Equities

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

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

Recommended Allocation Highlights We are late cycle. Strong growth could turn in 2018 from a positive for risk assets into a negative. More risk-averse investors may thus want to turn cautious. But the last year of a bull run can be profitable, and we don't expect a recession until late 2019. For now, therefore, our recommendations remain pro-risk and pro-cyclical. We may turn more defensive in 2H 2018 if the Fed tightens above equilibrium. We expect inflation to pick up in 2018, which will lead the Fed to hike maybe four times. This will push long rates to 3%, and strengthen the U.S. dollar. Equities should outperform bonds in this environment. We prefer euro zone and Japanese equities over U.S., and remain underweight EM. Late-cycle sectors such as Financials and Industrials, should do well. We also favor corporate bonds and private equity. Feature Overview Fin de cycle Global economic growth in 2017 was robust for the first time since the Global Financial Crisis (Chart 1). Forecasts for 2018 put growth slightly lower, but are likely to be revised up. However, as the year rolls on, the strong economic momentum may turn from being a positive for risk assets into a negative. U.S. output is now above potential, according to IMF estimates. As Chart 2 shows, historically recessions - and consequently equity bear markets - have usually come within a year or two of the output gap turning positive. With the economy operating above capacity, inflation pressures force the Fed to tighten monetary policy, which eventually causes a slowdown. Chart 1Growth Finally On A Firm Footing Global Growth Has Accelerated Chart 2Recessions Follow Output Gap Closing That is exactly how BCA sees the next couple of years panning out, leading to a recession perhaps in the second half of 2019. U.S. inflation was soft in 2017, but underlying inflation pressures are picking up, with core CPI inflation having bottomed, and small companies saying they are raising prices (Chart 3). Add to that wage pressures (with unemployment heading below 4% in 2018), tax cuts (which might boost growth by 0.2-0.3% points in their first year) and a higher oil price (we expect Brent to average $67 a barrel during the year), and core PCE inflation is likely to rise to 2%, in line with the Fed's expectations. This means the market is too sanguine about the risk of monetary tightening in the U.S. It has priced in less than two rates hikes in 2018, compared to the Fed's three dots, and almost nothing after that (Chart 4). If inflation picks up as we expect, four rate hikes in 2018 could be on the cards. Chart 3Inflation Pressures Picking Up Chart 4Market Still Underpricing Fed Hikes The consequences of this are that bond yields are likely to rise. Despite a significant market repricing since September of Fed behavior, long-term rates have not risen much, leading to a flattening yield curve (Chart 5). The market has essentially priced in that inflation will not rebound and that, consequently, the Fed will be making a policy mistake by hiking further. If, therefore, we are correct that inflation does reach 2%, the yield curve would be likely to steepen over the next six months, with the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield reaching 3% by mid-year. Other developed economies, however, have less urgency to tighten monetary policy and we, therefore, see the U.S. dollar appreciating. The only other major economy with a positive output gap currently is Germany (Chart 6). However, the ECB will continue to set policy for the weaker members of the euro area, and output gaps in France (-1.8% of GDP), Italy (-1.6%) and Spain (-0.7%) remain significantly negative. In the absence of inflation pressures, the ECB won't raise rates until late 2019. Japan, too, continues to struggle to bring inflation up the BOJ's 2% target and the Yield Curve Control policy will therefore stay in place, meaning that a rise in global rates will weaken the yen. Chart 5Is Fed Making A Policy Mistake? Chart 6Still A Lot Of Negative Output Gaps This sort of late-cycle environment is a tricky one for investors. The catalysts for strong performance in equities that we foresaw a few months ago - U.S. tax cuts and upside surprises in earnings - have now largely played out. Global earnings will probably rise next year by around 10-12%, in line with analysts' forecasts. With multiples likely to slip a little as the Fed tightens, high single-digit performance is the best that investors should expect from equities. The macro environment which we expect, would be more negative for bonds than positive for equities. That argues for the stock-to-bond ratio to continue to rise until closer to the next recession (Chart 7). And, for now, none of the recession indicators we have been consistently monitoring over the past months is flashing a warning signal (Chart 8). Chart 7Stock-To-Bond Ratio Likely To Rise Further Chart 8Recession Warning Signals Still Not Flashing More risk-averse investors might chose to reduce their exposure to risk assets now, given how close we are to the end of the cycle. But this would be at the risk of leaving some money on the table, since the last year of a bull run can often be the most profitable (remember 1999?). We, therefore, maintain our recommendation for pro-cyclical and pro-risk tilts: overweight equities versus bonds, overweight credit, overweight higher-beta equity markets and sectors, and a preference towards riskier alternative assets. We may move towards a more defensive stance in mid to late 2018, when we see clearer signs that the Fed has tightened above equilibrium or that the risk of recession is rising. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com What Our Clients Are Asking What Will Be The Impact Of The U.S. Tax Cuts? It is not a done deal, but it still seems likely (notwithstanding the Democratic victory in Alabama) that the U.S. House and Senate will agree a joint tax bill to pass before the end of the year. Since the two current bills have only minor differences, it is possible to make some estimates of the macro and sector impacts of the tax reform. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the cuts will reduce government revenue by $1.4 trillion over 10 years - or $1 trillion (5% of GDP) once positive effects on growth are accounted for. The Treasury argues that tax reform (plus deregulation and infrastructure development) will push GDP growth to 2.9% and therefore government revenues will increase by $300 billion. BCA's estimate is that GDP growth will be boosted by 0.2-0.3% in 2018 and 2019.1 For businesses, the key tax changes are: 1) a reduction in the headline corporate rate from 35% to 21%; 2) immediate expensing of capital investment; 3) a limit to deduction of interest expenses to 30% of taxable income; 4) a move to a territorial tax system from a worldwide one, with a 10% tax on repatriation of past profits held overseas; 5) curbs for some deductions, such as R&D, domestic production and tax-loss carry-forwards. Corporate tax cuts will give a one-off boost to earnings, since the effective tax rate is currently over 25% (Chart 9, panel 1), with telecoms, utilities and industrials likely to be the biggest beneficiaries. This is not fully priced into stocks, since companies with high tax rates have seen their stock prices rise only moderately (Chart 9, panel 2). BCA's sector strategists expect that capex will especially be boosted: they estimate that the one-year depreciation increases net present value by 14% (Table 1).2 This should be positive for the Industrials sector (supplying the capital goods) and for Financials (which will see increased demand for loans). We are overweight both. Chart 9Tax Cuts Should Boost Earnings Table 1 Is Bitcoin A Bubble, And What Happens When It Bursts? The recent surge in prices (Chart 10) of virtual currencies has pushed Bitcoin and aggregate cryptocurrency market cap to $275 billion and $500 billion respectively. The recent violent run-up certainly bears a close resemblance to classic bubbles, but the impact of a sharp correction should be minimal on the real economy and traditional capital markets. As mentioned above, the market cap of cryptocurrencies has reached $500 billion. Globally, there is about $6 trillion in currency3 outstanding, so the value of virtual currencies is now 8% that of traditional fiat currency. Additionally, an estimated 1000 people own about 40% of the world's total bitcoin, for an average of about $105 million per person. At the moment, the macro impact has been constrained by the fact that most people are buying bitcoins as a store of value (Chart 11) or vehicle for speculation, rather than as a medium of exchange. However, when the public begins to regard them as legitimate substitutes for traditional fiat currencies, their impact will be felt on the real economy. Chart 10A Classic Bubble Chart 11Bitcoin Trading Volume By Top Three Currencies That would raise the issue of regulation. The U.S. government generates close to $70 billion per year as "seigniorage revenue." Governments across the world have no intention of losing this revenue, and would most likely introduce their own competitors to bitcoin. Until then, the biggest potential impact of these private currencies might be to spur inflation in the fiat currencies in which their prices are measured. That would be bad for government bonds, but potentially good for stocks. A further risk - and a similarity with the real estate bubble of 2007 - is the use of leverage. The news of a Tokyo-based exchange (BitFyler) offering up to 15x leverage for the purchase of bitcoins has spooked investors. However, the U.S. housing market is valued at $29.6 trillion, almost 60 times that of cryptocurrencies. Finally, the 19th century free banking era in the U.S., which at one point saw 8000 different currencies in circulation, experienced multiple banking crises. A world with myriad private currencies all competing with one another would be similarly unstable. Why Did The U.S. Dollar Weaken In 2017, And Where Will It Go In 2018? Chart 12Positioning And Relative Rates Supportive For USD We were wrong to be bullish on U.S. dollar at the start of 2017. We think the dollar weakness during most of the year can be attributed to the fact that investors were massively long the dollar at the end of 2016 (Chart 12, panel 2), which made the market particularly vulnerable to surprises. Several surprises did come: inflation softened in the U.S. but strengthened in the euro area. There were also positive geopolitical surprises in Europe - for example the victory of Emmanuel Macron in the French presidential election - while the failure to repeal Obamacare in the U.S. raised investors' concerns on the administration's ability to undertake fiscal stimulus. As a result, the U.S. dollar depreciated against euro despite widening interest rate differentials (Chart 12 panel 4) in 2017. Chart 13late Cycle Outperformance Since investors are now aggressively short the dollar, the hurdle for the greenback to deliver positive surprises is much lower than a year ago. Since the Senate passed the Republican tax bill in early December, we have already seen some recovery in the dollar (Chart 12, panel 1). As the labor market continues to firm, with GDP running above potential, U.S. inflation should finally start to pick up in 2018, which will allow the Fed to hike rates, possibly as many as four times during the year. This will contrast with the macro situation overseas: Japan and Europe are likely to continue loose monetary policy to maintain the momentum in their economies. All this should be supportive of the dollar. Are Convertible Bonds Attractive Over The Next 12 Months? With valuations for traditional assets expensive and investors' thirst for yield continuing, the market is in need of alternative sources of return. Convertible bonds offer a hybrid credit/equity exposure, giving investors the option to participate in rising equity markets but with less risk. An allocation to convertibles could prove attractive for the following reasons: Convertible bonds typically outperform high-yield debt in the late stages of bull markets, because of their relatively lower exposure to credit spreads. Junk spreads have a history of starting to widen before equity bear markets begin. Fifty percent of the convertibles index comprises issuance from small-cap and mid-cap firms. Although equity valuations are expensive, prices should continue to rise as long as inflation stays low. Additionally, our U.S. Investment Strategy service thinks that small-cap equities will outperform large caps in the coming months, partly because the likely cuts in U.S. corporate taxes will disproportionately benefit smaller companies. Convertible bonds do appear somewhat cheap relative to equities (Chart 13, panel 3) but, on balance, there is not a strong valuation case for the asset class. Equities appear fairly valued relative to junk bonds, and convertibles are trading at an elevated investment premium. However, valuation is not likely to be a significant headwind to the typical late-cycle outperformance of convertibles versus high yield. biggest near-term risk for convertibles relative to high yield stems from the technology sector, which makes up 35% of the convertibles index. Technology convertible bonds have strongly outperformed their high-yield counterparts in recent months (Chart 13, panel 4), and are possibly due for a period of underperformance. We recommend investors stay cautious on technology convertibles. Other Than U.S. Tips, What Other Inflation-Linked Bonds Do You Like? Our research shows that inflation-linked bonds (ILBs) are a good inflation hedge in a rising inflationary environment.4 With our house view of rising inflation in 2018, we have been overweight U.S. Tips over nominal Treasury bonds as the U.S. is the most liquid market for inflation-linked bonds, with a market cap of over US$ 1.2 trillion. Outside the U.S., we favor ILBs in Japan and Australia, while we suggest investors to avoid ILBs in the U.K. and Germany (even though the U.K. linkers' market is the second largest after the U.S.), for the following two key reasons: First, even though inflation is below target in Japan, Australia and the euro area, while above target in the U.K., in all of these markets, inflation has bottomed, as shown in Chart 14. Second, our breakeven fair-value models, which are based on trade-weighted currencies, the Brent oil price in local currencies, and stock-to-bond total-return ratios, indicate that ILBs are undervalued in Japan and Australia, while overvalued in the U.K. and Germany, as shown in Chart 15. Chart 14Inflation Dynamics Chart 15Where to Buy Inflation? The shorter duration (in real terms) of ILBs are an added bonus which fits well with our overall underweight duration positioning in the government bond universe. Global Economy Overview: Growth in developed economies remains strong and there is little in the data to suggest it will slow. This is likely to push up inflation and interest rates, especially in the U.S., over the next six to 12 months. Prospects for emerging markets, however, are less encouraging given that China is likely to slow moderately as it pushes ahead with reforms. U.S.: U.S. growth momentum remains very strong. GDP growth in the past two quarters has come in over 3%, and NowCasts for Q4 point to 2.9-3.9%. The Citigroup Economic Surprise Index (Chart 16, panel 1) has surged since June, and the Manufacturing ISM is at 53.9 and the Non-Manufacturing at 57.4 (panel 2). The worst that can be said is that momentum will be unable to continue at this rate but, with business confidence high, wage growth likely to pick up in 2018, and some positive impacts from tax cuts, no significant slowdown is in sight. Euro Area: Given its stronger cyclicality and ties to the global trade cycle, euro zone growth has surprised on the upside even more strongly than in the U.S. The Manufacturing PMI reached 60.6 in December (its highest level since 2000), and GDP growth in Q3 accelerated to 2.6% QoQ annualized. The euro's strength in 2017 seems to have done little to dent growth, and even weaker members of the euro zone such as Italy have seen improving GDP growth (1.7% in Q3). With the ECB reining back monetary easing only slightly, and banking problems shelved for now, growth should remain resilient in early 2018. Japan: Retail sales saw some weakness in October (-0.2% YoY), probably because of bad weather, but elsewhere data looks robust. Q3 GDP came in at 1.3% QoQ annualized and export growth remains strong at 14% YoY. There are even some signs of life in the domestic economy, with wages finally picking up a little (+0.9% YoY), driven by labor shortages among part-time workers, and consumer confidence at a four-year high. Inflation has been slow to rise, but at least core core inflation (the Bank of Japan's favorite measure) is now in positive territory at +0.2%. Emerging Markets: Chinese credit and monetary series, historically good lead indicators for the real economy, continue to decline (M2 growth in October of 8.8% was the lowest since data started in 1996). But, for now, economic growth has held up, with the Manufacturing and Non-Manufacturing PMIs both stably above 50 (Chart 17, panel 3). Key will be how much the government's moves to deleverage the financial system and implement structural reform in 2018 will slow growth. Elsewhere in emerging markets, economic growth remains sluggish, with GDP growth in Brazil barely rebounding to 1.4% YoY, Russia to 1.8%, and India slowing to 6.3% (down from over 9% in early 2016). Chart 16Growth Momentum Very Strong Chart 17Will China And EM Slow in 2018? Interest rates: We expect U.S. inflation to pick up in 2018, as the lagged effects of 2017's stronger growth and the weak dollar start to come through, amid higher oil prices and rising wages. We, along with the Fed, expect core PCE inflation to rise to 2% during the year. This means the Fed is likely to raise rates four times, compared to market expectations of twice. Consequently, we see the 10-year Treasury yield over 3% by mid-year. In the euro zone, the still-large output gap means inflation is less likely to surprise on the upside, allowing the ECB to keep negative rates until well into 2019. The Bank of Japan is unlikely to alter its Yield Curve Control, given the signal this would send to the market when inflation expectations are still well below its 2% target (Chart 17, panel 4). Chart 18Equities: Priced for Perfection Global Equities Still Cautiously Optimistic: Our pro-cyclical equity positioning in 2017 worked very well in terms of country allocation (overweight euro zone and Japan in the DM universe) and global sector allocation (favoring cyclicals vs defensives). The two calls that did not pan out were underweight EM equities vs. DM equities, which was partially offset by our positive stance on China within the EM universe, and the overweight of Energy, which was the worst performing sector of the year. The stellar equity performance in 2017 was largely driven by strong earnings growth. Margins improved in both DM and EM; earnings grew in all sectors, and analysts remained upbeat (Chart 18). Another important contributor to 2017 performance was the extraordinary performance of the Tech sector, especially in China: globally, tech returned 41.9%, outperforming the MSCI all country index by 18.9%. GAA's philosophy is to take risk where it is mostly likely be rewarded. In July, we took profits in our Tech overweight and used the funds to upgrade Financials to overweight from neutral. Then in October we started to reduce tracking risk by scaling down our active country bets, closing our overweight in the U.S. to reduce the underweight in EM. BCA's house view is for synchronized global growth to continue in 2018, but a possible recession in late 2019. We are a little concerned that equity markets are priced for perfection, given that our earnings model indicates a deceleration in the coming months mostly due to a base effect. As such, our combination of "close to shore" country allocation and "pro-cyclical" sector allocation is appropriate for the next 9-12 months. Country Allocation: Still Favor DM Over EM Chart 19China: From Tailwind to Headwind for EM ? Our longstanding call of underweight EM vs. DM since December 2013 was gradually reduced in scale, first in March 2016 (to -5 percentage points from -9) and then in October 2017 (further to -2 points). Going forward, investors should continue to maintain this slight underweight position in EM vs. DM. First, our positive stance on China proved to be timely as shown in Chart 19, panel 4, with China outperforming EM by 54.1% since March 2016, and by 18.8% in 2017. Back then our positive stance on China was supported by attractive valuations (bottom panel) and our view that Chinese politics would be supportive for global growth in the run up to the 19th Party Congress. Now BCA's Geopolitical Strategists think that "China politics are shifting from a tailwind to a headwind for global growth and EM assets".5 In addition, Chinese equities are no longer valued at a discount to the EM average (bottom panel). Second, BCA's currency view is for continued strength in the USD, especially against emerging market currencies. This does not bode well for EM/DM performance in US dollar terms (Chart 19, panel 1). Third, EM money growth leads profit growth by about three months (Chart 19, panel 2). The rolling over in money growth indicates that the currently strong earnings growth may lose steam going forward, while relative valuation is in the fair-value zone (Chart 19, panel 3). Sector Allocation: Stay Overweight Energy Our pro-cyclical sector positioning has worked well in aggregate as the market-cap-weighted cyclical index significantly outperformed the defensive index in 2017. This positioning is also in line with BCA's house view of synchronized global growth and higher inflation expectations, which translates into two major sector themes: capex recovery and rising interest rates. (Please see detailed sector positioning on page 24.) Within the cyclical space, however, the Energy sector did not perform as expected in 2017 (Chart 20). It returned only 3.4%, underperforming the global aggregate by 19.6%. For the next 9-12 months, we recommend investors to stay overweight this underdog of 2017. Chart 20Energy Stocks Lagging Oil Price First, the energy sector is a major beneficiary from a capex recovery. There are already signs of a recovery in basic resources investment in the U.S.6 Second, the energy sector's relative return lagged oil price performance in 2017. Given the generally close correlation between earnings and the oil price, and between analyst earnings revisions and OECD oil inventory growth, earnings in the sector should outpace the broad market. Third, based on price-to-cash earnings, the energy sector is still trading at about a 30% discount to the broad market, and offers a much higher dividend yield (about 1.2 points higher) than the broad market. Even though these discounts are in line with historical averages, they are still supportive of an overweight. Government Bonds Maintain Slight Underweight Duration. One important theme for 2018 will be a resumption of the cyclical uptrend in inflation.7 The implications are that both nominal bond yields and break-even inflation rates will be higher in 2018. We have been underweight duration in government bonds since July 2016. Now with the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield at 2.35%, much lower than its fair value of 2.81%, there is considerable upside risk for global bond yields from current low levels. Investors should continue to underweight duration in global government bonds Maintain Overweight Tips Vs. Treasuries. The base-case forecast from our U.S. bond strategists is that the Tips breakeven rate will rise to 2.4-2.5% as U.S. core PCE reaches the Fed's 2% target, probably sometime in the middle of 2018. Compared to the current level of 1.87%, 10-yr Tips would have upside of 33-38 bps, an important source of return in the low-return fixed-income space (Chart 21, bottom panel). In terms of relative value, Tips are now slightly cheaper than nominal bonds, also supportive of the overweight stance. Underweight Canadian Government Bonds. BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy has taken profits in their short Canada vs. U.S. and U.K. tactical position, as the market has become too aggressive in pricing in more rate hikes in Canada. Strategically, however, the underweight of Canada (Chart 22) in a hedged global portfolio is still appropriate because: 1) the output gap has closed in Canada, according to Bank of Canada estimates, and so any additional growth will translate into higher inflation; and 2) the rising CAD will not deter the BoC from more rate hikes if the oil prices remain strong. Chart 21U.S. Bond Yields Have Further To Rise Chart 22Strategic Underweight Canadian Bonds Corporate Bonds Our overweights through most of 2017 on spread product worked well: U.S. investment grade (IG) bonds returned around 290 bps over Treasuries in the year to end-November, and high-yield bonds almost 600 bps. Returns over the next 12 months are unlikely to be as attractive. Spreads (Chart 24) are now close to historic lows: the U.S. IG bond spread, at 90 bps, is only about 30 bps above its all-time record. High-yield valuations look a little more attractive: based on our model of probable defaults over the next 12 months, the default-adjusted spread over U.S. Treasuries is likely to be around 240 bps (Chart 25). In both cases, however, investors should expect little further spread contraction, meaning that credit is now no more than a carry trade. However, in an environment where rates remain fairly low and investors continue to stretch for yield, that pick-up will remain attractive in the absence of a significant turn-down in the economic cycle. The key to watch is the shape of the yield curve. An inverted yield curve in history has been an excellent indictor of the end of the credit cycle. We expect the yield curve to steepen somewhat in H1 2018, before flattening again and then inverting late in the year. Spread product is likely, therefore, to produce decent returns until that point. Thereafter, however, the deterioration of U.S. corporate health over the past three years (Chart 23) could mean a sharp sell-off in corporate bonds. This might be exacerbated by the recent popularity of open-ended mutual funds and ETFs: a small widening of spreads could be magnified by a panicked sell-off in such funds. Chart 23Rising Leverage May Worsen Sell-Off Chart 24Credit Spreads Close To Record Lows Chart 25But Default - Adjusted, Junk Still Looks Attractive Commodities Energy: Bullish Energy prices performed strongly in H2 2017, and we expect bullish sentiment to continue. OPEC 2.0 is likely to maintain production discipline, and will maintain its promised 1.8mm b/d production cuts through the end of 2018. Our estimates for global demand growth are higher than those of other forecasters. This, along with potential unplanned production outages in Iraq, Libya and Venezuela (together accounting for 7.4mm b/d of production at present), drives our above-consensus price forecast of $67 a barrel for Brent crude during 2018. Industrial Metals: Neutral Since China accounts for more than 50% of world base-metal consumption, prices will continue to be highly dependent on developments there. (Chart 26, panel 4). Since the government is trying to accelerate environmental and supply-side reforms, domestic production capacity for base metals will shrink, which will be a positive for global metals prices. However, a focus on deleveraging in the financial sector and restructuring certain industries could slow Chinese GDP growth, reducing base-metal demand. Precious Metals: Neutral Gold has risen by 12% in 2017, supported by an uncertain geopolitical environment coupled with low interest rates. We believe that geopolitical uncertainties will persist and may even intensify, and that inflation may rise in the U.S., which would be positives for gold (Chart 26, panel 3). Based on BCA's view that stock market could be at risk from the middle of 2018,8 a moderate gold holding is warranted as a safe-haven asset. However, rising interest rate and a potentially stronger U.S. dollar are likely to limit the upside for gold. Currencies USD: The currency is down over 6% on a trade-weighted basis over the past 12 months (Chart 27). Looking into 2018, the USD is likely to perform well in the first half. U.S. inflation should gather steam in the first two to three quarters, and the Fed will be able at least to follow its dot plot - something interest rate markets are not ready for. As investors remain short the USD, upside risk to U.S. interest rates should result in a higher dollar. Chart 26Bullish Oil, Neutral Metals Chart 27Dollar Likely To Appreciate EM/JPY: Carry trades are a key mechanism for redistributing global liquidity, and they have recently begun to lose steam. A crucial reason for this has been the policy tightening in China which has been the key driver of growth in EM economies. Additionally, Japanese flows have been chasing momentum into EM assets. Further tightening in EM could reverse the flows and initiate a flight to safety, favoring the yen relative to EM currencies. CHF: The currency continues to trade at a 5% premium to its PPP fair value against the euro. However, after considering Switzerland's net international investment position at 130% of GDP, the trade-weighted CHF trades in line with fair value. The CHF will continue to behave as a risk-off currency, and so long as global volatility remains well contained, EUR/CHF will experience appreciating pressure. GBP: Sterling continues to look cheap, trading at an 18% discount to PPP against the USD. However, Brexit remains a key problem. If future immigration is limited, the U.K. will see lower trend growth relative to its neighbors, forcing its equilibrium real neutral rate downward. Consequently, it will be more difficult to finance the current account deficit of 5% of GDP. Until negotiations with the EU come closer to completion, the pound will continue to offer limited reward and plenty of volatility. Alternatives Chart 28Favor Private Equity and Farmland Alternative assets under management (AUM) have reached a record $7.7 trillion in 2017. Lower fees and a broader range of investment types have helped attract more capital. Private equity remains the most popular choice,9 driven by its strong performance and transparency. Many investors have also shifted part of their allocations toward potentially higher-return private debt programs. Return Enhancers: Favor Private Equity Vs. Hedge Funds In 2017 so far, private equity has returned 12.1%, whereas hedge funds have managed only a 5.9% return (Chart 28). We expect private-equity fund-raising to continue into 2018, but with a larger focus on niche strategies with more favorable valuations. Additionally, deploying capital gradually not only provides for vintage-year diversification, but also creates opportunities for investors to benefit from potential market corrections. We continue to favor private equity over hedge funds outside of recessions. During a recession, we recommend investors take shelter in hedge funds with a macro mandate. Inflation Hedges: Favor Direct Real Estate Vs. Commodity Futures In 2017 to date, direct real estate has returned 5.1%, whereas commodity futures are down over 3.7%. Direct real estate as an asset class continues to provide valuable diversification, lower volatility, steady yields and an illiquidity premium. However, a slowdown in U.S. commercial real estate (CRE) has made us more cautious on the overall asset class. With regards to the commodity complex, the long-term transition of the global economy to a more renewables-focused energy base will continue the structural decline in commodity demand. We continue to stress the structural and long-term nature of our negative recommendation on commodities. Volatility Dampeners: Favor Farmland & Timberland Vs. Structured Products In 2017 to date, farmland and timberland have returned 3.2% and 2.1% respectively, whereas structured products are up 3.7%. Farmland continues to outperform timberland. The slow U.S. housing recovery has added downward pressure to timberland returns. Investors can reduce the volatility of a traditional multi-asset portfolio with inclusion of farm and timber assets. For structured products, low spreads in an environment of tightening commercial real estate lending standards and falling CRE loan demand, warrant an underweight. Risks To Our View We think upside and downside risks to our central scenario for 2018 - slowing but robust economic growth, and continuing moderate outperformance of risk assets - are roughly evenly balanced. On the negative side, perhaps the biggest risk is China, where the slowdown already suggested in the monetary data (Chart 29) could be exacerbated if the government pushes ahead aggressively with structural reforms. Geopolitical risks, which the market over-emphasized in 2017, seem under-estimated now.10 U.S. trade policy, Italian elections, and North Korea all have potential to derail markets. Also, when the U.S. yield curve is as flat as it is currently, small risks can be blown up into big sell-offs. This is particularly so given over-stretched valuations for almost all asset classes. Chart 29China Monetary Conditions Suggest A Slowdown Table 2How Will Trump Try To Influence The Fed? The most likely positive surprise could come from a dovish Fed. New Fed chair Jay Powell is something of an unknown quantity, and the White House could use the three remaining Fed vacancies to push the Fed to keep rates low, so as not to offset the positive effect of the tax cuts. Without these new appointees, the Fed would have a slightly more hawkish bias in 2018 (Table 2). The intellectual argument for hiking only slowly would be, as Janet Yellen said last month: "It can be quite dangerous to allow inflation to drift down and not to achieve over time a central bank's inflation target." The Fed has missed its 2% target for five years. It is possible to imagine a situation where the Fed increasingly makes excuses to keep monetary policy easy (encouraged, for example, by a short-lived sell-off in markets or a slowdown in China) and this causes a late-cycle blow-out, similar to 1999. 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "When To Get Out," dated December 8, 2017 available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Insight Report, "Tax Cuts Are Here - Sector Implications," dated December 12, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 3 CBNK Survey: Monetary Base, Currency in Circulation. Source: IMF - International Financial Statistics. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Two Virtuous Dollar Circles," dated October 28, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "High-Conviction Calls," dated November 27, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Outlook 2018 - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course," dated 20 November 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Outlook 2018 - Policy And The Markets: On A Collision Course," dated November 20, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 9 Source: BNY Mellon - The Race For Assets; Alternative Investments Surge Ahead. 10 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "From Overstated To Understated Risks," dated November 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. GAA Asset Allocation

Highlights Overweighting Eurostoxx50 versus S&P500 is just a sector play - you must believe that banks are going to outperform technology. It is categorically not a relative economic growth or relative valuation play. The best expression of euro area economic outperformance - as we believe is likely - is not through mainstream equity indexes. It is through the euro. Could Spain in 2014-17 be Italy in 2018-21? If so, the cleanest play is through Italian bonds: long Italian BTPs versus French OATs. Play the lottery for free: when the price gap between the second and first month VIX future is greater than that between the first month and VIX spot - as it is now - it signals a potentially free lottery ticket. Feature Don't Play The Euro Area Economy Through The Stock Market The fallacy of division is a logical fallacy. It occurs when somebody falsely infers that what is true for the whole is also true for the parts that make up the whole. For example, somebody might see that their computer screen appears purple, and infer that the pixels that make up the screen are also purple. In fact, pixels are never purple. They are either red or blue. The fallacy of division is that the property of the whole - purpleness - does not translate to the property of the parts - redness or blueness. Chart of the WeekEuro Area Vs. U.S. Equities Is Just A Sector Play: Banks Vs. Technology The fallacy of division also affects investors. Since global equities are a play on the global economy, some investors infer that major equity indexes such as the Eurostoxx50 are relative plays on their regional economies. In fact, this is a fallacy of division: the property of the equity market as a global aggregate does not translate to the relative property of an equity market as a regional or national part. Through the past three years, the euro area economy has comfortably outperformed the U.S. economy1 (Chart I-2). Yet the Eurostoxx50 has substantially underperformed the S&P500 (Chart I-3). Why? Because the Eurostoxx50 has a major 14% weighting to banks and a minor 7% weighting to technology. The S&P500 is the mirror image; a minor 7% weighting to banks and a major 24% weighting to technology. Chart I-2The Euro Area Economy ##br##Has Outperformed... Chart I-3...But The Eurostoxx50 ##br##Has Underperformed Hence, for the Eurostoxx50 the distinguishing property is 'bank'; for the S&P500 it is 'technology'. And as banks have underperformed technology, the Eurostoxx50 has underperformed the S&P500. This large difference in sector exposure also means that a head-to-head comparison of equity market valuation is misleading. The euro area, trading on a forward price to earnings (PE) multiple of 15, appears considerably cheaper than the U.S., trading on a forward PE of 19. But this head-to-head difference just reflects the forward PEs of banks at 11 and technology at 19. As banks will likely generate less long-term growth than technology, banks are rightfully cheaper than technology and the Eurostoxx50 is rightfully cheaper than the S&P500. Some people suggest sector-adjusting stock market valuations to allow for the sector biases. The problem is that this suggestion cannot avoid the inescapable end-result. The bank-heavy Eurostoxx50 versus the tech-heavy S&P500 relative performance will still depend on banks versus technology (Chart of the Week). Remarkably, this overarching driver is captured in just the three largest euro area banks versus the three largest U.S. tech stocks. This means that relative performance simply reduces to whether Banco Santander, BNP Paribas and ING outperform Apple, Microsoft and Google,2 or vice-versa (Chart I-4). Chart I-4Eurostoxx50 Vs. S&P500 Reduces To: Santander, BNP & ING Vs. Apple, Microsoft & Google Everything else is largely irrelevant. Hence, the counterintuitive conclusion is that overweight Eurostoxx50 versus S&P500 is actually a sector play. You must hold the view that banks are going to outperform technology. At the moment, we are agnostic on this view. The best expression of euro area economic outperformance - as we believe is likely - is not through mainstream equity indexes. It is through bond yield spread compression and through exchange rates. Our preferred expression is structurally long EUR/USD. Could Spain In 2014-17 Be Italy In 2018-21? In 2013, Spain seemed to be on its knees. The economy had slumped by almost 10%, unemployment stood at 27%, and the stock of bank loans which were non-performing exceeded 13%. Doomsayers abounded. Standard and Poor's downgraded Spain's sovereign credit rating to BBB-, one notch above junk, and esteemed Wall Street strategists predicted the unemployment rate would remain above 25% for the rest of the decade. But the esteemed strategists were completely wrong. Through 2014-17, Spanish real GDP per head has grown by almost 15% (Chart I-5) - making it one of the top performing developed economies; unemployment has plunged by 10% (Chart I-6); and non-performing loans have declined sharply. What suddenly transformed Spain from zero to hero? The answer is that Spain recapitalised its banks. Chart I-5Through 2014-17 Spanish Real GDP ##br##Per Head Is Up Almost 15%... Chart I-6...And Unemployment##br## Is Down 10% After a financial crisis, the golden rule of recovery is to repair the banking system as soon as possible. In the aftermath of housing-related banking crises in 2008, the U.S. and U.K. quickly recapitalised their damaged banking systems; Ireland followed a couple of years later; Spain waited until 2013. But in each case, the economies rebounded very strongly as soon as the banks' aggressive deleveraging ended. Which brings us to Italy. Many people claim that Italy's long-standing economic underperformance is due to deep-seated structural problems. We do not dispute that such problems exist, but they cannot be the main cause of the economic underperformance. After all, through 1999-2007, Italian real GDP per head performed more or less in line with the U.S., Canada and France (Chart I-7), even without a private sector credit boom which the other economies had. Italy's underperformance really started after the 2008 financial crisis. And the most plausible explanation is that its dysfunctional banking system has been left broken for so long. Italy has procrastinated because its government is more indebted than other sovereigns and its banking problems have not caused an outright crisis - yet. But now policymakers in Rome, Brussels and Frankfurt realise that a hamstrung economy carries risks of a populist backlash against the European project. Finally, Italian banks' equity capital is rising, their solvency is improving and the share of non-performing loans appears to have peaked at the same level as in Spain in 2013 (Chart I-8). Chart I-7Through 1999-2007 Italy Performed In##br## Line With Other Major Economies Chart I-8Spanish NPLs Peaked In 2013, ##br##Italian NPLs Are Peaking Now So could Spain in 2014-17 be Italy in 2018-21? Once again, doomsayers abound and the counterintuitive thought could pay off. The cleanest way to play this is through Italian bonds: long Italian BTPs versus French OATs. Play The Lottery For Free As everybody knows, playing the lottery is not a good investment strategy. Most of the time your Lotto ticket brings zero reward, though occasionally you do win a prize. In fact, the U.K. National Lottery has said that the expected win per £1 played averages £0.47. Meaning the long-term return on this strategy is -53%. In the financial markets, the equivalent of a Lotto ticket is to buy volatility. In practice, this means buying a future on a volatility index such as the VIX. The problem is that the VIX futures curve usually slopes upwards. So if the curve doesn't change, a future bought above the spot price loses value when it expires at the spot price (Chart I-9). The upshot is that most of the time, the future 'rolls down the curve', and you lose money, though occasionally when volatility spikes you win. But counterintuitively, sometimes you can play the lottery for free. Look at the VIX futures curve: when the price gap between the second and first month is greater than that between the first month and spot - as it is now (Chart I-10) - it signals a potentially free lottery ticket. Chart I-9VIX Futures "Roll Down The Curve" Chart I-10Spotting A Free Lottery Ticket Under these circumstances, the strategy is to go long the first month future and short the second month future. If the futures curve stays broadly as it is - and both futures contracts roll down the curve - the loss on the first month long position will be made up by the gain on the second month short position. Effectively, the combined position becomes costless. Yet this potentially costless position is still playing the lottery. Because if volatility does spike, the volatility futures curve tends to invert sharply (go into backwardation). Hence, the gain on the first month long position substantially outweighs the loss on the second month short position. Now might be a good time to play the lottery for free. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 On a real GDP per capita basis. 2 Listed as Alphabet. Fractal Trading Model* Silver's 65-day fractal dimension is at a level which has previously indicated four tradeable trend reversals. Go long silver with a profit target / stop-loss of 4.5% In other trades, we are pleased to report that short basic materials versus market and short copper / long tin both hit their respective profit targets. This leaves us with six open positions. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-11 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights Growth in the Taiwanese economy has trended sideways this year, but a budding turnaround in weak domestic demand suggests that growth should improve in 2018. The appreciation of the TWD from its 2016 low reflects investor inflows rather than bullish fundamentals. The risk of a protectionist backlash means that monetary authorities are reluctant to intervene aggressively to limit the rise. We recommend that investors stick with our existing long MSCI China / short Taiwan trade, for now. A breakout in relative Taiwanese tech sector performance coupled with a weakening TWD would likely be a sufficient basis to close the trade at a healthy profit. Feature We last wrote about Taiwan in February of this year,1 when the risk of protectionist action from the Trump administration loomed large. While there have been no negative trade actions levied against Taiwan this year, macro factors, particularly the strength of the currency, continue to argue for an underweight stance within the greater China bourses (China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan). Our long MSCI China / short Taiwan trade has generated an impressive 19% return since its inception in February. The trade has become significantly overbought, but we recommend that investors stick with it, for now. A material easing in pressure on Taiwan's trade-weighted exchange rate appears to be the most likely catalyst to close the trade and to upgrade Taiwan within a portfolio of greater China equities. The Taiwanese Economy In 2017: What Has Changed? Real GDP growth in Taiwan has generally trended sideways in 2017, decelerating in the first half of the year and then recovering in the third quarter (Chart 1). While these fluctuations in its growth profile have been somewhat muted, overall GDP growth has masked a sizeable divergence between domestic demand and export growth. Taiwan is a highly trade-oriented economy, with exports of goods & services accounting for nearly 65% for its GDP, and a recent acceleration in real export volume has positively contributed to overall growth. Over 50% of Taiwan's exports are tech-based, and Chart 1 panel 2 highlights the close link between global semiconductor sales (which have risen sharply over the past year) and Taiwanese nominal exports. But as Chart 1 panel 3 shows, growth in real domestic demand has fallen back into contractionary territory, driven largely by a sharp decline in gross fixed capital formation. This decline in investment is somewhat surprising, given the close historical relationship between Taiwan's real exports and investment (Chart 2, panel 1). But the sharp drop may have been a lagged response to the export shock that occurred during the synchronized global growth slowdown in 2015, as it led to a non-trivial accumulation of inventory (Chart 2, panel 2). The recent acceleration of export growth and a renewed draw in inventories suggests that the severe pullback in investment is likely to reverse in the coming year. Chart 1A Divergence Between Domestic Demand##br## And Exports Chart 2Investment Likely To Rebound Over ##br##The Coming Year The evolution of Taiwanese capital goods imports is likely to provide an important confirming signal about the trend in real investment, given the close historical correlation between the two series. For now, the growth in capital goods imports is rebounding from negative territory (Chart 3), which is consistent with the view that investment is set to recover. Finally, while real consumer spending growth also decelerated in the first half of the year, the acceleration in Q3 has brought consumption back to its 5-year moving average. More importantly, Chart 4 highlights that the consumer confidence index in Taiwan is closely correlated with real spending, with the former heralding a rise in the latter over the coming months. Chart 3Capital Goods Signal An Investment Recovery Chart 4Consumption Also Set To Improve Bottom Line: Growth in the Taiwanese economy has trended sideways this year, but a budding turnaround in weak domestic demand suggests that growth should improve in 2018. The Taiwanese Dollar: Driven By Flows, Not Fundamentals Taiwanese stock prices have underperformed Greater China bourses since the beginning of the year (Chart 5), despite the recent improvement in real export growth and signs of an impending improvement in domestic demand. To us, this underperformance has been largely caused by the strength in the Taiwanese currency. The Taiwanese dollar has appreciated since early-2016, both against the U.S. dollar and in trade-weighted terms (Chart 6). Although the currency retreated from May to August of this year, it has since resumed its uptrend and currently stands between 8-9% higher than last year's low in trade-weighted terms. Chart 5Significant Underperformance Of ##br##Taiwan Vs Greater China Chart 6Material Currency Appreciation##br## Since Early-2016 Crucially, Chart 7 highlights that the rise in the TWD cannot be explained by relative monetary policy or by an improvement in the terms of trade. The chart shows how the USD/TWD began to decouple from the relative 2-year swap rate spread in early-2016, and how the trend in Taiwan's export price index has been negatively correlated with the trade-weighted exchange rate. The best explanation for the recent strength in Taiwan's currency appears to be a surge in capital inflows oriented towards Taiwan's equity market (Chart 8). Foreign ownership of Taiwanese stocks has increased significantly over the past few years and is currently at a record high of 43%. Given that Taiwan's equity market is enormously tech-focused, it appears that global investors have been attracted to Taiwanese stocks as part of a play on the global tech rally. As we will discuss below, this has become somewhat of a self-defeating strategy, at least in terms of Taiwan's relative performance vs Greater China bourses. While it is possible that monetary authorities will attempt to combat the appreciation of the Taiwanese dollar, Chart 9 highlights that there is little room to maneuver. First, Taiwan's policy rate of 1.375% is already extremely low, and is only 12.5 bps above the level that prevailed during the worst of the global financial crisis. Second, panels 2 and 3 suggests that while past central bank intervention was successful at depreciating the TWD, monetary authorities also seem reluctant to allow Taiwan to be labeled as a currency manipulator. Our proxy for central bank intervention is the rolling 3-month average daily depreciation in TWD/USD in the first 30 minutes of aftermarket trading, a period that the central bank has historically used to intervene in the foreign exchange market. The chart shows that periods of intervention have been associated with a subsequent decline in TWD/USD, but that intervention durably ended once Taiwan was added to the U.S. Treasury's watch list of potential currency manipulators (first vertical line). Taiwan was removed from the watch list in October of this year (second vertical line), after central bank intervention ceased. Chart 7Currency Strength Not Supported ##br##By Fundamentals Chart 8Equity-Oriented Capital Inflows##br## Are Pushing Up The TWD Chart 9Little Room For Policy ##br##To Push Down The Exchange Rate Bottom Line: The appreciation of the TWD from its 2016 low reflects investor inflows rather than bullish fundamentals. While there is scope for further central bank intervention to help depreciate the currency, the risk of a protectionist backlash means that monetary authorities are reluctant to act. The Relative Outlook For Taiwanese Equities Table 1 presents a simple performance attribution analysis for Taiwan's year-to-date stock returns relative to Greater China bourses,2 in an attempt to answer the following question: Has Taiwan underperformed because it is underweight sectors that have outperformed, or because its highly-weighted sectors underperformed? To test this question we calculate a "hypothetical" return for the Taiwanese stock market, which shows what would have occurred if Taiwan's tech and ex-tech sectors had earned the benchmark return instead of their own. Table 1Taiwan's Poor Performance This Year Is Due To Its Tech Sector The table clearly shows that Taiwan would have substantially outperformed Greater China in this hypothetical scenario, underscoring that its sector weighting is not the source of the underperformance. While both Taiwan's tech and ex-tech indexes underperformed those of Greater China, it is apparent that most of the gap in performance can be linked to Taiwan's tech sector. Tech accounts for roughly 60% of Taiwan's equity market capitalization, and the sector significantly underperformed Greater China tech this year. Chart 10 highlights that Taiwan's tech sector underperformance is significantly explained by the rise in Taiwan's trade-weighted currency. Panels 2 & 3 of the chart shows Taiwan's rolling 1-year tech sector beta and alpha vs Greater China tech, both compared with the (inverted) year-over-year percent change in the trade-weighted exchange rate. Here, we define alpha using Jensen's measure, which is the difference between Taiwan's tech sector price return and what would have been expected given its beta and Greater China's tech sector performance. The chart clearly shows that the sharp rise in Taiwan's trade-weighted exchange rate caused both a decline in Taiwan's tech sector beta (from a historical average of about 1) as well as a significantly negative alpha over the past year. Chart 10, in combination with the currency-driven downtrend in Taiwan's export prices shown in Chart 7, suggests that Taiwan's equity market has suffered in relative terms due to the outsized appreciation in its currency. This is somewhat ironic, as we noted above that the currency appreciation itself appears to be caused by capital inflow oriented towards Taiwan's tech sector, meaning that global investors have inadvertently contributed to Taiwan's equity market underperformance relative to Greater China bourses. Looking forward, there are cross-currents affecting the outlook for Taiwanese stock prices. Chart 11 shows that technical conditions and relative valuation argue against maintaining an underweight stance; Taiwanese stocks are heavily oversold vs Greater China, and have de-rated in relative terms since the beginning of the year. Taiwanese tech in particular is quite cheap in relative terms. In addition, panel 1 of Chart 10 suggests that Taiwanese tech (in relative terms) may have undershot the appreciation in the currency. Chart 10Taiwan's Tech Underperformance Is Explained By Currency Appreciation Chart 11Taiwan Vs China: Oversold, And Cheaper Than Usual However, Taiwan's tech sector is mostly made up of the semiconductors & semiconductor equipment industry group, and there are signs that the growth rate in global semiconductor sales is in the process of peaking. Chart 12 illustrates the close correlation between the growth of global semi sales and Taiwan's absolute 12-month forward earnings per share, with the recent gap likely having occurred due to the currency impact noted above. The chart suggests that earnings expectations for Taiwan are highly unlikely to accelerate if semi sales growth slows, meaning that Taiwanese stocks, particularly the tech sector, currently lack a catalyst to re-rate. Chart12Taiwan Is Lacking A Re-Rating Catalyst From our perspective, a lasting depreciation in the currency appears to be the most likely catalyst for a re-rating, as it would increase the odds that the relationship shown in Chart 10 would durably recouple. Until then, any exogenous rebound in relative tech sector performance is likely to be met with a self-limiting TWD appreciation. Bottom Line: We recommend that investors, for now, stick with our existing long MSCI China / short Taiwan trade. However, a breakout in relative Taiwanese tech sector performance coupled with a weakening TWD would likely cause us to close the trade, and upgrade Taiwanese stocks to at least neutral within a greater China equity portfolio. Stay tuned. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com Lin Xiang, Research Assistant linx@bcaresearch.com 1 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Taiwan's 'Trump' Risk", dated February 2, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 We use MSCI's Golden Dragon index to represent Greater China, which includes China investable, Hong Kong, and Taiwanese stocks. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Breadth within EM equity markets has been deteriorating both in absolute terms and relative to DM equities. This points to a major top in EM share prices. In Brazil, falling inflation has led to a relapse in nominal GDP growth. This has endangered the already-bad public debt dynamics. Without the social security reforms, the country needs to boost nominal growth to stabilize public debt dynamics. Currency depreciation will likely be required to achieve this. When the Brazilian currency sells off, the nation's financial markets perform poorly. Feature Deteriorating EM Equity Breadth Breadth within EM equity markets has been deteriorating, especially in relative terms, versus DM stock markets. This heralds a major downleg in EM versus DM relative share prices, at a minimum, and a relapse in EM share prices in absolute terms as well. Chart I-1 demonstrates that the relative performance of EM equal-weighted stock index versus the DM equal-weighted share price index has decoupled from the relative performance of EM versus DM market cap-weighted equity benchmarks. Such a gap has emerged for the first time since 1999, when MSCI's equal-weighted equity data became available. Chart I-1EM Equity Outperformance Narrowly Based Versus DM... Each stock has the same weight in the equal-weighted index, while the regular indexes are market-cap weighted. Hence, an equal-weighted index reflects performance of an average stock while the market cap-weighted ones are skewed by the performances of large-cap stocks. This confirms what many investors already know: that in 2017, EM outperformance versus DM has been largely due to the surge in four large-cap technology stocks in Asia. Comparing EM against the U.S. only on similar measures, the message is identical (Chart I-2). Chart I-3 illustrates the absolute performance of MSCI EM market cap-weighted and MSCI EM equal-weighted equity indexes. It appears that the EM equal-weighted stock index has failed to make new cyclical highs lately. Thereby, it has not confirmed the new high in the EM market-cap weighted equity benchmark (Chart I-3). Chart I-2...And U.S. Chart I-3EM Equal-Weighted Index Did Not ##br##Confirm EM Market-Cap Recent Highs Similarly, the rally in share prices of EM banks - an important macro-driven sector of the EM equity universe - has lately paused. As such, it has also not confirmed the new high in the overall EM equity benchmark (Chart I-4). Given EM tech stocks (29% of MSCI benchmark index) are extremely overbought, the EM equity rally can be sustained if leadership rotates to EM financials and commodities stocks, which account for 23% and 14% of market cap, respectively. The failure of both EM financials and commodities stocks to make new cyclical highs of late suggests the EM equity rally is wearing off. The advance-decline line for EM stocks has lately dropped below the 50 line (Chart I-5, top panel). By contrast, the DM measure is still above 50 (Chart I-5, bottom panel). This signals a major bout of EM underperformance versus DM, as well as downside risks to EM's absolute performance. Chart I-4EM Banks Also Did Not Confirm ##br##EM Market-Cap Recent Highs Chart I-5Poor Advance-Decline Line In EM Equities The weak technical profile for EM equities is consistent with our fundamental assessment that the main risks to global growth and share prices stem from EM/China rather than DM economies. Therefore, EM/China plays will be the first to roll over, while DM stocks will lag. Investors looking for signs of reversal in the rally in global risk assets should monitor EM/China plays. Finally, EM small cap stocks' relative performance against their DM counterparts has not confirmed the EM outperformance based on an aggregate index (Chart I-6). This is a negative signal as well, and heralds new lows in relative performance. This also corroborates that, outside those EM large-cap tech stocks that have gone exponential, the EM equity rally has been much less exuberant and vigorous. More importantly, the EM rally has recently shown signs of fatigue. Bottom Line: Breadth within EM equity markets has been deteriorating both in absolute terms and relative to DM equities. This implies that a major downturn in EM share prices as well as EM risk assets generally is approaching. Investors should stay put/underweight EM risk assets. Brazil: A Political Economy Dilemma The Nominal Impediment We are aware that the pace of economic activity in Brazil is presently gathering speed. Manufacturing, retail sales and hiring are all recovering (Chart I-7). Even capital spending that has been shrinking until recently is now starting to show signs of life. Chart I-6EM Small Caps Have Not Confirmed ##br##EM Large Cap Outperformance Chart I-7Brazil: Economic Activity Is Recovering Nevertheless, Brazil's public debt dynamics remain unsustainable. Nominal GDP growth has declined to its 2015 low - as falling inflation has more than offset the revival in real output (Chart I-8). Besides, real interest rates remain elevated and nominal GDP growth is well below the government's borrowing costs (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Brazil: Real Growth Is Recovering ##br##While Nominal Growth Is Relapsing Chart I-9Brazil: Borrowing Costs Are Still High Therefore, without full-fledged social security reforms and/or lowering ex-ante real interest rates substantially, the public debt trajectory will likely spin out of control. Interest rates in real terms are also elevated for the private sector. This suggests that credit stress among companies and households might not recede quickly, and high real interest rates might cap the recovery in loan growth (Chart I-10). Interestingly, Chart I-11 demonstrates that private banks' NPLs (non-performing loans) inversely correlate with nominal GDP growth (nominal GDP is inverted on the chart). This entails that the amelioration in Brazil's NPL cycle is at least due for a pause. Chart I-10Brazil: Bank Loan Growth Is Stabilizing Chart I-11Brazil: Nominal GDP & Bank NPLs In short, to stabilize public and private debt dynamics, higher nominal GDP growth and much lower borrowing costs in real terms are vital. The latter means an unexpected rise in inflation is required. Chart I-12Brazil In the Late 1990s To boost nominal growth considerably and finance government at lower real interest rates, a combination of quantitative easing (QE) and currency depreciation will be needed. This is not a forecast that the Brazilian central bank will certainly implement QE. Rather, our point is that without extensive social security reforms - which are politically unfeasible now (more on this below) - a meaningful currency depreciation and/or public debt monetization by the central bank will be necessary to stabilize public debt dynamics and put the economy on a sustainable expansion path. Remarkably, in the late 1990s, faced with low inflation and weak nominal growth, the Brazilian government opted for large currency devaluation, which boosted nominal GDP growth (Chart I-12). Notably, the currency was devalued despite the large share of public foreign currency debt. This ratio is now very low. Hence, currency depreciation will be less painful now than it was in 1998. A Political Economy Dilemma: Growth Versus Creditors Brazil's elected politicians (congressmen and senators) are facing a political economy dilemma: (a) Should they satisfy interests of government creditors (including foreign investors) - i.e., pursue painful fiscal reforms to make public debt sustainable? Or (b) Should they gratify the electorate - i.e., avoid austerity and stimulate the still-beleaguered economy? To put this in perspective, the economy is just exiting one of the worst recessions of the past century, and the unemployment rate is still at a decade high. Over the next several months, the government of President Michel Temer will try to pass a diluted version of the pension reform bill. The government is desperate to enact this bill to keep financial markets buoyant and preserve the ongoing economic recovery heading into the elections. Being already very unpopular, government officials realize this is the only way their candidate has a chance to get elected in the presidential elections next year. However, the diluted version will not be enough to ensure debt sustainability. Chart I-13Brazil's Median Voter Favors ##br##Anti-Government Candidates Moreover, many of the government's coalition partners have different incentives. Going into the general elections in October 2018, odds favor that the majority of congressmen and senators will likely vote for avoiding austerity. As a result, the pension reforms draft - even in its diluted form - will likely fail. The median voter in Brazil remains on the left. Chart I-13 reveals that according to the latest polls, 60% of voters support anti-market candidates. Hence, any politician who wants to be elected needs to heed to the electorate. Worsening Fiscal Dynamics Public debt sustainability has been worsening: The primary and overall deficits have lately widened to 2.9% and 9.3% of GDP, respectively (Chart I-14). Public debt sustainability necessitates that the primary fiscal balance swings into a surplus, and borrowing costs drop below nominal GDP. None of these requirements have been satisfied or are likely to be anytime soon. Meanwhile, central government total revenue growth has dwindled (Chart I-15, top panel). In turn, central government net revenue - i.e. excluding transfers to local governments - are mildly contracting due to the increase in revenue transfers to the latter (Chart I-15, bottom panel). Chart I-14Brazil: Fiscal Deficit Has Not Improved Chart I-15Central Government Revenues Are Very Weak Furthermore, the overall fiscal deficit excluding social security is at 6% of GDP and has widened over the past year (Chart I-14, bottom panel). Interest payments account for 32% of government spending and 6.4% of GDP. On the whole, without a large fiscal retrenchment and with real interest rates close to current levels, the gross public debt-to-GDP ratio will likely reach 85% by the end of 2018 and 92% in two years' time - even if nominal GDP growth recovers to 6-6.5%. This puts the impetus solely on the central bank to reflate nominal growth aggressively and/or bring down real interest rates. This can be achieved via currency depreciation or public debt monetization. The outcome of the latter will necessarily be a major drop in the currency's value. This, along with our negative view on commodities prices in general and iron ore prices in particular, prompts us to retain our bearish stance on the Brazilian real. Chart I-16 demonstrates that the currency is highly correlated with iron ore prices, and has no correlation with the level of and changes in the interest rate differential between Brazil and the U.S. Investment Implications The path of least resistance for the Brazilian real is down - it will depreciate more than 2% and 4% that are implied by 6- and 12-month forwards, respectively. Stay short. When the Brazilian currency sells off, the nation's financial markets perform poorly. In particular, Brazil's sovereign and corporate credit spreads are very narrow, and will widen as investors begin doubting public debt sustainability. In turn, currency depreciation will raise the cost of foreign currency debt for the private sector. Dedicated EM investors should underweight Brazilian sovereign and corporate credit relative to their benchmarks. The relapse in narrow money (M1) growth presages downside risk in share prices (Chart I-17). Chart I-16Driver Of BRL: Commodities Not Interest Rates Chart I-17Brazil: M1 Growth And Share Prices The broad stock market is not particularly cheap, given the magnitude of the rally that has considerably exceeded the EPS recovery. Finally, in the local fixed-income market we continue recommending a bet on yield curve flattening that typically happens when the currency sells off. Foreign investors should wait for currency depreciation to play out before going long local currency government bonds. Local investors should overweight local bonds versus stocks. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Assistant andrijav@bcaresearch.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights The November jobs report keeps the Fed on track. Despite rising government debt levels, crowding out is not a significant threat. Capex as a share of GDP rises the year before a tax cut and falls in the year after. Holiday spending on track, boosted by tax bill. Feature Last week, investors assessed the ramifications of the OPEC meeting and the Senate's passage of the tax plan. The dollar was noticeably higher, and oil moved lower during the week, but other financial markets ended little changed. Chart 1 shows that the Trump trades are making a comeback, providing ample opportunity for investors who may have missed the trade the first time around. In this week's report, we examine the impact of the tax bill on the debt, deficit, and capital spending and more importantly on corporate balance sheets and financial markets. BCA's view is that the risk that rising government debt levels will crowd out private borrowing is low and that the tax cut will provide a tiny boost to an already robust capital spending environment. We also examine what signal the equity markets are sending about household spending in the holiday season. Chart 1Markets Responding To GOP Tax Plan Living In Paradise The November employment report, released last Friday, paints a Goldilocks-type macro environment for U.S. assets. Strong economic growth, muted inflation, and a go-slow Fed should prolong the bull market in U.S. equities. The economy added 228K in net new jobs, and the unemployment rate held steady at 4.1% in November. With the average work week rising by 0.1 hours, aggregate hours worked rose by a solid 0.5% m/m. Even if hours worked hold flat in December, the average for Q4 will be up 2.6% at an annualized rate from Q3. The November payroll data are easily consistent with about 3.5% GDP growth in Q4. BCA expects above-potential real GDP growth to persist well into 2018. Despite the strong growth and tight labor market, wage pressures remain contained. Average hourly earnings rose just 0.2% m/m in November, which followed a downwardly revised 0.1% m/m decline last month. Annual wage inflation is running at 2.5% (Chart 2). Last week's report will not dissuade the Fed from raising rates again next week. As long as GDP growth remains above trend and the labor market is tightening, the Fed will remain somewhat confident that wages will accelerate and inflation will gradually return to the target level. However, there is no reason yet for the Fed to turn more aggressive for fear of falling behind the curve. Chart 2November Jobs Report Keeps Fed On Track It's Getting Mighty Crowded The recently passed U.S. Senate tax reform bill has to be reconciled with the House bill, but it appears that the Republicans may meet their Christmas deadline after all. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service has consistently expected a tax package to pass by the end of Q1 2018 at the latest.1 Although some technical differences between the two versions remain, the two bills are close enough that compromise should not be difficult. The Republicans are under pressure to deliver a "win" ahead of the 2018 mid-term elections. Most of the tax adjustments will occur early next year, except for a reduction in the corporate tax rate that may be delayed until 2019. The Senate version, if passed, would decrease individual taxes by about $680 billion over 10 years, trim small business taxes by just under $400 billion, and reduce corporate taxes by roughly the same amount (including the offsetting tax on currently untaxed foreign profits). The direct effect of all the tax cuts will probably boost real GDP growth in 2018 by 0.2 to 0.3 percentage points. However, much depends on the ability of the tax changes and immediate capital expensing to lift animal spirits in the business sector and bring forward investment spending. The total impact - at this stage - is difficult to estimate. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT), by the end of 2027 the legislation will add $1 trillion to the debt, including the effects of dynamic scoring. Without the boost from faster economic activity due to the tax changes, the deficit is expected to be $1.4 trillion higher than the CBO's baseline projection for 2027. While nominal economic growth would increase under the plan, the debt-to-GDP ratio would climb to 95% of GDP by 2027, up from 91% under current law (Chart 3). Chart 3Federal Debt As A Share Of GDP Set To Rise Sharply In Coming Decades So far, the Treasury market has shown little reaction to the passage of the Senate bill. Fixed-income investors do not appear to be overly concerned about the implications of the size of the public debt and do not believe that the tax changes alter the Fed's calculations. BCA is also not concerned about the size of public debt in the near term but thinks the tax changes will alter the Fed's forecasts. Nonetheless, more government red ink is likely to raise equilibrium bond yields in the long term. The Fed estimates that the equilibrium 10-year bond yield would rise on a structural basis by 3-4 basis points for each percentage point increase in the Federal government's debt-to-GDP ratio, and by 25 basis points for every percentage point increase in the deficit-to-GDP ratio.2 The implication is that if the GOP plan becomes law, then the 10-year yield will be 12-16 bps higher than under current legislation. Nonetheless, there is only a modest risk that mounting U.S. government debt will crowd out private borrowing and choke off investment on a 12-month horizon. Crowding out occurs when soaring government debt sparks competition between the public and private sectors for available savings. Increased demand for private credit, a narrowing output gap, and elevated interest payments as a percentage of GDP, are all preconditions for crowding out. While the output gap has closed, demand for private credit is mixed, at best, and federal interest payments will remain in check. Private credit demand has rebounded from the recession, but it is still tepid. At 2% of corporate sales, nonfinancial corporate borrowing is at the lower end of its post-crisis range and has downshifted since 2015 (Chart 4). Before the 2007-2009 financial crisis, there was a tight relationship between corporate demand for funds and Treasury yields. Since 2009, the link has weakened; credit demand snapped back, but Treasury yields stayed low. Soft C&I loan demand also indicates less of a risk for crowding out (panel 3). Interest payments on the Federal debt are expected to climb, but remain well below all-time highs set in the early 1990s (Chart 5). The CBO's baseline projects that interest payments on the debt as a share of nominal GDP will more than double from 1.4% in 2017 to 2.9% in 2027. These payments will triple in absolute terms from $300 billion in 2017 to more than $800 billion in 2027. The GOP tax plan will boost the 2027 projection, but the CBO has not yet released a new estimate. In a study prepared prior to the passage of the tax bill, the OECD forecast that the federal government's interest payments would climb to 2.9% by 2019. Chart 4Private Credit Demand Has Rebounded,##BR##But Remains Tepid Chart 5Gradual Rise in Net Interest Payments##BR##Not A Crowding Out Threat Moreover, the Tax Policy Center, a center-left think tank, also concluded that interest costs will move up under the new tax law.3 On balance, interest payments on federal debt obligations as a share of the economy are expected to escalate in the next 10 years to 2.5-3%. This reading is in line with the average in the past 20 years, but is still below the 4-4.5% average reached in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and the 3.5-4% range observed from 1970-2000. If nothing else changes, higher federal interest payments would absorb funds that could instead be used for areas that add to the productive capacity of the economy, such as education, training and technical innovation. That said, the impact on long-term growth from "crowding out" may only represent a partial offset to the supply-side benefits of the fiscal package to the extent that the business sector lifts capex spending as a result of a lower corporate tax rate and immediate expensing (see below). Bottom Line: Tax cuts are bond bearish but support our overweight stance on equities on the surface. The effective corporate tax rate could decline by about two percentage points, which would boost after-tax cash flows by roughly 2½%. While this is not trivial, much of the good news already appears to be discounted in the S&P 500. Moreover, to the extent that faster growth in 2018 may bring forward hikes in the Fed funds rate, the equity market will have to contend with rising bond yields next year. Investors are also wondering about the tax plan's potential impact on capital spending and corporate balance sheets. Tiny Steps As discussed above, the fiscal package has the potential to generate significant supply side benefits, to the extent that the business sector turns on the capex taps. The JCT estimates that the tax bill will boost U.S. capital stock by 1.1% in 2027, an increase of about 0.1% a year. However, it is uncertain if corporations will permanently boost capex due to increased allowances for capital spending or if the tax shift will merely bring forward future spending. BCA's view is closer to the latter. We expect higher budget and trade deficits in the coming decade as a result of the Senate plan. These deficits will limit the ability of domestic saving to fund needed capital spending projects. Foreign saving will fill the gap. U.S. domestic saving is below the low end its 1960-2008 range (Chart 6). Chart 7 shows that since 1960, there have been four distinct periods of expanding net saving by foreigners. Nominal 10-year Treasury yields rose in three of the four intervals. However, real yields declined in the 1960s, rose in the mid-1970s and early 1980s as foreign saving increased, and then fell in the 1990s and 2000s. Moreover, a rise in the share of foreign saving led to higher capex in the mid-1960s and 1980s, but lower business expenditures in the 1990s (Chart 8). Chart 6Foreigners Will Finance Capex As##BR##Domestic Saving Declines Chart 7Interest Rates As##BR##Foreign Saving Rises Setting aside who will finance the spending, history suggests that business capital spending tends to climb faster in the 12 months prior to a period of rising fiscal thrust than it does in the 12 months following (Chart 9 and Tables 1 and 2). Note that our analysis shows that recessions occurred in five of the seven episodes of pro-cyclical fiscal policy. Chart 8Capex And Rising Foreign Saving Chart 9Capex During Periods Of Fiscal Stimulus In addition, as fiscal thrust escalates, stocks in the industrial and technology sectors underperform the broad market. Small caps generally beat large caps. Since 2000, the fed funds rate fell during periods of fiscal stimulus. Prior to that, the Fed both eased and tightened policy during these episodes (not shown). Table 1Business Spending 12 Months Before Pro-Cyclical Fiscal Policy Table 2Capex In The Year After Stimulative Fiscal Policy Is Enacted BCA's Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) has a tendency to improve during phases of increased fiscal thrust; Chart 10 shows that the CHM improved in five of the seven periods. Free cash flow and return on capital are the best performers during these intervals. In contrast, corporate leverage is apt to shoot up as fiscal policy takes hold. Chart 10Stimulative Fiscal Policy And The Corporate Health Monitor Our fiscal thrust measure includes both personal and corporate tax cuts, and along with increases in government spending. We use fiscal thrust as a proxy because there are a very limited number (just 3 since 1970) of corporate tax cuts to analyze. The paragraphs below covers the impact of corporate tax cuts on capital spending, capital spending-related financial metrics and corporate balance sheets. Capital spending is inclined to rise faster in the 12 months before a corporate tax cut than in the year afterward. The caveat is that there have been only 3 corporate tax cuts in the past 50 years. Charts 11 and 12 and Tables 3 and 4 examine the impact of previous corporate tax reductions on nonresidential fixed investment (and its components) as a share of GDP and on several capex-related metrics in the financial market. Chart 11Corporate Tax Cuts And Capital Spending Chart 12Corporate Tax Cuts And Financial Markets Moreover, industrial stocks underperform the broad market after a tax cut, while tech stocks outperform (Chart 12 again). Small-cap performance is mixed. Both the Fed funds rate and the 10-year Treasury yield rise after corporate tax decreases take effect. Table 3Capex The Year Before A Corporate Tax Cut Table 4Capex In The Year After A Corporate Tax Cut Corporate health weakens in the year before a business tax cut is enacted, but then it improves modestly in the ensuing year. Chart 13 and Tables 5 and 6 examine the significance of previous corporate tax cuts on BCA's Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) and several of its components. The interest coverage ratio deteriorates, on average, both before and after a corporate tax reduction, but leverage increases substantially in the 12 months following a corporate tax cut. Free cash flow deteriorates in the year prior to a drop in the business tax rate, but is little changed in the subsequent year. Chart 12Corporate Tax Cuts And Financial Markets Chart 13Corporate Tax Cuts And The Corporate Health Monitor Bottom Line: Business capital spending was already on the upswing and the output gap was already closed before the tax cut was passed. Accelerated depreciation allowance may pull capex ahead, but not materially change its trajectory over the long term. Corporate tax cuts and fiscal stimulus, in general, boost capex and corporate health, and support BCA's view that credit will outperform Treasuries in 2018. Table 5BCA's Corporate Health Monitor A Year Before A Corporate Tax Cut... Table 6...And In The 12 Months After Boxing Day The critical holiday spending season is in full bloom. Holiday retail sales make up the bulk of total consumer spending, representing about 20% to 30% of total annual retail sales (and about 40% of total personal consumption expenditures). Moreover, according to the National Retail Federation (NRF), although 54% of consumers surveyed expect to spend the same amount in this year's holiday season as in 2016, 24% are prepared to spend more. The NRF forecasts that holiday sales will increase between 3.6% and 4.0%, exceeding last year's 3.6% rate and the 5-year average forecast of 3.5%. Holiday retail sales have faded in nominal and real terms from an average of 4.9% in the 1993-1999 period to 3.7% pre-2008 (2000-2007) and to an average of 3.3% post-2008 GFC (2009-2016). However, the baseline trend, based on average annual growth rates, remains stable at 3%, with upside potential of as much as 6% during robust economic growth phases(mid 2000s) and downside risk to as low as -4% in recessions (2008) (Chart 14). Chart 14Holiday Sales: Strong Tailwinds Intact Holiday sales this season may just get an unexpected boost from stout consumer finances. The implication is that U.S. economic growth should remain above potential well into 2018. Solid consumer balance sheets remain a tailwind even at this late stage of the business cycle. Household balance sheets have been repaired in an optimal way and household net worth continues to soar to new highs. The implication is that households are much less likely to forego holiday spending this season than in periods where household net worth is under downward pressure. Furthermore, stock market returns for the U.S. consumer discretionary sector, measured between the mid-September to mid-December period, are well correlated with holiday spending trends (Chart 15). The 8.6% rise in the consumer discretionary sector since mid-September heralds another healthy holiday spending season. However, global consumer discretionary retailers are a better predictor of holiday sales than domestic consumer discretionary retailers. Prices here are up 6.6% since mid-September. Chart 15Trends Of Holiday Sales And Equity Returns Furthermore, expectations of tax reform legislation becoming law by the end of the year will incentivize low income households to spend more this holiday season. This cohort is apt to pay for holiday purchases with cash. The NRF has likened the benefit of the tax plan to a "free Christmas".4 The NRF suggests that the cumulative savings from the tax package for an average household will offset the $967.13 projected to be spent this year by the average household in the holiday season. Moreover, a 2016 Fed study finds that the financing for holiday spending varies by income. Low income households have a tendency to source holiday spending from savings/income rather than borrowing, and if access to credit is not readily available, they simply will not spend on holiday shopping.5 To ensure that a majority of U.S. households contribute towards a robust holiday spending season, strong employment growth alongside stable wage growth (and higher real income expectations) and sturdy consumer confidence is required. With an already tight labor market and the underemployment rate (U-6) close to pre-recession lows, solid consumer fundamentals remain intact. Bottom Line: A robust holiday shopping season is likely in 2017, supported by stout consumer balance sheets, the new tax bill, and rising wages and incomes. The 8.6% run up in consumer discretionary stocks also suggests that a happy holiday for retailers is in prospect. BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy service has a neutral rating on the Consumer Discretionary sector, but recommends an overweight the advertising, home improvement retail and leisure products industry groups. Additionally, BCA maintains an overweight to the holiday-sensitive Air Freight and logistics industry within the Industrial sector.6 Strong personal spending will support above potential GDP growth in Q4 and into 2018, eliminate the output gap, push the unemployment rate further below NAIRU and push up inflation and ultimately bond yields. Stay short duration. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Jizel Georges, Senior Analyst jizelg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Xi Jinping: Chairman Of Everything," October 25, 2017. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 "New Evidence on the Interest Rate Effects of Budget Deficits and Debt", Thomas Laubach, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 2003. https://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2003/200312/200312pap.pdf 3 http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/sites/default/files/publication/148841/2001606-macroeconomic-analysis-of-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-as-passed-by-the-house-of-representatives_1.pdf 4 https://nrf.com/media/press-releases/retailers-say-senate-passage-of-tax-reform-could-give-shoppers-free-christmas 5 https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/notes/feds-notes/2016/holiday-spending-and-financing-decisions-in-2015-survey-of-household-economics-and-decisionmaking-20161201.html 6 https://uses.bcaresearch.com/trades/recommendations

Special Report

Highlights The House and Senate have passed similar tax cut bills; passage of a compromise version seems all but certain; Combined with the Trump administration's de-regulation efforts, fundamentals point ever higher for U.S. earnings; The under-reported change, in both versions of the bill, to the expensing of capital investments could have far-reaching implications; All of these support the ongoing healthy sector rotation; The lion's share of upside from the capex upcycle should go to industrials, followed closely by financials. Feature Chart 1Republicans Are Not Fiscally Responsible BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has maintained a high-conviction view since November 9, 2016 that Congress would pass budget-busting tax cuts.1 With the Senate Republicans passing their version of the bill on December 2, the odds that a final version of the bill will pass into law are now very high. What should investors expect from the new tax legislation? Much as our geopolitical team faced considerable resistance to their political forecast, investors are now skeptical that there will be any stimulative economic effect from tax cuts. While we admit that the direct effect on the economy will be moderate, tax cuts have the potential to sustain the healthy sector rotation and supercharge the ongoing capex cycle. In this Special Report, we explain why. Why Did We Get Tax Cuts Right? What did our geopolitical team get right about tax cuts? First, in November 2016, right after the election, we reminded clients that the Republican Party has a spotty record on fiscal conservativism. There is no empirical evidence that GOP policymakers are actually fiscally conservative (Chart 1), nor that Republican voters have a stable preference for fiscally conservative policies (Chart 2). As such, there was not going to be a popular revolt against tax cuts. Second, in April 2017, we saw that Obamacare repeal's failure actually increased the probability of tax cuts passing. Put simply, tax cuts are about motivating the Republican base to come out and vote in the upcoming midterms, not about satisfying the median American voter. Polling currently suggests that Republicans face an uphill battle to retain majority in the House of Representatives (Chart 3). Should investors fear that the ongoing Mueller investigation will scuttle tax cuts? The short answer is no. First, former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn lied to the FBI and has been charged with that offense, but what he did for the Trump administration in the interim between the election and the inauguration is likely not illegal. Chart 2Republican Desire For Smaller Government Wanes When In Power Chart 3Republicans Losing Popular Support Second, White House scandals and intrigue have rarely mattered to the market. Chart 4A and Chart 4B show that both the Tea Pot Dome scandal (the greatest in U.S. history at the time) and the Lewinsky affair occurred amidst the two greatest bull markets. While the Watergate scandal appears to have shaken the markets, it also escalated simultaneously with the historic 1973 oil shock and the onset of the 1973-75 recession. Besides, why would investors turn negative on the S&P 500 if President Trump - a highly unorthodox, unpredictable, and impulsive politician - looked to be replaced by Vice President Mike Pence? Earnings fundamentals drive the market, not political intrigue. Thus, we would fade impeachment risk and stick to getting the fundamentals right. Chart 4AMassive Bull Markets... Chart 4B...Attended Massive Scandals What about upside potential? Is there any left now that the market has begun to fully price in tax cuts, or will it be a reason to sell and crystalize profits? It is difficult to say, but our sense is that the healthy rotation out of tech (U.S. Equity Strategy is underweight) and into financials (overweight) and industrials (overweight) will gain steam. Also high-effective-tax-rate stocks and mostly domestically focused small caps have likely turned the corner (Chart 5), and the "Fed Spread" (2-year yield minus the fed funds rate) continues to point toward brisk economic growth in coming quarters (Chart 6). While the S&P 500 is up 18% year-to-date, synchronized global economic growth and robust earnings explain half the rise, the other half is forward multiple expansion. Were a 5%-10% pullback to materialize after all the tax-related dust settled, we would deem it a healthy development and a reset that would propel equities higher on the back of firm EPS growth next year. Furthermore, the market has cheered Trump's de-regulation drive, which, unlike tax cuts, has been concrete policy from day one of his administration (Chart 7). Chart 5Market Has Doubted Tax Reform Chart 6Growth Prospects Still Good Chart 7Market Has Cheered De-Regulation De-regulation is likely to continue in parallel with lower taxes. For example, in a potentially huge blow to the enforcement powers of the federal bureaucracy, Trump's Justice Department has switched sides in a lawsuit that may shortly come before the Supreme Court (Lucia v Securities and Exchange Commission). The DOJ is now backing the plaintiffs instead of supporting the SEC as the Obama administration had. If the plaintiffs win their argument that the SEC's "administrative law judges" were unconstitutionally appointed by bureaucrats (instead of by the president, the courts, or the head of an executive department), then all of the prior decisions and penalties enforced by these judges (and their peers in other bureaucracies) may be legally invalidated, weakening the enforcement mechanisms of the federal bureaucracy.2 Bottom Line: Tax cuts are coming while the deregulation drive is set to continue. Both are bullish for the market from a cyclical time perspective. What about the economy and equity-sector-specific winners? To this question we now turn. Lighting The Afterburners On The Capex Cycle With the eye-popping numbers involved, it is no surprise that the media's analysis to date of the impact of the impending tax reform has been focused on the reduction of the corporate tax rate and the repatriation of foreign earnings. However, the impact of those headline-grabbing reforms on changing consumption behavior and, as a result, delivering real economic growth remains hotly debated. We think more attention should be paid to the provision in the versions from both chambers of Congress allowing the immediate expensing of capital investment. Unlike the reductions in tax rate (Table 1), U.S. firms only benefit from this change when they deploy capital on qualified property and equipment at home, an unambiguously stimulative change. Table 1Sector Tax Rates And Pro Forma EPS Changes From Tax Reform We believe most market observers have overlooked this reform as it is simply a "time value of money" shift. The IRS already allows significantly accelerated depreciation of capex (please see the Appendix on page 12 for more detailed information); this reform merely brings it forward. Our analysis suggests that the impact of bringing it forward could, at the margin, change spending behavior for firms and drive the next up-leg for the capex cycle in 2018. In our analysis, we use the example of a railroad. The current tax code allows the firm to depreciate the cost of a locomotive over 7 years, roughly the average for all assets under the depreciation schedule published by the IRS. This already incents the firm to deploy capex aggressively because fleet ages are well in excess of 7 years. Further, as long as the asset is new and to be used in the U.S., the company can depreciate a bonus 40% in the first year.3 Assume this railroad is paying the new marginal tax rate in the U.S. of 20% and has the same cost of capital as the U.S. government, approximating 2.4%. If the railroad purchases a locomotive for $10,000, the current regime offers a present value tax benefit of $1,919 (Table 2). The proposed tax reform allows the railroad to collect that benefit immediately (at least for the next 5 years), yielding a present value 4.2% greater than the current regime. Using an estimate of the S&P 500's weighted average cost of capital (8.5%) as a discount rate (an obviously more realistic scenario), and this advantage climbs to 14.2% (Table 3). Table 2Tax Shield Implications Are Modest With A Low Discount Rate... Table 3...But Grow Substantially As Discount Rates Rise In theory, any profit maximizing firm should alter their capital budgets such that returns are adjusted to incorporate a significantly higher tax shield. We, thus, expect tax reform to drive significant new order growth in the near term as foreseeable capex is pulled forward. A case could be made that this reform changes the math sufficiently that U.S. firms will add capacity that is incremental to existing plans, hinging on a positive feedback loop from the new order growth the pull-forward effect noted above. Who Wins? While our cyclical view of an ongoing EPS upcycle morphing into a virtuous broad-based capex upcycle remains intact (Chart 8)4, there are two sectors that will almost immediately benefit from the tax bill getting signed into law. The greatest, and perhaps most obvious, beneficiary of any capital largesse that will follow this reform will be S&P industrials (overweight) as the principal destination for increases in capital deployment. We expect higher capex to lead to higher sales growth courtesy of firm end-demand and high operating leverage, flow-through to the bottom line, which boosts EPS and sustains the virtuous upcycle. True, wage growth would also get a bump mildly denting profit margins. However, at this stage of the business cycle and given accelerating pricing power (Chart 9), capital goods producers will likely succeed in passing through wage inflation. S&P financials (overweight) too should be significant beneficiaries via a step function higher in loan growth to finance the outsized demand for capital and generalized lift in animal spirits (Chart 10), though they have a partial offset arising from the reduction in value of their net operating loss (NOL) tax assets. A sustained push for more bank deregulation, along with shareholder-friendly activities will also boost the allure of financials equities. Chart 8Earnings Are The Critical Capex Driver Chart 9Capex Upcycles Drive Industrial EPS... Chart 10...And Boost Loan Demand Bottom Line: S&P industrials and financials sectors get an early Christmas present in the form of demand-enhancing tax reform, combined with corporate tax cuts that allow them to keep their profits. The result should be outstanding EPS growth and rising stock prices. The S&P industrials and financials sectors remain core portfolio overweights. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Chris Bowes, Associate Editor U.S. Equity Strategy chrisb@bcaresearch.com Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President U.S. Equity Strategy & anastasios@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "U.S. Election: Outcomes & Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, and "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 We thank our colleague Matt Conlan, of BCA's Energy Sector Strategy, for the tip on this crucial court case. 3 First year depreciation is set to step down to 40% from 50% in 2018, according to the phasing out of the bonus depreciation under the 2015 PATH Act. 4 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy, "Top 5 Reasons To Favor Cyclicals Over Defensives," dated October 16, 2017, and "Later Cycle Dynamics," dated October 23, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. Appendix: Why Does Accelerated Depreciation Matter? Accelerated depreciation is a tax incentive for firms to invest in capital assets. In essence, the IRS provides depreciable lives of assets that are shorter than useful lives, allowing firms to gain the tax benefit of the depreciation expense earlier in the asset's life. Assuming tax reforms are passed as currently written, firms will be able to deduct 100% of the capital cost of new equipment in the first year. Using our railroad example from earlier in this report, the capital cost was $10,000 and, with a tax rate of 20%, the tax shield is thus $2,000. Continuing with that example, imagine the locomotive has an estimated useful life of 10 years. In the absence of any accelerated depreciation (including that which is already on the books), the tax shield would be roughly half of what accelerated depreciation allows (Table 4). Note that the gross tax benefit is unchanged, it is merely shifted from the future to the present. Table 4Straight Line Depreciation Halves Tax Shield

Dear Client, I recorded a webcast with my colleague Caroline Miller earlier this week. Caroline and I discussed the recent tax legislation in the U.S. and other key investment topics. I hope you will find the time to listen in. I am also happy to announce that going forward, in addition to sending you my regular reports, I will be sharing my thoughts on the economy and markets through Twitter. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Highlights Some profit taking is likely over the next few weeks as U.S. equities discount a more realistic assessment of how lower tax rates will affect corporate cash flows. The cyclical picture for the U.S. and the global economy remains bright, implying that any correction will be short-lived. History suggests that the 7th and 8th innings of business-cycle expansions are often the most profitable for equity investors. With another recession still at least a year away, it is too early to get bearish on stocks and other risk assets. Feature Tax Cuts Arrive Early We had expected the Republicans in Congress to deliver on their pledge to cut taxes, but thought that the legislative process would drag on for longer than it did. In the end, the Senate was able to pass a hastily negotiated bill, giving Donald Trump his first major political victory. The question is where things go from here. The Senate and House bills still need to be reconciled. We do not anticipate much drama in that regard, given the broad similarities between the two versions. The bigger issue is how the legislation will affect the economy and markets. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated in mid-November that the original Senate version of the bill would raise the level of real GDP by an average of 0.8% over the ten-year budget window.1 It is reasonable to assume that the final bill will boost GDP by a similar amount. The impact on growth is likely to be somewhat front-loaded, given that several provisions will either expire or be phased out after five years. We expect real GDP growth to be 0.2%-to-0.3% higher in 2018 and 2019 as a result of the legislation. This is not a particularly large effect, which explains why the bond market reaction has been fairly muted. The impact on corporate profits will be more pronounced, but even here, one should keep things in perspective. The final bill is likely to reduce corporate taxes by about $350 billion over the next ten years. The JCT's baseline assumes corporate tax receipts of $3.9 trillion over the next decade. Thus, the bill will probably reduce the effective corporate tax rate by a bit less than two percentage points, taking it down from 19% to 17%. This, in turn, implies an increase in after-tax corporate cash flows of about 2.5% (i.e., 83 divided by 81). The market ran up a lot more than that over the past few months. Thus, we would not be surprised to see some profit-taking over the coming weeks. Cyclical Picture Still Bright If such a stock market correction occurs, it would represent a buying opportunity. Historically, recessions and bear markets have gone hand in hand (Chart 1). Right now, none of our recession indicators are warning of an imminent downturn (Chart 2). Chart 1Recessions And Bear Markets Usually Overlap Chart 2ANo Imminent Risk Of A U.S. Recession Chart 2BNo Imminent Risk Of A U.S. Recession This reassuring conclusion is consistent with the signal from our forthcoming MacroQuant Model, which we will be discussing in greater detail in the months ahead. This ground-breaking model examines dozens of variables, including a number of BCA's proprietary indicators, in order to consistently and accurately project returns across the key asset classes, geographies, and time horizons. Currently, the model is flagging a somewhat elevated risk of a temporary pullback, but continues to give a highly bullish reading on the cyclical (6-to-12 month) outlook (Chart 3). Chart 3BCA's MacroQuant Model Still Likes Equities The model's auspicious assessment largely stems from the strength of recent economic data in the U.S. and around the world. Global growth estimates continue to grind higher (Chart 4). In the U.S., the new orders component of the ISM manufacturing index rose to 64 in November, while the inventory component sank to 47. We have found that the gap between the two is a powerful predictor of stock market returns (Chart 5). The current gap is in the 87th percentile of its historic range. By the same token, core durable goods orders, initial unemployment claims, capex intentions, consumer and business confidence, global PMIs, and most other leading indicators paint a fairly upbeat picture. Chart 4Global Growth Projections Are Trending Higher Chart 5ISM As A Predictor Of Market Returns The euro area and Japan also continue to grow at a robust pace (Chart 6). Somewhat worryingly, China has seen growth tick down a notch in recent months (Chart 7). However, the evidence so far suggests that growth has merely slowed from an above-trend pace back towards potential. Nominal GDP rose by 11.2% year-over-year in Q3 2017, up from 6.4% in Q4 2015. Producer price inflation has gone from as low as negative 5.9% in September 2015 to 6.9% at present. Core CPI inflation has also accelerated, rising to 2.3% in October (Chart 8). In this light, recent efforts by the authorities to expedite structural reforms are coming at an opportune time. Chart 6Positive Growth Momentum ##br##In The Euro Area And Japan Chart 7Growth Has Ticked Down##br## In China... Chart 8... But Merely From##br## An Above-Trend Pace Too Early To Bail Out Of Stocks Table 1Stocks And Recessions: Case-By-Case All good things must come to an end. As we discussed in our latest Strategy Outlook, the global economy is likely to fall into recession in late 2019.2 Markets will sniff out a recession before it happens, but in general, the lag time between when markets peak and when recessions begin does not tend to be very long. Table 1 shows that the lag has averaged seven months during the post-war era, with the past three recessions featuring an average gap of only four months. In fact, history suggests that the 7th and 8th innings of business-cycle expansions are often the most profitable for investors. The S&P 500 has delivered an average annualized real total return of 14.2% since 1950 in the 13-to-24 months prior to past U.S. recessions (Table 2). This exceeds the average return of 10.1% during business-cycle expansions. The S&P has returned 8% at an annualized pace in the 7-to-12 months prior to past recessions. While this is below the average return during past expansions, it is still well above the average return on bonds and cash during the corresponding periods. Moreover, the performance of stocks in the 7-to-12 month period preceding recessions has improved sharply over the past few business cycles. The S&P 500 generated an annualized real total return of 22.2%, 20%, and 13.6% in the 7-to-12 months prior to the beginning of the 1990-91, 2001, and 2007-09 recessions, respectively. Table 2How Have Stocks Performed Prior To Recessions? Stocks only begin to underperform in a meaningful way in the six months before the recession and continue to underperform in the initial phase of the downturn. Thus, even if one had known with complete certainty that a recession was coming, getting out of stocks more than six months in advance of the downturn would have been a mistake. Bottom line: With another recession still at least a year away, it is too early to get bearish on equities and other risk assets. Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Macroeconomic Analysis Of The "Tax Cut And Jobs Act" As Ordered Reported By The Senate Committee On Finance On November 16, 2017," The Joint Committee On Taxation, U.S. Congress (November 30, 2017). 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Outlook, "A Timeline For The Next Five Years," dated December 1, 2017. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

In mid-October we penned a Special Report identifying the top five reasons to favor cyclicals over defensives: capital expenditures upcycle, synchronized global growth in general and emerging markets (EM) growth in particular, U.S. dollar softness, risk premia suppression and diverging operating metrics.1 On the EM front in particular, China's recent inflationary impulse suggests that the path of least resistance remains higher for cyclicals versus defensives (top panel). Moreover, the bottom panel of the chart shows that over the past three decades when Chinese nominal GDP outpaces the U.S., EM stocks outperform the SPX and vice versa. In other words when China is firing on all cylinders commodity demand picks up steam and thus the most cyclical parts of the U.S. stock market outperform safe havens. Keep in mind that most cyclical sectors are levered to commodity prices, have high operating leverage and a sizable export exposure. One key risk that will put our cyclicals over defensives preference offside is a policy mistake from Chinese policymakers similar to the August 11, 2015 currency devaluation. However, this is a low probability event. Bottom Line: We reiterate out cyclical over defensive portfolio bent. 1 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy, "Top 5 Reasons To Favor Cyclicals Over Defensives," dated October 16, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.