards monetary policy, creating a negative feedback loop for the peso. The automotive sectors across the three economies that make up NAFTA would obviously suffer, given the benefits of the integrated supply-chains, as would U.S. steel and select agricultural producers that export to NAFTA peers. Medium term: Canadian exports largely unaffected, buy CAD on any NAFTA-related dip. Given that 20% of Canadian exports to the U.S. are energy - and thus highly unlikely to come under higher tariffs post-NAFTA - we do not expect exports to decline significantly.17 In fact, the 1987 Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, which laid the foundation for NAFTA, could quickly be resuscitated given that it was never formally terminated, only suspended. Canada and the U.S. have a balanced trade relationship, which means that it is highly unlikely that America's northern neighbor is in the sights of the White House administration. Long term: marginally positive for inflation. Economic globalization and immigration have both played a marginally deflationary role on the global economy. If abrogation of NAFTA is the first step towards less of both trends, than the economic effect should be mildly inflationary. This could feed into inflation expectations, reversing their recent decline. In broader terms, it is impossible to assess the long-term impact of NAFTA abrogation until we answer the question of whether the Trump administration is pluto-populist or genuinely populist. If pluto-populist, NAFTA's demise would be largely designed for domestic political consumption and would be the end of the matter. No long-term implications would really exist as, the Trump White House would conclude bilateral deals with Canada and Mexico to ensure that trade is not interrupted and that crucial constituencies - Midwest auto workers and farmers - do not turn against the administration. If genuinely populist, however, the White House would likely have to abrogate WTO rules as well in order to make a real dent to its trade deficit. The U.S. has no way to raise tariffs above an average bound tariff of 3.4%, other than for selective imports and on a temporary basis, or through a flagrant rejection of the WTO's authority. Given the likely currency moves post-NAFTA's demise, those levels would have an insignificant effect on U.S. trade with its North American neighbors. President Trump hinted as much when he sent a 336-page report to Congress titled "The President's Trade Policy Agenda," which argued that the administration would ignore WTO rules that it deems to infringe on U.S. sovereignty. The NAFTA negotiations, put in the context of that document, are a much more serious matter that might be part of a slow rollout of global trade policy that only becomes apparent in 2018.18 From a geopolitical perspective, ending NAFTA would make the U.S. less geopolitically secure. If the U.S. turned its back on its own neighbors, one of which is its closest military ally, then Canada and Mexico may seek closer trade relations with Europe and China. This could lead to the diversification of their export markets, including - most critically for U.S. national security - energy. In addition, Canada could allow significant Chinese investment into its technology sector, particularly in AI and quantum computing where the country is a global leader. Additionally, any negative consequences for the Mexican economy would likely be returned tenfold on the U.S. in the form of greater illegal immigration flows, a greater pool of recruits for Mexican drug cartels, and a rise in anti-Americanism in the country. The latter is particularly significant given the upcoming July 2018 presidential election and current solid polling for anti-establishment candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (Chart 18). Obrador is in the lead, but his new party - National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) - is unlikely to gain a majority in Congress (Chart 18, bottom panel). However, acrimonious NAFTA negotiations and a nationalist U.S. could change the fortunes for both Obrador and MORENA. Ultimately, everything depends on whether Trump's campaign rhetoric on trade is real. At this point, we lean towards Trump being a pluto-populist. The proposed tax cuts are clearly not designed with blue-collar workers in mind. They are largely a carbon-copy of every other Republican tax reform plan in the past and thus we assume that their consequences will be similar. If the signature legislation of the Trump White House through 2017-2018 will be a tax plan that skews towards the wealthy (Chart 19), than why should investors assume that its immigration and free trade rhetoric are real? Chart 18Populism On The March In Mexico Chart 19Tax Cuts Are Not Populist If ending NAFTA is merely red meat for the Midwestern base, and is quickly replaced with bilateral "fixes," then long-term implications will be muted. If, on the other hand, it is pursued as a new U.S. policy, then the significance will be much greater: it will mark the dawn of a new trend of twenty-first century mercantilism coming from the former bulwark of international liberalism. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “The Apex Of Globalization – All Downhill From Here,” dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know,” dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “U.S. Election: The Great White Hype,” dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Candidate Donald Trump made this comment during his first debate with Secretary Hillary Clinton. The September 26 debate focused heavily on free trade and globalization. 5 Mexico is exempt from several crucial articles in Chapter 6 due to the political sensitivity of the domestic energy industry. 6 Please see Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, "NAFTA Revisited," dated October 1, 2007, available at piie.com, and Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, NAFTA Revisited, New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. 7 Please see United States International Trade Commission, "Economic Impact of Trade Agreements Implemented Under Trade Authorities Procedures," Publication Number: 4614, June 2016, available at usitc.gov. First accessed via Congressional Research Service, "The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)," dated May 24, 2017, available at fas.org. 8 Since 1994, Canada has been sued 39 times and has paid out a total of $215 million in compensation. The U.S. is yet to lose a single case! 9 On average, vehicles produced in NAFTA member states average 75% local content; therefore, the first part of the demand is reachable if the White House is willing to budge. 10 Please see Evenett, Simon J. and Johannes Fritz, "Will Awe Trump Rules?" Global Trade Alert, dated July 3, 2017, available at globaltradealert.org. 11 Please see Robert Putnam, "Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games," International Organization 42:3 (summer 1988), pp. 427-460. 12 Please see Autor, David H., David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Reviews of Economics, dated August 8, 2016, available at annualreviews.org. 13 Pluto-populists use populist rhetoric that appeals to the common person in order to pass plutocratic policies that benefit the elites. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency,” dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 See in particular the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232b), the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 301), the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 (Section 5b), and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. 16 Peter Navarro, director of the White House's National Trade Council, has argued throughout March that the U.S. chronic deficits and global supply chains were a threat to national security. 17 Unless President Trump and his advisors ignore the reality that the U.S. still imports 40% of its energy needs and will likely be doing so for the foreseeable future. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Political Risks Are Understated In 2018,” dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights China's mini-cycle has peaked, which has raised concerns among global investors that China may return to below-trend growth over the coming year, similar to what occurred in 2015. In our view, the severe slowdown in the Chinese economy in 2015 was due to overly tight monetary policy coupled with a severely weak external demand environment. A monetary conditions approach has done an excellent job of predicting industrial activity in China over the past several years. While monetary policy has tightened somewhat since the beginning of the year, none of the monetary conditions indexes that we track have come close to returning to 2015 levels. In short, an uncontrolled and sharp deceleration in the Chinese economy is not in the cards. This favors the performance of Chinese stocks, both in absolute and relative terms. Stay overweight. Feature Last week's report was replaced by a Special Report prepared by my colleague Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President of our Geopolitical Strategy team.1 The report presented a full "postmortem" on the Party Congress, and outlined how stepped up reform efforts in China are likely over the coming year, and beyond. By "reforms", our geopolitical team specifically means deleveraging in the financial sector accompanied by a more intense anti-corruption campaign focused on the shadow-banking sector, as well as ongoing restructuring in the industrial sector. The implications of the "reform reboot" scenario presented in last week's report are negative for emerging markets (EM) and other plays on China's industrial sector (such as industrial metals). We agree that a "status quo" scenario of no significant reforms is highly unlikely given that President Xi has succeeded in amassing tremendous political capital and that he has an agenda for reform. But the intensity of reforms pursued over the coming year will have to be closely monitored by policymakers, to avoid a repeat of the significant slowdown that occurred in 2014/2015. As such, the view of BCA's China Investment Strategy service is that the reform efforts over the coming year will be structured at a pace that is sufficient to avoid a meaningful deceleration in China's industrial sector, even though the momentum of China's "mini" economic cycle of the past two years has very likely peaked. However, the potential for a brisk pace of reforms to cause a more acute decline in industrial activity is a risk to our view that the slowdown in China's economy is likely to be benign and controlled. Monitoring reform progress is likely to be a key theme for this publication over the coming year. Over the nearer term, the potential impact of reform efforts is not the only risk to the economy, as many market participants appear to be worried that the peak in China's mini-cycle presages a destabilizing decline in economic activity. This week's report is the second of two parts examining the key differences facing China today from what prevailed in mid-2015,2 when the Chinese economy operated below what investors and market participants considered to be a "stable" pace of growth. In Part II we focus on monetary policy, and outline how the monetary environment remains stimulative despite a significant rise in corporate bond yields over the past year. China's Monetary Policy Stance: A Brief Review Chart 1 presents the one-year policy lending rate over the past decade, and highlights the four distinct phases that have prevailed since the global financial crisis in 2008: Chart 1A Brief Review Of China's Monetary Policy Stance A long period of significant easing that began during the Great Recession and lasted until late-2010 A material rate tightening cycle that began in late-2010 and ended in mid-2012 A half-reversal of the 2011/2012 rate cycle, which happened quickly in the summer of 2012 and was followed by a long pause until late-2014, and A significant series of rate cuts over the course of 2015, followed by a 2-year pause at current levels. We contend that policymakers were too timid in responding to economic weakness in China at the end of the third monetary policy phase highlighted in Chart 1, and that this hesitation magnified the impact of the serious deterioration in China's external demand environment that we discussed in Part I of this report. Chart 2Monetary Conditions Predict ##br##Chinese Industrial Activity Of course, in a large, trade-sensitive, economy like that of China, interest rates are not the only determinant of the degree of monetary accommodation. In order to capture the effects of the exchange rate and other factors affecting the efficacy of monetary policy, we have tended to show a Monetary Conditions Index (MCI) as a stand-in for the policy stance. As shown in Chart 2, the Bloomberg MCI has done an excellent job of leading industrial activity in China over the past several years, particularly during the mini-cycle of the past two years. While the MCI appears to have peaked early this year, it remains well above (i.e. more accommodative) the levels reached in mid-2015 when policymakers finally became serious about easing monetary conditions. Looking Forward Chart 3 presents a few alternative MCIs for China alongside Bloomberg's measure. Analysts tend to employ a variety of approaches when calculating monetary conditions indexes, but the real interest rate and the real effective exchange rate almost always feature prominently. Of the three alternative measures, Citigroup's MCI is the most bearish, as it includes the year-over-year growth rate of M2 which has recently languished. The remaining two measures are BCA calculations, one that deflates interest rates using producer prices, and one that uses core consumer prices. Both of our measures employ an equal split between the real interest rate and the exchange rate. Chart 3 highlights that all four MCIs have either peaked or are now falling, suggesting that a tightening in financial conditions earlier this year has somewhat reduced the degree of monetary accommodation to the economy. However, there are three key points to consider when judging the likely impact of monetary tightening on China's economy over the coming 6-12 months: None of the MCIs shown in Chart 3 have returned to their 2015 low, implying that the policy tightening that has occurred over the past year is not likely to cause Chinese industrial activity to crash in over the coming 6-12 months. Most of the appreciation in the RMB this year has occurred versus the dollar, not against the euro or in trade-weighted terms (Chart 4). In fact, in trade-weighted the RMB remains 6.5% below where it was in August 2015 prior to the currency devaluation. This highlights that the recent appreciation largely reflects dollar weakness, rather than policy-induced strength in the RMB. Chart 3Monetary Conditions Have Not Returned##br## To 2015 Levels Chart 4Recent RMB Appreciation##br## Reflects Dollar Weakness Average lending rates have only increased approximately 40 bps over the past year, in comparison to the 200 bps of easing that occurred from 2014 to 2016 (Chart 5). In real terms (when deflated by core consumer prices), average interest rate have barely risen at all this year. The still modest rise in average lending rates is an important consideration, because it contrasts with the rise in Chinese bond yields, both in the government and corporate sectors. For example, Chart 6 shows that corporate bond yields have risen by 160 bps since late-2016 and are 25 bps higher than they were in early-2015. Chart 5Average Lending Rates ##br##Have Risen Only Modestly Chart 6Corporate Bond Yields##br## Have Tightened Materially But our view is that average lending rates are a more important driver of debt service payments for China's non-financial sector. In fact, Table 1 highlights that while corporate bond financing is a growing component of Chinese private social financing, it is still quite small. The table presents a breakdown of adjusted social financing, which highlights that the sum of local currency loans, foreign currency loans in RMB, trust and entrusted loans equals roughly 85% of total social financial excluding equity issuance. Corporate bonds, by contrast, account for only about 10%, suggesting that the economic impact of the rise in bond yields this year will be relatively small. Table 1Corporate Bonds Account For A Small Percent Of China's Social Financing Investment Implications We noted in our October 12 Weekly Report that the acceleration in the Chinese economy that began in mid-2015 has likely peaked (Chart 7), ending the upswing of this "mini" economic cycle. Chart 7A Stylized View Of China's Recent The framework illustrated in Chart 7 presented three distinct scenarios for China over the coming 6-12 months: A re-acceleration of the economy and a continuation of the V-shaped rebound profile, A benign, controlled deceleration and settling of growth into the "stable" growth range, and An uncontrolled and sharp deceleration in the economy that threatens a return to the conditions that prevailed in early-2015 (or worse). In our view, the Chinese economy in early-2015 began to operate below the "stable" growth range shown in Chart 7, owing to a "double whammy" of excessively tight monetary conditions and a synchronized global downturn. While our research suggests that China's export growth will moderate over the coming year and that monetary conditions have tightened somewhat, the magnitude of these changes are not sufficiently large to return the Chinese economy back to 2015-like conditions. To us, this is consistent with the second scenario presented above. From an absolute equity perspective, this conclusion is positive for Chinese stock prices. Chart 8 highlights that the Li Keqiang index correlates fairly well with the growth in earnings for the MSCI China index ex technology; a moderate decline in the pace of growth in China's industrial sector would blunt the earnings growth of these firms, but not enough to cause an outright contraction. The combination of positive ex-tech earnings growth and very cheap valuation (Chart 9) suggests that the absolute uptrend in Chinese ex-technology stocks that began at the beginning of 2016 is likely to continue. Chart 8Ex-Tech EPS Growth Will Moderate, ##br##But Not Contract Chart 9Excluding Technology, ##br##China Is Extraordinarily Cheap In relative terms, the picture is somewhat cloudier, although for now we would continue to favor the China MSCI index versus global and emerging market stocks. Chart 10 highlights that Chinese equities have outperformed global stocks even when excluding tech companies, although it is clear that most of the recent outperformance is due to the IT sector. On the earnings front, while we expect Chinese ex-tech earnings growth to moderate over the coming year, this is also true of overall U.S. equities (Chart 11). Finally, Chart 12 highlights that while Chinese technology firms are richly priced vs their global counterparts, the multi-year relative outperformance trend has been fundamentally-driven, a situation that does not appear to be threatened by a slowdown in China's industrial sector (given the largely domestic & consumer orientation of Chinese technology firms). Chart 10China Is Beating Global,##br## Even Excluding Technology Chart 11U.S. Earnings Growth##br## Is Set To Moderate Chart 12China's Tech Rally Is ##br##Fundamentally-Driven Bottom Line: The economic momentum of China's 2-year mini-cycle has probably peaked, but an uncontrolled and sharp deceleration in the economy is not in the cards. This favors the performance of Chinese stocks, both in absolute and relative terms. Stay overweight. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?", dated November 2, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 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. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Chart of the WeekChina Developments Significant##BR##To Base Metal Prices Reading the tea leaves following China's 19th National Communist Party Congress suggests a looming shift in President Xi Jinping's second term from pro-growth to pro-reform. Having consolidated power, Xi now has the capacity to implement his agenda over the next five years. Given China's outsized role in global base metals production and consumption, the direction of Xi's policy changes will have a profound impact on these markets (Chart of the Week).1 The Party Congress set the tone for economic policy and reforms going forward, from which we can extrapolate future policy direction. However, concrete plans and details will not be revealed until the National People's Congress, scheduled in March 2018. In this report we highlight the main takeaways of the Congress specifically those relevant to base metals. Broadly, these can be summarized as: Xi now has the political capital needed to implement real reform in his second term. Based on Xi's remarks at the Congress during his work-report commentary, we believe the environmental and supply-side reforms initiated during his first five-year term will be continued in his second term. Because these reforms will shrink the domestic production capacity for base metals and steel in China, they likely will be a tailwind for these commodities' prices. However, a focus on sustainable growth - i.e., organic growth that is not dependent on regular injections of credit to keep it going - and the elimination of GDP targets past 2021 risk weighing down base metals demand. Real-estate market fundamentals are more supportive than most perceive. This will prevent tighter policies from triggering a significant construction downturn, which will be supportive for steel and copper prices. China's efforts to expand its economic influence globally through the Belt and Road initiative (BRI) will be insufficient in offsetting a mainland slowdown, should one occur. Feature Balancing Stability And Reform Chart 2Stability Was A Priority...Not Anymore Despite reiterating a need for economic reforms, the focus of Xi's first term was maintaining stability and garnering the political capital necessary to implement his desired reforms. Emphasizing stability is a recurrent theme in Chinese politics, regardless of who is at the helm. The 2015-16 state interventions in the economy - including higher infrastructure spending, provincial government bailouts, currency depreciation and capital controls - illustrated the dominance of stability over reforms, during Xi's first term (Chart 2).2 The 19th Party Congress was the capstone event in Xi's effort to accumulate the support needed to implement long-sought reforms. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy points to three outcomes that support this assessment: With the inscription of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era in China's constitution, the president has cemented his position as one of the most powerful leaders of modern China. In fact, according to our geopolitical strategists, this induction signals that he is "second only to Chairman Mao as a philosophical guide in the party."3 Practically speaking, this means his economic initiatives will carry more weight than anything China has seen since at least the 1998-99 intense reform period. The leanings of members of the new Politburo Standing Committee (PSC) also are telling. Each of the three most recent presidents is represented by two protégés on the PSC. This is an almost-ideal configuration for reform.4 Finally, the appointment of Xi loyalist Zhao Leji as chief of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CDIC), and the creation of the National Supervisory Commission to oversee the anti-corruption campaign give Xi the tools he needs to implement his policies. Thus, Xi has garnered sufficient ammunition to be much more effective in implementing reform policies during his second term. As such, we expect the pace of reform to accelerate. While the policy details are yet to be known, many of the takeaways from the party congress point toward supply- and demand-side changes. Supply-Side Reforms: Short-Term Sacrifice For Long-Term Benefit? While the aim for environmental regulation is not new - an "ecological" section was included in the work report for the first time by Xi's predecessor Hu Jintao in 2012 - we have reason to believe that, given Xi's focus on sustainable development, he will tackle environmental policies with more fervor than in the past. This signals that Xi may prioritize environmental preservation and pollution-reduction measures going forward, which would continue the efforts begun in his first term. In fact, environmental spending was the fastest growing category in central-government spending at the beginning of Xi's first term (Table 1). Table 1Xi Jinping Favors A Greener China Xi's environmental agenda will get an assist from his anti-corruption campaign. Our Geopolitical strategists highlight Xi's use of the CDIC - the anti-corruption watchdog - in enforcing the reforms as a signal of his resolve to implement change. The stakes are high for noncompliant managers who now risk not only financial penalties, but also arrest and jail time. Chart 3Shifting Gears: From Pro-Growth To Pro-Reform This reinforces the message that Xi is still keen on implementing the supply-side structural reforms first announced in 2015, and that he is willing to change the old-line economic model, forgoing potential growth drivers from traditional industries in favor of greener sectors (Chart 3). As the leading base metals producer in the world, a continuation - and potential intensification - of these reforms will weigh on global production and prop up base metal prices, as they have since last year. In fact, some of these reforms have already materialized in the form of earlier-than-anticipated winter production cuts. Steel production in Tangshan - China's largest steel-producing city - will be halved over the winter, with three other top steel producing cities - Shijiazhuang, Anyang, and Handan - expected to announce similar cuts.5 Similarly, the government of Shandong - a major producer of alumina and aluminum - recently instituted a crackdown program that includes production cuts during the winter months.6 Bottom Line: Xi used his platform at the Party Congress to reiterate his resolve to set China's economy on a more sustainable growth path through supply-side reform. Given that he has accumulated the political capital necessary to implement these changes, we expect to see a renewed push toward a "greener" China. Ceteris paribus, this will weigh on base metals production by reducing global supply and will support prices. "Houses Are Built To Be Inhabited, Not For Speculation" During the party congress, Xi reiterated his resolve to tighten control of the real estate market. In fact, the Chinese government has been trying for years to rein in demand for real estate, which typically involves raising mortgage rates. Tightening measures announced in late September include controls on home sales in eight major cities, which, among other things, prevent the resale of homes within five years of purchase. These controls have weighed on both prices and sales of real estate (Chart 4). More recently, the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development and the National Development and Reform Commission announced that they will jointly inspect real estate developers and commercial property sales agents, looking for "irregularities," including artificially inflating prices and hoarding unsold homes.7 Nonetheless, our China Investment Strategy desk does not foresee a major slowdown in construction activity.8 Simply put, they argue that strong demand amid declining inventories will prevent a construction slowdown, even in face of tighter policies (Chart 5). In fact, they do not see much excess in China's current property market to begin with, and thus doubt we will witness a major downturn. This will be important to bear in mind going forward, given that construction is the most important source of demand for base metals - copper in particular - and steel in China, accounting for about one-third of copper demand and half of steel demand. Chart 4Real Estate Policies Weigh##BR##On Prices And Sales Chart 5Housing Destocking Becomes Advanced Fundamentals##BR##Will Prevent A Major Real Estate Downturn Bottom Line: Despite efforts to tighten the property market, a sharp downturn in the construction sector, which is a major metals consumer, is unlikely. Structural tailwinds - most notably from China's continued urbanization - will eventually prevail, and the construction sector will remain a major contributor to China's economy, and base metals and steel consumption. Quality Over Quantity: Deleveraging The renewed focus on "sustainable and sound" growth, especially given the elimination of GDP growth targets beyond 2021, elevates the risk of a potential economic slowdown. The Xi administration has signaled that it is not afraid to prioritize financial regulation - targeting excessive risk and under-regulation - over economic growth. It is likely that it will continue doing so. In fact, Xi singled out systemic financial risk as a hazard to overall stability. While this is not China's first time to announce a deleveraging campaign, given that Xi has consolidated power and will use the CDIC to implement reforms, we expect these efforts to be more effective this time around. Furthermore, China has bounced back from the 2015 - 16 deflationary spiral so well that interest rate hikes and tighter financial controls are now on the table (Chart 6). Chart 6Interest Rate Hikes Are Now On The Table While the reforms are expected to improve Chinese productivity in the long-run, they may shake up the economy in the short run. We are somewhat reassured by the fact that traditionally, Chinese leaders have boosted fiscal spending when faced with slowing credit growth in periods when they aim to combat the negative effects of supply-side structural reforms and deleveraging. However, we remain cautious that, as Xi's priorities have shifted, fiscal stimulus may not be used with the same enthusiasm going forward. Given China's outsized role as a consumer of base metals, a slowdown would have serious repercussions on global markets. Researchers at the IMF find that surprises in the strength of China's economy - measured as the scaled deviation of year-on-year industrial production growth from the median Bloomberg consensus estimates immediately prior to the announcements - have significant impacts on base metals prices.9 This is true for all metals they studied - copper, nickel, lead, tin, and aluminum - with the exception of iron ore, which they put down to the relatively recent financialization of iron ore markets. In fact, they find that the more important China is to a specific base metal's fundamentals, the stronger the impact on prices. Using China's import share as a percent of world total as their measure of China's footprint in each individual market, they find that copper is most impacted by Chinese IP shocks, followed by nickel, lead, tin, and aluminum.10 Bottom Line: Beijing is continuously reassuring markets it will push for reforms - in the form of deleveraging the financial sector, restructuring industry, eliminating overcapacity, and environmental controls - without sacrificing growth. Nonetheless these reforms, which we believe are forthcoming following Xi's consolidation of power post-19th Congress, will be headwinds to growth. It is true that Xi may be willing to tolerate slower growth going forward in order to see his policies go through. Yet in all likelihood, fiscal stimulus will be used if social stability is threatened by reform measures. That said, reform is definitely in the cards. The Revival Of China's Silk Road - Enshrined In The Constitution Along with supply-side reforms, the Belt and Road initiative (BRI) - Xi's solution to a global slowdown through the physical integration of China's trading partners - was written into the constitution. This is a reiteration of Xi's intent to shift China away from being the factory of the world and toward playing a key role in global development. The ambition of the BRI plan is to connect many of China's trading partners in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa through a modern infrastructure of roads, ports, railway tracks, pipelines, airports, transnational electric grids, and fiber-optic lines. The objectives of the project, although speculative, are believed to be two-fold: It is an opportunity to create new markets for Chinese goods - giving the Chinese economy a push even in the event of a mainland slowdown. This is especially relevant, given the need to export excess capacity, most notably in the cases of steel and cement. In fact, Chinese industrial production will also benefit from the secondary effects of an improvement in demand for consumer goods from countries receiving economic aid from China. Furthermore, Xi hopes the project will help revive the economies of China's border regions. There is a possible ancillary benefit, in that heavy industry - e.g., steel mills and aluminum smelters - could be moved away from population centers to support the BRI. Chart 7BRI Investments On The Ascent Policymakers foresee the project - which was initiated in 2013 - injecting an estimated $150 billion annually into the construction of massive amounts of infrastructure (Chart 7). BCA's Frontier Markets Strategy (FMS) projects the value of Chinese BRI project investments will reach $168 billion in 2020.11 While this would boost China's economy in general, and base metals, steel and iron ore demand in particular, our FMS strategists argue that at ~ $102 billion, China-funded BRI investment expenditure in 2016 is dwarfed in comparison to China's gross fixed-capital formation (GFCF), which amounted to ~ $4.8 trillion last year. Simply put, the BRI is incapable of offsetting a general slowdown in China, were it to occur. In fact, our FMS desk estimates that a 0.4% contraction in GFCF is all that will be needed to offset BRI-related investments in 2018. Bottom Line: With the Belt and Road Initiative written into the constitution, we expect greater follow-through directed toward meeting the goals specified in it. On its own, this is positive for base metals, which will benefit from greater demand from infrastructure projects, as well as the secondary effects in the form of demand for consumer goods from trading partners. However, the BRI, in and of itself, will not super-charge base metals demand. The BRI will counteract some of the negative impacts of a slowdown in China growth on commodity markets generally. However, since the size of BRI investment expenditure accounts for only a small fraction of China's fixed capital formation, we are skeptical of the extent to which it can offset a slowdown, were it to occur in the mainland. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 In our modelling of base metal prices, we find China's PMI has a large and significant impact on metal prices. Using year-on-year growth rates since 2010, a 1% increase in China's PMI is associated with a 0.54% increase in the LMEX base metals price index. 2 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy's Special Report titled "China: Party Congress Ends...So What?," dated November 1, 2017. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report titled "Xi Jinping: Chairman Of Everything," dated October 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Li Keqiang and Wang Yang are both from Hu Jintao's Communist Youth League, Han Zheng and Wang Huning are Jiang Zemin followers, and Li Zhanshu and Zhao Leji are Xi Jinping loyalists. 5 While this is positive for steel prices, it would dampen demand for iron ore, weighing down on its prices. 6 Alumina, aluminum, and carbon producers that meet emission discharge standards are ordered to cut production by over 30%, around 30%, and over 50%, respectively. Producers that do not meet emission discharge standards are ordered to halt production. 7 Please see "China to launch nationwide inspection on commercial housing sales," published October 25, 2017, available at www.chinadaily.com.cn. Noted "irregularities" include fabricating information on housing sales, publishing fake advertisements and artificially inflating housing prices, market manipulation, and hoarding unsold homes. 8 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "Chinese Real Estate: Which Way Will The Wind Blow?," dated September 28, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see IMF Spillover Notes, Issue 6 "China's Footprint in Global Commodity Markets," published September 2016, available at www.imf.org. 10 Interestingly, given the U.S.'s role as a harbinger of the global economy, U.S. IP surprises have a similar impact on commodity prices. 11 Please see BCA Research's Frontier Markets Strategy Special Report titled "China's Belt And Road Initiative: Can It Offset A Mainland Slowdown?," dated September 13, 2017, available at fms.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Highlights The private sectors in Brazil, Russia and India have indeed experienced some deleveraging. Yet in China, deleveraging has not even begun. In fact, the money and credit excesses have become ever larger in the past two years. China's broad money (M3) is as large as the entire outstanding stock of broad money in the U.S. and euro area banking systems combined. In China, the triple tightening - higher corporate bond yields and money market rates, ongoing tightening by banking regulators and the anti-corruption campaign - will lead to lessened money and credit origination. That in turn will weigh on mainland capital spending and growth in general. Chart I-1Some Deleveraging In Brazil, Russia, And India Feature A judgment on the sustainability of the rally in EM/China-related risk assets, from a big picture perspective, should include whether deleveraging in these economies is in late stages - i.e., whether credit and debt excesses accumulated following the 2008 global financial crisis have been unwound, at least partially. The objective of this week's note is to provide an update on the status of deleveraging within EM/China. Herein, deleveraging is defined as a falling debt-to-GDP ratio. The private sectors within Brazil, Russia and India have indeed experienced some deleveraging, with their private sector debt-to-GDP ratio either falling or moving sideways (Chart I-1). However, in China, deleveraging has not yet even begun (Chart I-2). Excluding Korea, Taiwan, and the BRIC economies, the rest of EM has not seen much deleveraging either (Chart I-3) - we exclude Korea and Taiwan because their equity markets are contingent on global demand rather than domestic dynamics. Note that this debt-to-GDP aggregate is weighted by each country's respective market cap in the MSCI EM stock index. The latest stabilization in this ratio might be due to these countries' currency appreciation, which has reduced their foreign currency debt burden relative to GDP. While deleveraging in many individual developing economies will not affect the rest of the world, deleveraging in China will have an impact on global trade in general and EM economies in particular. This remains one of the most important reasons why we believe the current recovery in EM growth will not be sustained. Chart I-2Deleveraging Has Not Started Yet In China... Chart I-3...Nor In The Rest Of EM Some investors and commentators have remarked that in the U.S., the euro area and Japan, there was no deleveraging following their respective credit bubbles and crises. As such, they argue that there is no compelling reason to expect deleveraging in EM/China. The point about the lack of deleveraging in Japan, the U.S. and Europe following their credit bubbles is only true when one includes public debt (Chart I-4). Yet, their private sectors did deleverage as can be seen in Chart I-5. Chart I-4DM: Deleveraging Concealed By ##br##Acceleration In Public Credit Chart I-5Private Sector Deleveraged ##br##Meaningfully In DM In the U.S. and euro area, deleveraging lasted an average of about seven years. As to Japan - which had a larger credit bubble but never experienced an acute credit crisis - private sector deleveraging endured over more than 21 years (Chart I-5, bottom panel). Did deleveraging in these DM economies involve outright nominal contraction in private credit and bank loans, or only decline in private debt-to-GDP ratio? Both bank loans and private credit nominal growth contracted, as demonstrated in Chart I-6. In short, despite massive policy support - i.e. monetary and fiscal easing and various bank recapitalization programs - private credit growth shrunk in nominal terms in the U.S. and euro area for a couple of years, and for many more years in Japan. China An update on China's debt burden is in order: Despite the vast local government financing vehicle (LGFV) debt swap of about RMB13 trillion conducted over the past two years the corporate debt-to-GDP ratio has not dropped (Chart I-7, top panel). Chart I-6DM: Bank Loans & Private Sector Credit ##br##Contracted In Nominal Terms Chart I-7China's Breakdown ##br##Of Debt By Sector The corporate debt-to-GDP ratio has stopped rising because LGFV debt - which belonged to SOEs and was classified as corporate debt - has been converted into provincial government debt. Since the onset of the Chinese equity market crash in the summer of 2015, our measure of broad money (M3) has expanded by RMB38 trillion ($6 trillion). Similarly, total social financing excluding equity issuance and including local government debt issuance - our so-called TSF+ measure - has surged by RMB49 trillion ($7.4 trillion). In terms of annual growth rates, M3 and TSF+ are still expanding at 10% and 14%, respectively. Chart I-8China's Money Impulse Points ##br##To Growth Deceleration We do not expect China's credit growth to contract in nominal terms, but we do expect credit/money growth to slow further. If and when this occurs, the money and credit impulses - the second derivatives - will become negative. The growth rates of GDP, industrial production, capital spending, profits and imports are impacted by the second derivatives of money and credit, which have been declining. In fact, the M3 impulse is already negative, which is consistent with deceleration in China's business cycle (Chart I-8). Some commentators and strategists have argued that debt should be compared with debtors' assets not GDP. This is a very weak argument. The sustainability of debt is contingent on borrowers' ability to service it. In turn, the ability to service debt is determined by debtors' cash flow generation which can be measured / approximated by nominal GDP. This is why the debt-to-nominal GDP ratio is the best metric for debt sustainability on a macro scale. It factually measures debt relative to corporate nominal revenues and household income. What about assets? Just because a company has assets does not mean it can service its debt. Note that in China, debt sustainability concerns are primarily around companies not households or government. First, if a company's assets do not generate sufficient cash flow to service debt, the value of these assets will be low. Second, asset valuations in EM state-controlled companies in general and among Chinese SOEs in particular, where most of the debt is concentrated, cannot be taken at face value. When evaluating the creditworthiness of a debtor, should investors rely on the accounting value of buildings that a debtor owns, or on the cash flow that these assets generate? We believe the latter is a much more prudent approach to investment analysis than the former. Third, if assets indeed need to be liquidated to service debt across many debtors, the situation is already very dire. Finally, we acknowledge that the Chinese government has a lot of fiscal room to bail out corporate debtors. When the authorities do so and overall corporate debt declines, we will seriously contemplate changing our view and investment strategy. So far, corporate indebtedness has not declined. For all of the above reasons, the debt-to-nominal GDP ratio is a much more reasonable measure than the debt-to-assets ratio. To be clear, we are not suggesting that Chinese companies are heading into a massive default and liquidation cycle. Our key premise as it relates to China's debt burden is as follows: overleveraged companies that could potentially struggle to service their debt are unlikely to embark on major capital spending initiatives. And in fact, their creditors should not lend to these debtors. As a result, capital spending will slow, weighing on commodities and other related areas. Conclusions The credit and money excesses in China and EM have been increasingly getting larger. Not only does China have too much corporate debt, but its stock of outstanding broad money is very high compared to any other economy in the world (Chart I-9). Chart I-9China's 'Money Bubble' Money is created by banks "out of thin air" (subject to regulatory capital ratios and other constraints) when they lend or buy assets from non-bank entities. Banks' ability to originate money does not relate to or depend on consumers or national savings. We have explored these issues in detail in Trilogy of reports in the past.1 Chart I-10China: Beware Of Rising Inflation Chart I-9 illustrates that China's official broad money (M2) is equivalent to $25 trillion while our measure of broad money (M3) is equivalent to about $29 trillion. This compares with broad money of $14 trillion in each of the U.S. and the euro area. Hence, China's broad money (M3) is as large as the U.S. and euro area's aggregate broad money combined. Furthermore, as of January 1, 2009, China's M2 and M3 were only $7.3 trillion and $8 trillion, respectively. This entails that the Chinese banking system has increased the broad money supply by the equivalent of $18-21 trillion. The triple tightening - higher corporate bond yields and money market rates, ongoing tightening by banking regulators and the anti-corruption campaign that is moving into the financial system - will lead to lessened money and credit origination. This will weigh on capital spending and growth in general. The odds are that tightening will escalate. First, after the party Congress, President Xi has consolidated power and can now enact meaningful structural reforms. Second, as we documented several weeks ago, core consumer inflation is rising (Chart I-10). Producer prices inflation is holding up around 7%. This is not surprising, given the amount of money that has been created in the economy in the past two years. Even marginal policy tightening amid lingering credit excesses is very dangerous. Yet a moderate slowdown in credit growth can translate into a notable drop in the credit impulse, weighing on growth as a result. This is especially true for capital spending and construction and is one of the primary reasons why we maintain a negative stance on China-related and EM risk assets. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Reports from October 26, 2016, November 23, 2016 and January 18, 2017; available on ems.bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Three factors point to stable or narrower USD cross-currency basis swap spreads: the improving health of global banks, the end of the adjustment to the regulatory change affecting prime-money market funds, and the relaxation to the Supplementary Leverage Ratio rules by the U.S. Treasury. Four factors point to wider basis swap spreads: BCA's forecast that U.S. loan growth will pick up, our view on U.S. inflation, the coming decline in the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, and the potential for U.S. repatriation. We expect USD basis swap spreads to widen again, which suggests increasing FX vol. This would hurt carry trades, EM currencies and dollar bloc currencies. Feature The rather arcane topic of cross-currency basis swap spreads has periodically surfaced in the news in the past few years. The widening in cross-currency basis swap spreads has been highlighted as one of the key factors explaining why covered interest rate parity relationships (the link between the price of FX forward, spot prices and interest rate differentials) have not held as closely after the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) as before. The widening of cross-currency basis swap spreads has also been highlighted as a factor behind the strength in the U.S. dollar in 2014 and 2015. Similarly, the recent narrowing in the cross-currency basis swap spread has been highlighted as a factor behind the weakness in the USD this year. This week we delve a little deeper into what cross-currency basis swap spread measures, and what some of its major determinants are. We ultimately expect the USD cross-currency basis swap spread to widen again, which should contribute to a stronger dollar and increased global FX volatility. What Is A Cross-Currency Basis Swap? To examine what drives cross-currency basis swap spreads, one first needs to understand what these instruments are. Let's begin with a regular FX swap. An FX swap in EUR/USD is a contract through which two counterparties agree to exchange EURs for USDs today, with a reversal of that exchange at the maturity of the contract - a reversal set at a predetermined exchange rate simply equal to the forward value of the EUR/USD. So, if counterparty A lends X million EURs to counterparty B, the former receives in U.S. dollars the equivalent of X million EURs times the prevalent EUR/USD spot rate from counterparty B today. The transaction does not end there. Simultaneously, the FX swap forces B to give back the X million EURs to counterparty A at maturity, while counterparty A gives back X million EUR times the EUR/USD forward rate in U.S. dollars to counterparty B. This forward rate is the rate prevalent when the contract was agreed upon. The transactions are illustrated in the top panel of Chart 1. Chart 1FX Swaps Vs. Cross Currency Basis Swaps The problem with regular FX swaps is that they offer little liquidity at extended maturities. If market players want to hedge long-term liabilities and assets, they tend to do so using a cross-currency basis swap, where much more liquidity is available at long maturities. A EUR/USD cross currency basis swap begins in the same way as a regular FX swap: counterparty A lends X million EURs to counterparty B, and the former receives in U.S. dollars the equivalent of X million EURs times the prevalent EUR/USD spot rate from counterparty B today. However, this is where the similarities end. A cross-currency basis swap has exchanges of cash flows through its term. Counterparty B, which provided USDs to counterparty A, receives 3-month USD Libor, while counterparty A, which provided EURs to counterparty B, received 3-month EUR Libor + a (alpha being the cross-currency basis swap spread). At the maturity of the contract, counterparty A and B both receive their regular intermediary cash flows, and also re-exchange their respective principal - but this time at the same spot rate as the one that existed at the entry of the contract (Chart 1, bottom panel). Chart 2A Bigger Funding Gap Equals##BR##A Wider Basis Swap Spread In both regular FX and cross-currency basis swaps, counterparties have removed their FX risks, except that in the latter, the interest differentials have been paid during the life of the contract instead of being factored through the forward premium/discount. This is fine and dandy, but it leaves a unexplained. The cross currency basis swap spread (a), is a direct function of the relative supply and demand for each currency. If investors demand a lot of EUR in the swap market relative to its supply, a will be positive. If they demand more USDs, a will be negative. A good example of this dynamic is the funding gap of banks. Let's take the Japanese example. Japanese banks have a surplus of domestic deposits (thanks to the massive savings of the Japanese corporate sector) relative to their yen lending. As a result, they have large dollar lending operations. To hedge their dollar assets, Japanese banks borrow USD in large quantities in the cross-currency swap market. This tends to result in a negative swap spread in the yen (Chart 2). This is particularly true if both the banking sector and the other actors in the economy (institutional investors and non-financial firms) also borrow dollars in the swap market to hedge dollar assets, which is the case in Japan (Chart 3). Chart 3Japanese Investors Are Accumulating Assets Abroad Additionally, if there are perceived solvency risks in the European banking sector, this should further weigh on the cross-currency basis swap spread, pushing it deeper into negative territory, as the viability of the main EUR counterparties becomes at risk. The same dance is true for any currency pair. The other factor that affects USD cross-currency basis swap spreads is the supply of U.S. dollars, especially the room on large banks' balance sheets to service these markets. The cross-currency basis swap spread could be close to zero if large arbitrageurs take offsetting positions to arbitrage the spread away, doing so until the spread disappears. However, with the imposition of Basel III and Dodd-Franks, banks have been constrained in their capacity to do this. Indeed, increased leverage ratio requirements (now banks need to post more capital behind repo transactions as well as collateralized lending and other derivatives) mean that arbitraging cross-currency basis swap spreads and deviations from covered interest rate parity has become much more expensive. Furthermore, the increase in Tier 1 capital ratios associated with these regulations has forced banks to de-lever; however, engaging in arbitrage activities still requires plenty of leverage (Chart 4). Chart 4The Structural Gap In The Basis Swap##BR##Spread Reflects Regulation Economic Factors Driving The Spread The factors that we look at essentially relate to the supply of USD available for lending in offshore markets, as well as determinants of relative counterparty risks between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Factors Arguing For Narrower Cross-Currency Basis Swap Spreads 1. Global Banks Health Chart 5Banks Perceived Health##BR##Determines Basis Swap Spreads The price-to-book ratio of global banks outside the U.S. has been largely correlated with USD cross-currency swap spreads. When global banks get de-rated, spreads widen, and it becomes more expensive to hedge USD positions in the swap market (Chart 5). This is because as investors perceive the solvency of global banks deteriorating, they impose a penalty as the Herstatt risk increases. Additionally, solvency problems can force banks to scramble to access USD funding, prompting deeper spreads. BCA is positive on global financials and sees continued improvement in European NPLs. This means that solvency risk concerns are likely to remain on the backburner for now, pointing to narrower basis swap spreads. 2. Supplementary Leverage Ratio Changes In June, the U.S. Treasury announced a relaxation of some of its rules on supplementary leverage ratios, lowering the amount of capital required to support activity in the repo market behind initial margins for centrally cleared derivatives, and behind holdings of Treasurys. This means that commercial banks in the U.S. can have bigger balance sheets and more room to engage in arbitrage activity, implying a greater supply of dollars in the USD cross-currency basis swap market. In response to last June's proposal, basis swap spreads narrowed by 11 basis points. BCA believes these changes will continue to support dollar liquidity, and will further help in narrowing cross-currency basis swap spreads. 3. Prime Money-Market Funds Debacle Is Over Chart 6More Expensive Bank Funding##BR##= Wider Basis Swap Spreads In October 2016, regulatory changes were implemented that allowed prime money market funds to have fluctuating net asset values. Obviously, this meant that prime money-market funds would be not-so-prime anymore. As a result, to remain the ultra-safe vehicles that they once were, prime money-market funds de-risked. As a result, they cut their exposure to risky activities in anticipation of these changes. In practice, a key source of short-term funding for banks evaporated from the market, putting upward pressure on bank financing costs. As the LIBOR-OIS spread increased, so did basis-swap spreads (Chart 6): as it became more expensive for banks to finance themselves, they had to curtail the supply of USDs provided to the swap market, an activity normally requiring intense demand on banks' balance sheets. This adjustment is now over, suggesting limited potential widening in USD basis swap spreads. Factors Arguing For Wider Cross-Currency Basis Swap Spreads 1. U.S. Loan Growth When U.S. banks increase their loan formation activity, USD cross-currency basis swap spreads widen (Chart 7). As banks increase their extension of credit through loans, they decrease the amount of securities they hold on their balance sheets (Chart 8). This means there is less supply of liquidity available for balance sheet activities, particularly providing dollar funding in the offshore market. In the Basel III / Dodd-Frank world, less-liquid bank balance sheets are synonymous with wider USD basis-swap spreads. As we argued last week, increasing U.S. capex, easing lending standards for firms and rising household income levels should result in increasing loan growth in the U.S. which will result in lower abundance of liquid assets and a widening basis swap spreads.1 Chart 7More Bank Loans Lead##BR##To Wider Swap Spreads Chart 8More Debt Equals Less##BR##Securities In Bank Credit 2. U.S. Inflation There is a fairly close relationship between U.S. inflation and the USD basis swap spread, where a higher core CPI tends to lead to a wider spread (Chart 9). The fall in U.S. inflation this year likely contributed to the narrowing in basis swap spreads. Our take on this is that as inflation falls, it gives an incentive for banks to hold low-yielding liquidity on their balance sheets as real returns on cash improve. This fuels a gigantic carry trade through the basis-swap market. We expect inflation to pick up meaningfully by mid-2018, which should widen cross-currency basis swap spreads.2 Chart 9When U.S. Inflation Increases, Swap Spreads Widen 3. Central Bank Balance Sheets When the Federal Reserve increases the size of its balance sheet relative to other balance sheets, this tends to lead to a narrowing of the USD basis swap spread as the global supply of dollars relative to other currencies increases. The opposite is also true. This relationship did not work after late 2016 (Chart 10). However, during that episode, as the change in prime money-market funds caused a dislocation in banks' funding, commercial banks exhibited cautious behavior and increased their reserves with the Fed. As Chart 11 illustrates, there is a tight relationship between the change in commercial banks' reserves held at the Fed and cross-currency basis swap spreads. Going forward, as the Fed lets it balance sheet run off, we expect to see a decrease in commercial banks' excess reserves. This could contribute to upward movement in the basis swap spread. Chart 10Smaller Fed Balance Sheet Leads##BR##To Wider Basis Swap Spreads Chart 11Fed Runoff Could Widen##BR##Basis Swap Spreads 4. U.S. Repatriations Chart 12U.s. Repatriations Support Wider##BR##Basis Swap Spreads The most revealing relationship unearthed in our study was that when U.S. entities repatriate funds at home, this tends to put strong widening pressure on the USD cross-currency basis swap spread (Chart 12). U.S. businesses hold large cash piles abroad - by some estimates more than US$2.5 trillion. However, most of these funds are held in highly liquid, high-quality U.S.-dollar assets offshore. These assets are perfect collaterals for various transactions in the interbank market. The funds held abroad by U.S. firms are a source of supply for U.S. dollars in the offshore markets. When U.S. entities bring assets back home, the widening in the basis swap spread essentially reflects a decline in the supply of USD in offshore markets, and vice versa when Americans export capital abroad. BCA's base case is that tax cuts are likely to hit the U.S. economy in 2018, even if the growing feud between Trump and the establishment Republican party members is a growing risk. BCA still views a tax repatriation as a higher-likelihood event, as it is the easiest way for the U.S. government to bring funds into its coffers. The 2004 tax repatriation under former President George W. Bush did result in substantial fund repatriation in the U.S. This time will not be different. We expect any such tax repatriation to cause a potentially large deficit of supply in the USD offshore markets, which could create a strong widening basis on the cross-currency basis swap spread in favor of the dollar. Bottom Line: Three factors argue for USD cross-currency basis swap spreads to stay at current levels, or even narrow further. These factors are the health of global banks, the easing in U.S. supplementary leverage ratios and the end of the adjustment of U.S. bank funding to new regulations affecting prime money-market funds. On the other hand four factors points to wider USD cross-currency basis swap spreads: BCA's positive outlook for U.S. credit growth; BCA's positive outlook on U.S. inflation; the run-off of the Fed's balance sheet; and the potential for U.S. entities repatriating funds from abroad. Potential Direction And Investment Implications We anticipate USD cross-currency basis swap spreads to widen over the coming 12 months. We think the easing in the Supplementary Leverage Ratios rules by the U.S. Treasury is the most important factor pointing to narrower USD cross-currency basis swap spreads. However, Basel III rules and most of Dodd-Frank are still in place, which suggest there remains large constraints on the balance-sheet activities of global banks, which will limit the potential for a narrowing of the USD basis swap spread as U.S. banks will remain constrained in their ability to supply U.S. dollars in the offshore market. Chart 13Wider Basis Swap Spreads Equals Higher Vol On the other hand many factors support wider USD cross-currency basis swap spreads, most important of which is the potential for more credit growth. This is in our view a very strong force as it requires banks to ration the use of their balance sheets, limiting their activity in the offshore market. Moreover, we do foresee a high probability of tax repatriation, which would put strong widening pressure on the swap spreads. In terms of implications, wider USD basis swap spreads tend to be associated with rising FX vols (Chart 13). As we highlighted in a Special Report last year, higher FX vols are poison for carry trades.3 As such, we think that widening swap spreads could spur a period of trouble for traditional carry currencies. This means EM and dollar-block currencies are likely to suffer in this environment. Additionally, in China, Xi Jinping is consolidating power and has taken control of the Politburo. This implies he now has more room to implement reforms. Removal of growth targets after 2020, removal of growth as a criterion for grading local officials, a focus on balanced growth, and a focus on combatting pollution all suggest that Chinese growth is unlikely to follow the same debt-fueled, capex-led model.4 This will weigh on Chinese imports of raw materials, and hurt export volumes and prices for many EM countries and commodities producers. This means these policies represent a headwind for many carry currencies. Moreover, historically, wider USD funding costs have been associated with a stronger dollar, as it makes it more expensive to hedge dollar assets. Thus, in an environment where U.S. interest rates are rising relative to the rest of the world - making U.S. assets attractive - wider basis swap spreads are an additional factor that could lift the dollar. Bottom Line: We anticipate the USD cross-currency basis swap spread to widen over the next 12 months. This will be associated with higher FX vols, which hurt carry trades, EM currencies and dollar-block currencies. Chinese reforms will reinforce these risks. Additionally, wider basis swap spreads will create support for the USD. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "All About Credit", dated October 20, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Conflicting Forces For The Dollar", dated September 8, 2017, and "Is The Dollar Expensive?", dated October 13, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "Carry Trades: More Than Pennies And Steamrollers", dated May 6, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Xi Jinping: Chairman Of Everything", dated October 25, 2017 and Special Report, titled "How To Read Xi Jinping's Party Congress Speech", dated October 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Implications For The Global Fixed Income Investor Chart A1FX Basis Swaps Boosting##BR##Hedged European Yields The outlook for cross-currency basis swap spreads has important implications for global fixed income investors. Chiefly, a wider (more negative) basis swap spread makes it more profitable for U.S. investors to lend U.S. dollars. For example, the top panel of Chart A1 shows that if a U.S.-based investor swaps dollars for euros on a 3-month horizon, and then invests those euros in 10-year German bunds, they will earn a hedged yield of 2.5% (annualized). This compares to a current yield of 2.3% on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note. If the basis swap spread were zero, then the U.S. investor would face a hedged German 10-year yield of only 2.1%. Conversely, a deeply negative basis swap spread works against non-U.S. investors looking to gain exposure to the U.S. bond market. If a Eurozone-based investor swaps euros for dollars on a 3-month horizon and then invests those dollars in 10-year U.S. Treasuries, he will earn a hedged yield of 0.1% (annualized). This compares to a current yield of 0.4% on 10-year German bunds. If the basis swap spread were zero, then the European investor would face a more enticing hedged U.S. 10-year yield of 0.6%. The middle three panels of Chart A1 show the 10-year yields in other Eurozone bond markets from the perspective of a U.S.-based investor who has hedged his currency risk on a 3-month horizon, as per the strategy explained above. The bottom panel of Chart A1 shows that the deviation of the EUR/USD basis swap spread from zero currently adds 42 basis points to the hedged yields faced by a U.S. investor. Charts A2, A3, A4 and A5 present the same analysis for other major bond markets, again from the perspective of a U.S. based investor.5 Chart A2FX Basis Swaps Boosting Hedged Gilt Yields Chart A3FX Basis Swaps Boosting Hedged JGB Yields Chart A4FX Basis Swaps Boosting##BR##Hedged Canadian Yields Chart A5FX Basis Swaps Are NOT Boosting##BR##Hedged Australian Yields The Impact Of Hedging Costs On Returns Of course, the basis swap spread is only one input to hedging costs. Once again, using the example of a U.S.-based investor looking for exposure in European bond markets, we calculate the hedging cost as: (1 + Hedging Cost) = (1 + 3-month EUR LIBOR + basis swap spread) / (1 + 3-month USD LIBOR) Right now the hedging cost in the above example is below zero. This is why German bund yields actually appear more attractive to U.S. investors after taking hedging costs into account. But what's more interesting is that total returns in 7-10 year German bunds (hedged into USD) relative to total returns in 7-10 year U.S. Treasury notes track hedging costs very closely over time (Chart A6). Chart A6Hedging Costs Will Continue To Boost Hedged German Bond Returns As The Fed Hikes Rates This is highly logical. As hedging costs become more negative, it means that U.S.-based investors make more money swapping U.S. dollars for euros. Therefore, a strategy of swapping dollars for euros, and then placing the proceeds in 7-10 year German bunds should continue to be a profitable one for U.S. investors as long as hedging costs continue to decline. Fortunately for U.S. investors, hedging costs should become even more negative during the next 12 months. In our base case scenario, we assume that the Federal Reserve will lift rates by 100bps by the end of 2018. We also assume that the ECB will not lift rates during this timeframe. That divergence in policy rates on its own will drive hedging costs further into negative territory, and it will only be exacerbated if the cross-currency basis swap spread widens as we anticipate. We illustrate the impact of the cross-currency basis swap spread on hedging costs in the bottom panel of Chart A6. The panel shows where hedging costs will go between now and the end of 2018, assuming policy rates move as we described above, and that the basis swap spread either widens to -100 bps or tightens back to zero. It is evident that a sharp widening in basis swap spreads would be a boon for U.S. investors in foreign bond markets. Bottom Line: Deeply negative basis swap spreads make it more profitable to lend dollars on a short-term horizon. This presents an opportunity for U.S. investors to swap dollars for foreign currencies and invest in non-U.S. bond markets. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 5 While the basis swap spread between the U.S. and most countries is negative, it is actually positive between the U.S. and Australia. So in this case the basis swap spread makes Australian bonds look less attractive to U.S. investors. Conversely, the basis swap spread makes U.S. bonds look slightly more attractive to Australian investors.

Highlights The three deflationary anchors of the global economy have abated: The U.S. private sector deleveraging is over, the euro area economy is escaping its post crisis hangover, and the destruction of excess capacity in China is advanced. This means that global central banks are in a better position than at any point this cycle to normalize policy, pointing to higher real rates. As a result, gold prices will suffer significant downside. The populist wave in New Zealand is based on inequalities and is here to stay. This will hurt the long-term outlook for the Kiwi. However, short-term NZD has upside, especially against the AUD. The BoE hiked rates, but upside surprises to policy is unlikely now. The pound remains at risk from Brexit negotiations. Feature Chart I-1Gold Is Setting Up For A Big Move Gold is at an interesting juncture. Gold prices, once adjusted for the trend in the U.S. dollar, have been forming a giant tapering wedge since 2011 (Chart I-1). This type of chart formation does not necessarily get resolved by an up-move, nor does it indicate a clear bearish pattern either. Instead, it points toward a potential big move in either direction. For investors, the key to assess whether this wedge will be resolved with a rally or a rout is the trend in global monetary conditions and real rates. In our view, the global economic improvement witnessed in 2017 suggests the world needs less accommodation than at any point since the onset of the great financial crisis. Thus, global accommodation will continue to recede, global real rates will rise and gold will suffer. The Exit Of The Great Deflationary Forces Since the financial crisis, in order to generate any modicum of growth, global monetary authorities have been forced to maintain an incredible degree of monetary accommodation in the global financial system. Central banks' balance sheets have expanded massively, with the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, the Bank of England and the Swiss National Bank all increasing their asset holdings by 16% of GDP, 26% of GDP, 70% of GDP, 17% of GDP and 97% of GDP respectively. Real rates too have been left at unfathomable levels, with average real policy rates in the U.S., the euro area, Japan and the U.K. standing at 0.13%, -1.15%, -0.19%, and -2.12%, respectively. Despite all this easing, core inflation in the OECD has only averaged 1.68% since 2010, and real growth 2.05% - well below the averages of 2.3% and 2.44%, respectively, from 2001 to 2007. Explaining this extraordinary situation have been three key anchors that have conspired to create strong deflationary forces that have necessitated all this stimulus: the first was U.S. private sector deleveraging, with at its epicenter the rebuilding of household balance sheets. The second was the euro area crisis, which also caused a forced deleveraging in the Spanish and Irish private sector as well as in the Greek and Portuguese public sectors. The third was China's purging of excess capacity in the steel and coal sectors, as well as various heavy industries. These three deflationary anchors seem to have finally passed. In the U.S., nonfinancial private credit is slowly showing signs of recovering. Households have curtailed their savings rate, suggesting a lower level of risk aversion. Even more importantly, the growth in savings deposits is sharply decelerating, which historically tends to be associated with a re-leveraging of the household sector and increasing consumption (Chart I-2). Strong new home sales point toward these developments. The corporate sector is also displaying an important change in behavior. Share buybacks are declining, and both capex intentions and actual capex are recovering smartly - powered by strong profit growth (Chart I-3). This is crucial as it suggests firms are not recycling the liquidity they generate through their operations or their borrowings in the financial markets. Thus, with banks easing their lending standards, additional debt accumulation by firms is likely to support aggregate demand, eliminating a key deflationary force in the global economy. Chart I-2Household Deleveraging Is Over Chart I-3Companies Are Borrowing To Invest Moreover, Jay Powell's nomination to helm the Fed is also important. He is a proponent of decreasing bank regulation, especially for small banks that greatly rely on loan formation for their earnings. A softening in regulatory stance on these institutions could contribute to higher credit growth in the U.S. With aggregate liquidity conditions of the private sector - shown by the ratio of liquid assets to liabilities - having already improved, and indicating that a turning point in U.S. inflation will soon be reached, more credit growth could further stoke inflation (Chart I-4). Europe as well is also escaping its own morose state. ECB President Mario Draghi's fateful words in July 2012 resulted in a compression of peripheral spreads as investors priced away the risk of a breakup of the euro area (Chart I-5). As a result, the massive policy easing associated with negative rates and the ECB's expanded asset purchase program was transmitted to the parts of the euro area that really needed that easing: the periphery. Now, Europe is booming: Monetary aggregates have regained traction, real GDP growth is growing at a 2.3% annual pace, PMIs are growing vigorously, and even the unemployment rate has fallen back below 9%. European inflation remains low, but nonetheless the nadir of -0.6% hit in 2015 has also passed (Chart I-6). Chart I-4Liquid Private Balance Sheet Point To Inflation Chart I-5Draghi Held The Key To Help Europe Chart I-6Europe Past The Worst In China too we have seen important progress. Curtailment to excess capacity in the steel and coal sectors as well as across a wide swath of industries are bearing fruit (Chart I-7). China is not the source of deflation that it was as recently as 2015. Industrial profits have stopped contracting, industrial price deflation is over, and even core consumer prices are showing signs of vigor, growing at a 2.28% pace, the highest since the 2010 to 2011 period (Chart I-8). Thanks to these developments, global export prices have stopped deflating and are now growing at a 4.64% annual pace. With the three deflationary anchors having been slain, global growth is now able to escape its lethargy, with industrial activity at its strongest since 2003, while global capacity utilization has improved (Chart I-9). This is giving global central banks room to remove their easing. The Fed has already hiked rates four times and is embarking on decreasing its balance sheet; the Bank of Canada has followed suit two times, and the BoE, one time. Even the ECB is now beginning to taper its own asset purchases. We do anticipate this trend to continue with more and more central banks, with potentially the exception of the BoJ, joining the fray as the global environment remains clement. Even the People's Bank of China is likely to keep tightening policy due to the increasingly inflationary environment being experienced. Chart I-7Chinese Excess Capacity Purge Chart I-8China Doesn't Export Deflation Anymore Chart I-9Central Banks Can Normalize Bottom Line: The three anchors of global deflation have been slain. Private sector deleveraging in the U.S. is over, the euro area has healed and Chinese excess capacity has declined. As a result, global economic activity is at its strongest level in 14 years, and deflationary forces are becoming more muted. This is giving global central banks an opportunity to normalize policy without yet killing the business cycle. Implications For Gold Gold is likely to fare very poorly in this environment. Gold can be thought of as a zero coupon, extremely long-maturity inflation-indexed bond. This means that gold is a function of both inflation and real rates. Currently, gold offers little protection against outright inflation, having moved out of line with prices by a very large margin (Chart I-10). This leaves gold extremely vulnerable to development in real rates and liquidity. Saying that central banks can begin to normalize policy is akin to saying that central banks are in a position where letting real rate rise is feasible. As Chart I-11 illustrates, there has been a strong negative relationship between TIPS yields and gold prices. Moreover, when one looks beyond the price of gold in U.S. dollars, one can see that gold has been negatively affected by higher bond yields (Chart I-11, bottom panel). BCA currently recommends an underweight stance on duration, one that is synonymous with lower gold prices.1 Chart I-10Gold Is Expensive Chart I-11Higher Interest Rates Equal Lower Gold Moreover, the Fed's own research suggests that its asset purchases have curtailed the term premium by 85 basis points. The balance sheet run-off that the U.S. central bank is engineering will weaken that impact to a more meager 60 basis points by 2024. This also points to lower gold prices, as gold prices have displayed a negative relationship with the term premium (Chart I-12). An outperformance of financials in general but banks in particular is also associated with poor returns for gold (Chart I-13). Strong financials are associated with growing loan volumes, which mean a lesser need for policy easing, which puts upward pressure on the cost of money. Anastasios Avgeriou, who heads BCA's sectoral research, has an overweight on banks both globally and in the U.S. on the basis of the stronger loan growth we are beginning to see around the world.2 This represents a dangerous environment for gold. Chart I-12Normalizing Term Premium ##br##Is Dangerous For Gold Chart I-13Bullish Banks Equals ##br##Bearish Gold Finally, there is an interesting relationship between real stock prices and real gold prices. When stocks are in a secular bull market, gold prices are typically in a secular bear market (Chart I-14). A secular bull market in stocks tends to happen in an environment where there is more confidence that growth is becoming more durable, where there is less fear that currencies will have to be debased to support economic activity, or where inflation is not a destructive force like it was in the 1970s. These are environments where real rates tend to have upside. The continued strength in global equity prices, which are again in a secular bull market, would thus contribute to an increase in currently still-depressed global real yields, and thus, create downside in gold. One key risk to our view is that the Fed falls meaningfully behind the curve and lets inflation rise violently, which would put downward pressure on real rates and cause a violent correction in global equity prices - prompting investors to price in an easing in monetary policy. Geopolitics are another key risk, particularly a ratcheting up in North Korea tensions. With our bullish stance on the dollar, we are inclined to short the yellow metal versus the greenback. Moreover, for the past eight years, when net speculative positions in gold have been as elevated as they are today relative to net wagers on the DXY, gold in U.S. dollar terms has tended to weaken (Chart I-15). However, the analysis above suggests that gold could weaken against G10 currencies in aggregate. Thus investors with a more negative dollar view than ours could elect to sell gold against the euro. Agnostic players should short gold equally against the USD and the EUR. Chart I-14Gold And Stocks Don't Like Each Other Chart I-15Tactical Risk To Gold Bottom Line: The outlook for gold is negative. As the global economy escapes its deflationary funk and global central banks begin abandoning emergency easing measures, real interest rates will rise and term premia will normalize, which will put downward pressure on gold prices. Additionally, BCA's positive stance on banks is corollary with a negative outlook on gold. The continued bull market in stocks is an additional hurdle for gold. New Zealand: A New Hot Spot Of Populism The formation of the Labour/NZ First/Green coalition has sent ripples through the kiwi. The reaction of investors is fully rational, as the Adern government is carrying a very populist torch, sporting a program of limiting foreign investments in housing, limiting immigration, increasing the minimum wage and creating a dual mandate for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. The key question is whether this is a fad, or whether something more profound is at play in New Zealand. We worry it is the latter. New Zealand has suffered from a profound increase in inequality since pro-market reforms were implemented in the 1980s. New Zealand's gini coefficient is very elevated, but even more worrisome has been the deteriorating trend. As Chart I-16 illustrates, the ratio of income of the top 20% of households relative to the bottom 20% has been in a steady uptrend. Additionally, this trend is sharper once the cost of housing is incorporated into the equation. Moreover, as Chart I-17 shows, New Zealand has experienced one of the most pronounced increases in housing costs among the G10. Chart I-16Growing Inequalities In New Zealand Chart I-17Kiwi Housing Is Expensive It is undeniable that the impact of immigration has been real. Net migration has averaged 24 thousand a year since 2000, on a population of 4.8 million. Moreover, the labor participation rate of immigrants has been higher than that of the general population, reinforcing the perception that immigration has contributed to keeping wage growth low (Chart I-18). The effect of low wage growth - whether caused or not caused by the increase in the foreign-born population - has been to boost household credit demand, pushing the national savings rate into negative territory, something that was required if households were to keep spending. These developments suggest that kiwi populism is not a fad, and is in fact a factor that will remain present in New Zealand politics. It also implies that policies designed to limit foreign investments into housing as well as immigration are indeed popular and will be implemented. What are the economic implications of these developments? Immigration was a key source of growth for New Zealand. As Chart I-19 shows, the growth of the kiwi economy since 1985 has been driven by an increase in the labor force. In fact, over the past five years, 86% of growth has been caused by labor force growth, with a very limited contribution from productivity gains. More concerning, as Chart I-20 shows, 44% of the increase in the population growth since 2012 has been related to immigration. Chart I-18The Narrative: Foreigners Steal Our Jobs Chart I-19Kiwi Growth: Labor Force Is Key Chart I-20Labor Force Growth Could Halve Additionally, according to the IMF's Article IV consultation for New Zealand, immigration has boosted output significantly, contributing to total hours worked as well as forcing an increase in the capital stock, which has boosted capex (Table I-1). Hence, lower intakes of foreign-born workers is likely to push down the country's potential growth rate. Limiting immigration in New Zealand could therefore have a significantly negative impact on the country’s neutral rate. As Chart 21 demonstrates, the real neutral rate for New Zealand, as estimated using a Hodrick-Prescott filter, is around 2%. A falling potential growth rate would push down the equilibrium policy rate in New Zealand, limiting how high the RBNZ's terminal policy rate will rise in the future. This points toward downward pressure on the NZD on a long-term basis. Shorting NZD/CAD structurally makes sense at current levels, especially as Canada remains open to immigration and immune to populism, as income inequalities are much more controlled there (Chart I-22). Table I-1Impact Of Immigration On Growth Chart I-21Kiwi Neutral Rate Has Downside Chart I-22NZD/CAD: Long-Term Heavy Limiting immigration in New Zealand could therefore have a significantly negative impact on the country's neutral rate. As Chart I-21 demonstrates, the real neutral rate for New Zealand, as estimated using a Hodrick-Prescott filter, is around 2%. A falling potential Shorter-term, the picture is slightly brighter for the NZD. Credit growth is strong, and is pointing toward an increase in the cash rate next year. Additionally, consumer confidence is high, and the labor market is showing signs of tightness, especially as the output gap stands at 0.87% of GDP (Chart I-23). This tightness in the labor market could easily be catalyzed into higher wage growth, especially as the new government is tabulating a 4.76% increase in the minimum wage in the coming quarters. Thus, BCA continues to expect an uptick in kiwi inflation and higher kiwi rates, even if a dual mandate for the RBNZ is implemented. Our favored way to play this strength in the kiwi remains going short the AUD/NZD. Our valuation model points to a strong sell signal in this cross (Chart I-24). Moreover, speculators are very long the AUD relative to the NZD, which historically has provided a contrarian signal to short it. Additionally, the concentration of power around Chinese President Xi Jinping points towards more reform implementations in China - reforms that we estimate will be targeted at decreasing the reliance of growth on debt-fueled investment while increasing the welfare of households, which should help Chinese consumption. As a result, metals could suffer relative to consumer goods. With New Zealand being a big exporter of foodstuffs and dairy products, this should represent a positive terms-of-trade shock for the kiwi relative to the Aussie. Chart I-23Short-Term Positives In New Zealand Chart I-24Downside Risk To AUD/NZD Bottom Line: The increase in populism in New Zealand is being fueled by a sharp increase in inequalities and rising housing costs. Immigration, rightly or wrongly, has been blamed in the public narrative for these ills. The measures announced by the Adern government target these issues head on, and we expect they will be implemented. This hurts New Zealand's long-term growth profile, and thus the terminal rate hit by the RBNZ this cycle. This could hurt the NZD on a structural basis. Tactically, it still makes sense to be short AUD/NZD. A Word On The BoE The BoE increased rates this week for the first time in a decade, but now acknowledges that current SONIA pricing is correct, removing its mention that risks are skewed toward higher rates than anticipated by the market. The pound sold off sharply on the news. Consumer confidence and retailer orders point to further slowdown in consumption. Thus, we think the British OIS curve is currently well priced, limiting any potential rebound in the GBP. Brexit continues to spook markets, rightfully. The political theater is far from over, and the continued uncertainty is likely to weigh further on the U.K. economy. This is likely to generate additional downside risk in the pound over the coming months. Thus, on balance, our current assessment is that the risks are too high to make a bullish bet on the GBP for now. A progress in the negotiations between the U.K. and the EU is needed before investors can buy the GBP, a currency that is cheap on a long-term basis. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Haaris Aziz, Research Assistant haarisa@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Follow The Fed, Ignore The Bank Of England" dated September 19, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Global Alpha Sector Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Buy The Breakout" dated May 5, 2017, available at gss.bcaresearch.com and U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Girding For A Breakout?" dated May 1, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 U.S. data was mixed: Core PCE was unchanged at 1.3%, and in line with expectations; Headline PCE was also unchanged at 1.6%; ISM Prices Paid came in at 68.5, beating expectations of 68; ISM Manufacturing came in weaker than expected. In other news, Jerome Powell is President Trump's pick as the next Fed chairman to replace Janet Yellen. Market reaction was muted as Powell is expected to continue in Yellen's footsteps and hike rates at a similar pace. While the Fed decided to leave rates unchanged this month, the probability of a December rate hike went up to 98%. We expect the USD bull market to strengthen next year when inflation re-emerges. Report Links: It's Not My Cross To Bear - October 27, 2017 Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Data out of Europe was mixed: German and Italian inflation underperformed expectations and weakened compared to last month, while French inflation beat expectations; Overall European headline and core inflation also mixed expectations, coming in at 1.4% and 1.1% respectively; European preliminary GDP, however, beat expectations of 2.4%, coming in at 2.5%; The unemployment rate dropped to 8.9% for the euro area; The euro was up on Thursday after the nomination of Jerome Powell as Fed chair. His nomination represents a continuity of monetary policy. Despite this, we believe the re-emergence of inflation will cause the Fed to continue hiking after the December hike, deepening downward pressure on the euro next year. Report Links: Market Update - October 27, 2017 Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent Japanese data has been mixed: Housing starts yearly growth came above expectations, coming in at -2.9%. However, housing starts did accelerate their contraction from August, when they were falling by 2% year-on-year. Industrial Production yearly growth came in above expectations, at 2.5%. However the jobs-to-applicants ratio came below expectations, staying put at 1.52. On Tuesday the BoJ left rates unchanged. Additionally the committee vowed to keep 10-year government bond yield around 0% and to continue their ETF purchases. More importantly, however, was the Bank of Japan's change to its outlook for inflation, which was decreased for this year. We continue to believe that deflation is too entrenched in Japan for the BoJ to change its policy stand. Thus, we expect USD/JPY to keep grinding higher, as U.S. monetary policy becomes more hawkish vis-à-vis Japan. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has surprised to the upside: Mortgage Approvals also outperformed expectations, coming in at 66.232 thousand. Moreover Nationwide house price yearly growth also outperformed, coming at 2.5% Both Markit Manufacturing PMI and Construction PMI outperformed, coming in at 56.3 and 50.8 respectively. The BoE hiked rates yesterday by 25 basis points as expected. Moreover, the committee also voted unanimously to maintain the stock of UK government bond purchases. However, the committee also acknowledged that inflation was not be the only effect of Brexit on the economy. They highlighted that uncertainty about the exit from the European Union was hurting activity despite a positive global growth backdrop. Overall, we think that the BoE will not deviate from the interest rate path priced into the OIS curve. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Australian data was mixed: HIA New Home Sales contracted by 6.1%; AiG Performance of Manufacturing Index came in at 51.1, less than the previous 54.2; Exports increased by 3%, while imports stayed flat at 0%; The trade balance increased to AUD 1.745 bn, compared to the expected AUD 1.2 bn, and above the previous AUD 873 mn. The AUD was up on the release of the trade balance. But underlying slack in the economy, which worries RBA officials, points to a low fair value for the AUD. The AUD will be the poorest performer out of the commodity currencies, due to the relative strength of those economies and of oil relative to metals. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand has been positive: The unemployment rate came below expectations at 4.6%, it also decreased from last quarter's 4.8% reading. The participation rate came above expectations, at 71.1%. It also increased from 70% on the previous quarter. The Labour cost Index came in line with expectations at 1.9% yearly growth. However it increased from 1.6% in the previous quarter. Overall the New Zealand economy looks very strong. This should warrant a hike by the RBNZ. However the new government create a new set of long-term risks. The elected government is a response to the high inequality and high migration that the country had experienced in the recent years. Overall the plans to reduce immigration and install a double mandate to the RBNZ are bearish for the NZD, as the neutral rate of New Zealand would be structurally lowered. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Canadian data has been weak recently: The raw material price index contracted by 0.1%; Industrial product prices contracted at a 0.3% monthly rate; GDP also contracted at a 0.1% monthly pace; Manufacturing PMI came out at 54.3, lower than the previous 55. In addition to this, Poloz identified several issues with the Canadian economy in his speech on Tuesday. These included the deflationary effects of e-commerce, slack in the labor market, subdued wage growth, and the elevated level of household debt. The probability of a rate hike has fallen to 22% for December, and it only rises above 50% in March next year. The CAD has lost a lot of its value since the BoC began hiking, but we believe it will resume hiking next year. Increasing oil prices will also mean that that CAD will outperform other G10 currencies. Report Links: Market Update - October 27, 2017 Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has been positive: The SVME Purchasing Manager's Index came above expectations at 62 in October. It also increased from the September reading. The KOF leading indicator also outperformed expectations significantly, coming at 109.1. EUR/CHF continues to climb unabated and is now only 3% from where it was before the SNB let the franc appreciate in January of 2015. Overall we see little indication that the SNB would let the franc appreciate again in the near future. On Wednesday, SNB Vice President Zurbruegg continued to talk down the franc by stating that a stronger CHF would cause a growth slowdown and that the CHF is still highly valued. Thus we expect downside in EUR/CHF to be limited for the time being. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway has been mixed: Retail sales growth underperformed expectations, as they contracted by 0.8% in September. However Norway's credit indicator surprised to the upside, coming in at 5.8%. Since September USD/NOK has appreciated by nearly 6%. This has been in an environment where oil has rallied by nearly 20%. Although this divergence might seem counterintuitive, it confirms our previous findings: USD/NOK is much more sensitive to real rate differentials than to oil prices. Inflationary pressures are still very tepid in Norway, while inflation is set to go higher in the U.S. These factors will further amplify the monetary policy divergences between these 2 countries, and consequently propel USD/NOK higher. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Swedish Manufacturing PMI decreased to 59.3 from 63.7, below the expected 62. EUR/SEK has appreciated to June levels, implying that markets have priced out any potential hawkishness by the Riksbank. Similarly, USD/SEK has risen by 6.2% from September lows. This is due to the re-chairing of Stefan Ingves, known for negative rates and quantitative easing. On the opposite side of the trade, President Trump elected Jerome Powell as the next Fed chair who will most likely continue the rate hike path highlighted by Janet Yellen. This will add further upward pressure on USD/SEK. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Closed Trades