Equities

The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of January 31, 2017. The model has shifted to an overweight position on Switzerland at the expense of a larger reduction in Sweden. Additionally, the model reduced its underweight position in Japan and France (Table 1). Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights As shown in Table 2 and Charts 1, 2 and 3, the non-U.S. model (Level 2) underperformed its benchmark by 90 bps in January, due to the underweight in Japan. The large overweight in the U.S. caused the Level 1 model to underperform by 14 bps. Overall, the GAA model underperformed its MSCI World benchmark by 36 bps in January. Since Inception, the GAA model underperformed its benchmark by 16 bps. Please see also on the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. For more details on the models, please see the January 29th, 2016 Special Report "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing the Developed Markets Country Allocation Model." http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/articles/view_report/18850. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD) Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level 1) Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) Chart 4Overall Model Performance GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of January 31, 2017. The momentum component has shifted Energy from overweight to underweight. It has also shifted Info Tech and Consumer Discretionary from underweight to overweight. For mode details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," July 27, 2016 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Senior Analyst patrick@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com

Table 1Recommended Allocation The Reflation Trade Continues It is wrong to think that the recent rally in risk assets is mainly due to the election of President Donald Trump. Yes, since November 8, U.S. equities have risen by 7% and global equities by 3%. But the rally began as long ago as February last year, and since then U.S. and global equities have risen by 25% and 20% respectively. A more useful narrative is that the U.S. went through a "mini-recession" in late 2015/early 2016 (as indicated by the manufacturing ISM and credit spreads, Chart 1). Since then, assets have moved as they typically do in the first year of a cyclical recovery: small caps, cyclicals and value stocks have outperformed, bond yields risen, and equity multiples expanded in anticipation of a recovery in earnings. Expectations of Trump's fiscal stimulus and deregulation merely gave that momentum an extra boost. Our view is that global economic growth is likely to continue to accelerate. With the U.S. now at full employment, wage growth should rise further (Chart 2). Trump's policies are igniting animal spirits among companies, whose capex intentions have jumped sharply (Chart 3). U.S. real GDP growth this year could be 2.5-3%, somewhat above the consensus forecast of 2.3%. Meanwhile, Europe is growing above trend, and China will continue for a while longer to see the effects from last year's massive monetary stimulus (Chart 4). Chart 1One Year On From A Mini Recession Chart 2Wage Growth Is Set To Accelerate Chart 3Comapanies' Animal Spirits On The Rise Chart 4China's Reflation Still Coming Through In the short term, a correction is possible: the rally looks technically over-extended, and investors have begun to notice that in addition to "good Trump" (tax cuts, deregulation and infrastructure spending), there is also a "bad Trump" (market unfriendly measures such as immigration control, confrontation with China, and arbitrary interference in companies' investment decisions). But, on a 12-month view, our expectations of accelerating growth and only a moderate rise in inflation imply that the "sweet spot" for risk assets will continue, and so we maintain the overweight on equities and underweight on bonds we instituted in late November. What could end the reflation trade? The main risks we see (and the reasons we don't think they are serious enough to derail the rally for now) are: Extreme moves by the new U.S. administration. The biggest risk is a confrontation with China over trade. Our view is that Trump will use the threat of recognizing Taiwan to force concessions out of China. A precedent is the way the U.S. handled its trade deficit with Japan in the 1980s (note that new U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer was deputy USTR at the time). China is unlikely to accept significant currency appreciation, understanding how this caused a bubble in Japan. But it might agree to voluntary export restrictions, to increasing investment in the U.S., opening the Chinese market more to foreign companies, and to stimulating domestic consumption, as Japan did in the 1980s (Chart 5). This may even chime with how Xi Jinping wants to reform the economy, though missteps by the U.S. could force him into a nationalistic position. Fiscal policy fails. The details of tax cuts are complex: alongside lowering the headline rate of corporate tax to 15% or 20%, for example, Republicans are discussing a border-adjustment tax, one-year depreciation, and an end of the tax offset for interest payments. Infrastructure spending won't happen quickly either, not least since it is disliked by Republican fiscal hawks (who are much less averse to tax cuts). BCA's geopolitical strategists, however, believe that Trump will able to get a program of personal and corporate tax cuts through Congress by August. Economic (and earnings) growth stumble. While corporate and consumer sentiment have picked up recently, hard data has not yet. U.S. 4Q GDP growth of only 1.9%, for example, was disappointing. Earnings growth will need to recover this year to justify elevated multiples. EPS growth for the S&P500 stocks in Q4 2016 looks to have been around 4% YoY according to FactSet. Stocks might fall if earnings do not come in somewhere close to the 12% that the bottom-up consensus forecasts for 2017. Inflation risks rise, triggering the Fed and the European Central Bank to rush to tighten monetary policy. Core U.S. PCE inflation, at 1.7% YoY, is not far below the Fed's 2% target and inflation could accelerate as fiscal policy stimulates an economy where slack has already disappeared. However, it is likely to take some time for inflation expectations to rise, and over the past few months core PCE inflation has, if anything, slowed (Chart 6). We expect the Fed to raise rates three times this year (compared to market expectations of twice) but not to move faster than that. German inflation, at 1.9% YoY, is starting to get uncomfortably high too, but the ECB will probably continue to set policy with more focus on the periphery, especially Italy. Chart 5When U.S. Pushed Japan In The 1980's Chart 6Inflation Has Been Slow To Pick Up Equities: We prefer U.S. equities over European ones in common currency terms. This is partly because we expect further U.S. dollar appreciation. But we also remained concerned about the structural weakness in the European banking system, and by the higher volatility of eurozone equities. Moreover, European earnings will not be boosted by currency depreciation as much as will Japanese earnings, since the euro has hardly weakened on a trade-weighted basis (Chart 7). We continue to like Japanese equities (with a currency hedge). The Bank of Japan remains committed to an overshoot of its 2% inflation target, which should weaken the yen and boost earnings. We are underweight Emerging Market equities: structural vulnerabilities remain, and the inverse correlation with the U.S. dollar is intact. Chart 7Euro Hasn't Weakened Much Fixed Income: For now, U.S. 10-year Treasury bonds are at around fair value. But we expect the yield to rise moderately further, as growth and inflation pick up, to about 3% by year-end. Yields on eurozone government bonds will also rise, but not by as much. This means that global sovereigns could produce a YoY negative return for the first time since 1994. In the U.S. we continue to prefer TIPS over nominal bonds: inflation expectations are still 30-40 bps below a normalized level (Chart 8). With risk assets likely to outperform, we recommend exposure to spread product, but find investment grade bonds more attractively valued than high-yield. Currencies: Short term, the dollar has probably overshot and could correct. But growth and interest rate differentials (Chart 9) suggest that the dollar will appreciate further until such time as Europe and Japan can contemplate raising rates. Additionally, if the proposal of a border-adjustment tax looks like becoming reality, the dollar could appreciate sharply: a BAT of 20% would theoretically be offset by a 25% rise in the dollar. The yen is likely to depreciate further (perhaps back to JPY125 against the dollar) as the Bank of Japan successfully maintains its target of a 0% 10-year government bond yield. The euro will fall by less, especially if the market begins to worry about ECB tapering in the face of rising inflation. Chart 8TIPS Have Further to Go Room To Rise Chart 9Interest Rate Differentials Suggest Stronger Dollar Commodities: The supply/demand picture for industrial metals looks roughly balanced for the year, with Chinese demand likely to remain robust, suppliers more disciplined, but the stronger dollar acting as a headwind. In the oil market, Saudi Arabia and Russia seem to be sticking to their commitment to cut supply, but U.S. shale oil producers are filling the gap, with the rig count up 23% in Q4 over the previous quarter. We continue to expect crude oil to average US$55 a barrel for the next two years. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com Recommended Asset Allocation Model Portfolio (USD Terms)

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Pricing power has improved across a number of industries, with the exception of technology, a necessary development to sustain an overall profit recovery. The S&P railroads index has surged to the point where it will take massive upside earnings surprises to drive additional gains. Profit-taking is appropriate. Telecom services profit drivers have deteriorated significantly of late, and a full shift to underweight is recommended. Recent Changes S&P Railroads Index - Take profits of 22% and downgrade to neutral. S&P Telecom Services Index - Take profits of 6% and downgrade to underweight from overweight. Table 1 Feature Chart 1Pricing Power Is Profit Positive... Momentum remains the dominant market force. Fear of missing out is pulling sidelined cash into the market, supported by a decent earnings season to date and rising economic confidence. While consumer inflation expectations remain very low, market-derived inflation expectations have moved up markedly since the U.S. election (Chart 1), a surprising development given the surge in the U.S. dollar. Inflation expectations are back to levels that existed prior to the 2014 kickoff to the U.S. dollar rally. A shift away from deflation worries is supporting a re-pricing of stocks vs. bonds. That trend could continue until the U.S. economy begins to disappoint, potentially causing inflation expectations to retreat. Our pricing power update shows that while deflation remains prevalent, its intensity is fading. We have updated our industry group pricing power (Table 2), which compiles the relevant CPI, PPI, PCE or commodity-data for 60 S&P 500 industry groups. The table also compares those pricing power trends with overall inflation rates to help determine which areas are at a profit advantage or disadvantage. Based on our analysis, the number of groups suffering deflation in selling prices has shrunk to 19 from 23 in our update last September, and 32 last March. In all, 34 out of 60 groups are still unable to raise prices by more than 1%, but that is also an improvement from the 40 out of 60 industries that couldn't keep a 1% price hike pace last September. The bad news is that less than 1/3 have a rising selling price trend, even if the absolute level is negative, down from 50%, and another third has a flat trend. The implication is that upward momentum in pricing power may already be fading. Where is the pricing power improvement? Deep cyclical sectors such as energy and materials account for the lion's share, reflecting higher commodity prices. However, as discussed previously, 6-month growth rates have rolled over (Chart 2), signaling that the unwinding of the negative rate of change shock has run its course. The technology sector is also notable, as several groups are cutting selling prices at a faster clip. Table 2Industry Group Pricing Power Defensive sectors such as consumer staples, health care and utilities remain well represented in the positive category, while a reacceleration in consumer discretionary and financials sector selling price increases has boosted interest rate-sensitive sector pricing power (Chart 2). This would suggest that profit advantages continue to reside in these areas, rather than in cyclical sectors. That is confirmed by the uptrend in developed vs. developing market PMIs. This manufacturing gap would presumably widen further if the U.S. ever imposes import taxes. The latter would weaken developing country exports, thereby forcing currency devaluation and hurting capital inflows. Regardless, the PMI divergence reinforces that, in aggregate, cyclical sectors are not as fundamentally well supported as other sectors, and that a highly targeted and selective approach is still the right strategy (the PMI ratio is shown advanced, Chart 3). Even external factors warn against chasing lingering cyclical sector strength. Using the options market, the SKEW index provides a good read on perceived tail risk for the S&P 500. A rise toward 150 indicates significant worries about potential outlier returns. The SKEW has soared in recent weeks, which is often a harbinger of increased equity volatility and defensive vs. cyclical sector strength (Chart 4). Chart 2... But Is Not Broad-Based Chart 3Global PMIs Are Signaling Defense First... Chart 4... As Are Market-Based Indicators In sum, the broad market has a powerful head of steam and it could be dangerous to stand in its way, but the rally continues to exhibit signs of a late stage blow-off, vulnerable to sudden and sharp corrections. Maintain a healthy dose of non-cyclical exposure to protect against building and potentially sudden downside overall market risks, while being careful in terms of cyclical industry coverage. This week, we are taking advantage of exuberance in the rail space, and reversing our call on the telecom services sector in response to broad-based erosion in profit indicators. Rails Are Now Priced For Perfection For such a mundane and staid industry, railroad stocks have garnered considerable attention of late. Most recently, rumors that railroad maven Hunter Harrison will be installed at CSX to engineer yet another corporate turnaround have spurred a massive buying frenzy. We upgraded the S&P railroads index to overweight on August 1, 2016. Our analysis suggested that analysts and investors had made a full bearish capitulation, slashing long-term growth estimates to deeply negative territory and pushing valuations decisively into the undervalued zone. That pessimism overlooked efforts to cut costs and stabilize profit margins in the face of waning freight growth, setting the stage for a re-rating. While that thesis has worked out, we are concerned that the needle has now swung too far in the other direction, much like what occurred in the air freight industry. The latter had a steep run up only to disappoint newly buoyant expectations. We took air freight profits in late-November, as the soaring U.S. dollar was an anti-reflationary threat to the anticipated recovery in global trade that both investors and the industry had positioned for. Indeed, industry hiring has expanded rapidly (Chart 5). However, hours worked are contracting (Chart 5). Ergo, the hoped for increase global revenue ton miles has not materialized to the extent that was expected (Chart 5). Over-employment is a productivity and profit margin drag, and we were fortunate to take profits before the payback period. We can envision a similar scenario for railroads. There has no doubt been an improvement in freight activity, and there is more in the pipeline. The question is one of degree. Total rail shipment growth has climbed back into positive territory, and our rail shipment diffusion index, which measures the number of freight categories experiencing rising vs. falling growth, is near the 80% level (Chart 6). The key consumer-driven intermodal segment, which accounts for over half of total freight volumes, has finally begun to recover. Rising personal incomes should underpin credit availability and demand, and therefore, spending. The increase in business sales-to-inventories and growth in Los Angeles port traffic also augur well for intermodal shipments (Chart 6). One caveat is that autos represent a large portion of this segment, and pent-up demand has been fully realized at the same time that auto credit quality is beginning to crack. That could keep a lid on the magnitude of the intermodal shipment recovery. Coal volumes have also shown signs of life after a brutal contraction. Coal is a high margin product and another large freight category, and any sustained recovery would provide a meaningful profit boost. Rising natural gas prices typically bode well for coal volumes (Chart 7), via increasing the cost of competing fuels to burn for power generation. However, it is premature to celebrate, because the abnormally warm North American winter may mean that the rebound in electricity production is passed its peak. That would slow the burn rate and keep coal (and natural gas) supplies higher than otherwise would be the case. Chart 5Stay Grounded Chart 6Broad-Based Freight Recovery Chart 7Coal Is Critical History shows that pricing power and coal shipment growth are tightly linked. Selling prices have firmed in recent months, but are not at a level that heralds meaningful improvement in return on equity (Chart 8, third panel). True, rising oil prices typically lead to rail companies reinstituting fuel surcharges. But that is profit margin protective, not expansionary, as true pricing power gains come on the back of increased demand and the creation of bottlenecks. It is not clear that such a point has been reached. The Cass Freight Expenditures Index has been flat for several months, signaling that companies do not intend to raise transportation outlays. This series correlates positively with relative forward earnings estimates (Chart 8). That will make it difficult for rail freight to grow faster than GDP (Chart 9), a necessary development to drive earnings outperformance. Meanwhile, productivity gains may be slow to accrue if freight only grows modestly. Weekly train speeds have been stuck in neutral (Chart 8), and the industry may be in the early stages of a capital spending reacceleration. Rail employment growth has jumped in recent months, which is often a leading indicator of investment (Chart 9). If capital spending begins to take a larger share of sales in the coming quarters, then recent investor excitement may ease, leading to a prolonged consolidation phase. After all, valuations are stretched. Over the past two decades, whenever the relative forward P/E has crossed above a 10% premium, relative forward 12-month returns have averaged -4%, and been negative in 4 out of 5 cases. Overheated technical momentum also warns against extrapolating the latest price gains (Chart 10). Chart 8Earnings Will Only Improve Slowly... Chart 9... If Capital Spending Re-Accelerated Chart 10A Profit Recovery Is Discounted Bottom Line: Take profits of 22% and downgrade the S&P rails index (BLBG: S5RAIL - UNP, CSX, NSCX, KSU) to neutral, as the index appears to be setting up for a 'buy the rumor, sell the news' scenario. Stay neutral on the S&P air freight index (BLBG: S5AIRF - UPS, FDX, CHRW, EXPD). Telecom Services: Can You Hear Me Now? The niche S&P telecom services sector (comprising 3% of the S&P 500) has served our portfolio well, up 6% since inception. However, operating conditions have downshifted and we recommend lightening up a notch and reducing weightings to underweight. There are five factors driving this downgrade: the relative spending profile, sales outlook, margins pressure, interest rates and capital spending trends. First, telecom services personal consumption expenditures (PCE) have sunk anew after a brief attempt to stabilize last year. While consumer spending on telecom services has increasingly become a discretionary item, the improvement in consumer finances and vibrant labor market appear to be generating even more outlays on non-telecom goods and services (top panel, Chart 11). Second, this spending backdrop has undermined the sector sales outlook. Top line growth has retreated to nil, and BCA's telecom services sales-per-share model is signaling that a contraction phase looms (middle panel, Chart 11). Worrisomely, the latest producer price index release revealed that industry pricing power has taken a turn for the worse, which will sustain downward pressure on revenue growth. Third, profit margins are under stress. Selling prices are deflating at a time when the wage bill is still expanding at a mid-single digit rate. The implication is that margins, and thus earnings, are unlikely to improve much in the coming quarters (Chart 12). Chart 11Sales Prospects Have Dimmed Chart 12Ditto For Profit Fourth, telecom services is a high yielding sector and the recent sell-off in 10-year Treasurys (UST) is an unwelcome development. When competing investments rise in yield, the allure of telecom carriers diminishes, and vice versa. Chart 13 shows that relative performance momentum and the change in UST yields are inversely correlated, underscoring that as long as the bond market selloff persists relative share price pressures will remain intact. Finally, industry capital expenditures are reaccelerating, which is a short-term negative for profitability. This message is corroborated by the government's construction spending release, which shows a pickup in telecom facilities construction (bottom panel, Chart 13). Taken together with the deteriorating sales backdrop, higher capital spending would be negative for profit margins. While we would normally be reluctant to move an attractively valued sector all the way to underweight (Chart 14), the marked deterioration in these five drivers of relative profitability warrants such an extreme move, regardless of our reticence about the sustainability of the broad market's recent gains. Chart 13Higher Bond Yields Aren't Helping Chart 14Technical Breakdown Our Technical Indicator has crossed decisively into the sell zone, and the share price ratio has failed to break back above its 40-week moving average, providing technical confirmation of a breakdown (Chart 14). Bottom Line: Lock in profits of 6% in the S&P telecom services sector since the Nov 9th, 2015 inception and downgrade exposure all the way to underweight. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps. Favor growth over value (downgrade alert).

The Tactical Asset Allocation model can provide investment recommendations which diverge from those outlined in our regular weekly publications. The model has a much shorter investment horizon - namely, one month - and thus attempts to capture very tactical opportunities. Meanwhile, our regular recommendations have a longer expected life, anywhere from 3-months to a year (or longer). This difference explains why the recommendations between the two publications can deviate from each other from time to time. Highlights In January, the model outperformed global equities and the S&P 500 in USD terms, but underperformed in local-currency terms. For February, the model cut its weighting in stocks and increased its allocation to bonds (Chart 1). Within the equity portfolio, the weightings to both the U.S. and emerging markets were decreased. The model boosted its allocation to French bonds at the expense of Swedish and Canadian paper. The risk index for stocks, as well as the one for bonds, deteriorated in January. Feature Performance In January, the recommended balanced portfolio gained 1.4% in local-currency terms, and 3.6% in U.S. dollar terms (Chart 2). This compares with a gain of 3.2% for the global equity benchmark and a 2% gain for the S&P 500 index. Given that the underlying model is structured in local-currency terms, we generally recommend that investors hedge their positions, though we provide other suggestions on currency risk exposure from time to time. The performance of bonds was a detractor from the model's performance in local currency terms in January. Chart 1Model Weights Chart 2Portfolio Total Returns Weights The model decreased its allocation to stocks from 57% to 53%, and upgraded its bond weighting from 43% to 47% (Table 1). Table 1Model Weights (As Of January 26, 2017) The model increased its equity allocation to France, Italy, and Sweden by one point each. Meanwhile, weightings were cut by 2 points in the U.S., and by 1 point in Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Emerging Asia, and Latin America. In the fixed-income space, the allocation to French paper was increased by 6 points and the U.K. by 1 point. The model cut its exposure to Swedish bonds by 2 points and Canadian bonds by 1 point. Currency Allocation Local currency-based indicators drive the construction of our model. As such, the performance of the model's portfolio should be compared with the local-currency global equity benchmark. The decision to hedge currency exposure should be made at the client's discretion, though from time to time we do provide our recommendations. The dollar weakened in January and our Dollar Capitulation Index fell close to neutral levels. Uncertainty over the size of the fiscal push by the U.S. administration could prolong the dollar's consolidation phase, especially if coupled with any negative economic surprises. However, this would only be a pause since continued monetary policy divergence should translate into another leg up in the dollar bull market (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* And Capitulation Capital Market Indicators The deterioration of the value and cyclical components led to a higher risk index for commodities. The model continues to shun this asset class (Chart 4). The risk index for global equities increased to a 3-year high in January due to the deterioration in the value indicator. While the global risk index for global bonds also deteriorated, it remains firmly in the low-risk zone. The model slightly decreased its allocation in equities to the benefit of bonds (Chart 5). Chart 4Commodity Index And Risk Chart 5Global Stock Market And Risk Following the latest uptick in the risk index for U.S. equities, the allocation to this asset class was trimmed. U.S. stocks have been propped up by the growth-positive aspects of the new U.S. administration's policies and are at risk should this optimism deflate (Chart 6). The risk index for Canadian equities improved slightly in January as the better readings in the liquidity and momentum indicators offset continued worsening in value. That said, the overall risk index remains at the highest level in this business cycle. This asset remains excluded from the portfolio (Chart 7). Chart 6U.S. Stock Market And Risk Chart 7Canadian Stock Market And Risk The risk index for U.K. equities deteriorated, reaching a post-Brexit high. For the first time in over two years, the value component crossed into expensive territory (Chart 8) The model trimmed its allocation to Emerging Asian stocks following the slight uptick in the risk index. While the global reflationary pulse should bode well for this asset class, rumblings about protectionism threaten to de-rate growth expectations (Chart 9). Chart 8U.K. Stock Market And Risk Chart 9Emerging Asian Stock Market And Risk The unwinding of oversold conditions was the main reason behind the deterioration in the risk index for bonds in January. However, the latter is still in the low-risk zone as the bond-negative reading from the cyclical indicator remains overshadowed by the ongoing oversold conditions in the momentum indicator (Chart 10). The risk index for U.S. Treasurys deteriorated in January on the back of a less-stretched momentum indicator. While the cyclical backdrop is bond-bearish, there is arguably more room for scaling down optimism over the economy than there is to having an even more upbeat outlook. As a result, any resumption of the rise in Treasury yields could end up being very gradual (Chart 11). Chart 10Global Bond Yields And Risk Chart 11U.S. Bond Yields And Risk The risk index for euro area government bonds also deteriorated in January, but unlike the U.S., it is in the high-risk zone. There are notable differences in the risk readings within euro area markets (Chart 12). Given the upcoming presidential elections, France is next in line in terms of investors' focus on political risks. French bonds are heavily oversold based on the momentum indicator, pushing the overall risk index lower. An unwinding of the risk premium would bode well for French bonds, which the model upgraded in January (Chart 13). Chart 12Euro Area Bond Yields And Risk Chart 13French Bond Yields And Risk The risk index for Spanish government bonds ticked down slightly reflecting minor improvements in all three of its components. However, it remains much higher than the risk index for the French paper, which is preferred by the model (Chart 14). With the risk index little changed in January, Swiss government bonds remain in the high-risk zone. The model continues avoiding this asset which possesses negative yields (Chart 15). Chart 14Spanish Bond Yields And Risk Chart 15Swiss Bond Yields And Risk Currency Technicals The dollar depreciated after the 13-week momentum measure indicated last month that the greenback could face near-term resistance. Further consolidation cannot be ruled out, but the 40-week rate of change measure is not signaling an end to the dollar bull market. The monetary policy divergence between the Fed and its peers provides underlying support for the dollar, while heightened uncertainty on the fiscal front implies more volatility going forward (Chart 16). EUR/USD was not able to stay below 1.05. The short-term rate-of-change measure is approaching neutral levels, which could test the EUR/USD bounce. A risk-off episode or continued solid economic data are two factors that could provide some support for the euro in the near term (Chart 17). The 40-week rate of change measure for GBP/USD continues to hover near the most oversold level since 2000 (excluding the great recession). Meanwhile, the 13-week momentum measure crossed into positive territory, but is not extended. The pound will remain event-driven and possibly range-bound in the near term as the mood bounces within the hard Brexit / soft Brexit spectrum (Chart 18). Chart 16U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* Chart 17Euro Chart 18Sterling Miroslav Aradski, Senior Analyst miroslava@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Undue pessimism about global growth is giving way to unbridled optimism. Chinese growth has accelerated. However, there is a risk that the economy hits a speed bump later in 2017, as fiscal policy becomes less accommodative, monetary policy is tightened in an effort to curb capital outflows, and recent steps by the authorities to crack down on rampant speculation in the property sector begin to bite. The threat of a trade war will also loom large. U.S. fiscal policy will remain stimulative, but may fail to live up to expectations: There is little appetite among Republicans for increasing infrastructure spending; the multiplier effects from the proposed tax changes are likely to be small; and many GOP leaders are already chomping at the bit to take an ax to government spending. Fortunately, the U.S. economy has enough momentum to continue growing solidly above trend, even if fiscal policy disappoints. This will allow the Fed to raise rates three times this year, one more hike than the market is currently pricing in. Developed market equities are overbought and vulnerable to a correction, but will be higher 12 months from now. Favor Europe and Japan over the U.S. in local-currency terms. Stay underweight EM. Feature Global Growth Is Accelerating, But Headwinds Persist The global economy is on the mend. Measures of current activity are rebounding, as are a variety of leading economic indicators (Charts 1 and 2). Chart 1Global Economy ##br##Springing Back To Life Chart 2Global Leading Economic ##br##Indicators Are Improving Investors have taken notice: Market-based inflation expectations have risen, as have growth-sensitive commodity prices. Earnings growth expectations have surged, rising in the U.S. to nearly the highest level in a decade. Cyclical stocks have also bounced back, after having lagged the overall market for five years (Chart 3). We agree with the market's positive re-rating of global growth prospects, but worry that undue pessimism is starting to give way to excessive optimism. Two potential developments in particular could end up giving investors pause: A slowing of China's economy later this year. The possibility that U.S. fiscal policy will end up being less stimulative than expected. China: Living On Borrowed Time? Chinese growth has been surprising to the upside of late (Chart 4). Timely indicators such as excavator sales and railway freight traffic, which are well correlated with industrial activity, have been rising at a fast clip. Manufacturing inventory levels have come down, corporate profitability has improved, and producer price inflation has turned positive. The labor market has also picked up steam, as evidenced by the expansion in the employment subcomponents of the PMI indices. Chart 3Market's Positive Re-Rating Of Growth Prospects Chart 4Chinese Growth Has Been Surprising To The Upside Looking out, however, there are reasons to worry that the economy will weaken anew. Growth in government spending slowed from a high of 25% in November 2015 to nearly zero in December (Chart 5). Recent efforts by policymakers to clamp down on rampant property speculation could also cause the economy to cool. Meanwhile, capital continues to flee the country (Chart 6). This has put the government in a no-win situation: Raising domestic interest rates could entice more people to keep their money at home, but such a step could increase debt-servicing costs and undermine the country's creaky financial system. Chart 5China: Fiscal Stimulus Is Running Off Chart 6China: Ongoing Capital Outflows A Problem Of Inadequate Demand There is no shortage of commentary discussing the problems that ail China. Much of the analysis, however, has focused on the country's inefficient allocation of resources and other supply-side considerations. While these are obviously important issues, they overlook what has actually been the most significant binding constraint to growth: a persistent lack of aggregate demand. It has been this deficiency of demand - the flipside of a chronic excess of savings - that has kept the economy teetering on the edge of deflation. If a country suffers from excess savings, there are only three things that it can do. First, it can try to reduce savings by increasing consumption. The Chinese government has been striving to do that by strengthening the social safety net in the hopes that this will discourage precautionary savings. However, this is a slow process which will take many years to complete. Second, it can export those excess savings abroad by running a current account surplus. This would allow the country to save more than it invests domestically through the famous S-I=CA identity. The problem here is that no one wants to have a large current account deficit with China. Certainly not Donald Trump. Third, it can channel those excess savings into domestic investment. This is what China has done by pressing its banks to extend credit to state-owned companies and local governments. Remember that debt is the conduit through which savings is transformed into investment. From this perspective, China's high debt stock is just the mirror image of its high savings rate. The problem is that China already invests too much. Chart 7 shows that capacity utilization has been trending lower over the past six years and is back down to where it was during the Great Recession. The good news is that as long as there is plenty of savings around, Chinese banks will have enough liquid deposits on hand to extend fresh credit. The bad news is that there is no guarantee that borrowers taking on this debt will be able to repay it. This has made the Chinese economy increasingly sensitive to changes in financial conditions. And that sensitivity has, in turn, made global financial markets more fragile. Chart 8 shows that global equities have sold off whenever China stresses have flared up. The risk of another such incident remains high. Chart 7China: Capacity Utilization Back ##br##To Pre-Recession Levels Chart 8When China Has a Cold, ##br##Global Equities Sneeze China Trade War: The U.S. Holds The Trump Card Chart 9China Would Suffer More ##br##From A Trade War With The U.S. Adding to the pressure on China is the prospect of a trade war with the United States. Donald Trump has flip-flopped on almost every issue over the years, but he's been perfectly consistent on one: trade. Trump has always been a mercantilist at heart, and nothing that has happened since the election suggests otherwise. It is sometimes argued that the damage to the U.S. economy from a trade war with China would be so grave that Trump would not dare initiate one. This is wishful thinking. Chinese exports to the U.S. account for 3.5% of Chinese GDP, while U.S. exports to China account for only 0.6% of U.S. GDP (Chart 9). And much of America's exports to China are intermediate goods that are processed in China and then re-exported elsewhere. Blocking these exports would only hurt Chinese companies. Yes, China could threaten to dump its huge holdings of U.S. Treasurys. However, this is a hollow threat. The yield on Treasurys is largely determined by the expected path of short-term interest rates, which is controlled by the Federal Reserve. To be sure, the dollar would weaken if China started selling Treasurys. But why exactly is that a problem for the U.S.? Donald Trump wants a weaker dollar! In short, the U.S. would not lose much by provoking a trade war with China. Where does this leave us? The most likely outcome is that China blinks first and takes more concerted steps to open up its market to U.S. goods. This would hand Donald Trump a major political victory. However, the path from here to there is likely to be a very rocky one, which means that the reflation trade could suffer a temporary setback. A Trumptastic Fiscal Policy? Getting tough with China was one of Trump's key campaign promises; increasing infrastructure spending and cutting taxes was another. Unfortunately, investors may end up being disappointed both by how much fiscal stimulus is delivered and by the bang for the buck that it generates. For starters, much of Trump's proposed infrastructure program may never see the light of day. The $1 trillion ten-year program that he touted during the campaign was scaled back to $550 billion on his transition website. And even that may be too optimistic. Most Republicans in Congress have little interest in expanding public infrastructure spending. They opposed a big public works bill in 2009 when millions of construction workers were out of a job, and they will oppose one now. The public-private partnership structure that Trump's plan envisions will also limit the universe of projects that can be considered. Most of America's infrastructure needs consist of basic maintenance, rather than the sort of marquee projects that the private sector would be keen to invest in. Granted, the definition for what counts as public infrastructure could be expanded to include such things as hotels and casinos, to cite two completely random examples. But even if one ignores the obvious governance problems that this would raise, such a step could simply crowd out private investment that would otherwise have taken place. The reason that governments invest in infrastructure to begin with is because there are certain categories of public goods that do not lend themselves well to private ownership. To purposely exclude such goods from consideration, while devoting public funds to projects that the private sector is already perfectly capable of doing, is the height of folly. Trump And Taxes House Republicans are pursuing a sweeping tax reform agenda. There is much to like about their proposal. In particular, the shift to a cash flow destination-based tax system could encourage new investment over time, while making it more difficult for firms to carry out a variety of tax-dodging strategies. However, as with many major policy initiatives, the Republican tax proposal could generate significant near-term economic dislocations. Most notably, as we discussed in detail last week, the inclusion of a border adjustment tax could lead to a sharp appreciation in the dollar.1 This would benefit foreign holders of U.S. assets, but hurt debtors with dollar-denominated loans. Such an outcome could put stress on emerging markets, potentially undermining the global reflation trade. Trump's proposed cuts to personal income taxes may not boost spending by as much as some might hope. The Tax Policy Center estimates that the top one percent of income earners will see their after-tax incomes increase by 13.5%, while those in the middle quintile of the distribution will receive an increase of only 1.8% (Table 1). Since the very rich tend to save much of their income (Chart 10), measures which boost their disposable income may not translate into a substantial increase in spending. In fact, cutting the estate tax, as Trump has proposed, could actually depress spending by reducing the incentive for older households to blow through their wealth before the Grim Reaper (and The Taxman) arrive. Table 1Trump's Proposed Tax Cuts Would Largely Favor The Rich Chart 10Savings Heavily Skewed Towards Top Earners Spending Cuts On The Horizon? Then there is the question of whether Congressional Republicans will try to take an ax to government spending. The Hill reported last week that several senior members of Trump's transition team have proposed a plan to cut federal spending by $10.5 trillion over the next 10 years.2 The plan contains many of the same elements as the Republican Study Committee's Blueprint for a Balanced Budget, which called for $8.6 trillion in cuts over the next decade. Separately, Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, the chairman of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Social Security, has introduced legislation seeking large cuts to pension benefits. Under his plan, workers in their mid-thirties earning $50,000 per year would see a one-third reduction in lifetime Social Security payments.3 Paul Ryan and other Congressional Republicans have also begun to argue that the goal of health care reform should be to guarantee "universal access" to high-quality medical care, rather than "universal coverage." This is a bit like arguing that the goal of transportation policy should be to ensure that everyone has access to a Bentley, provided that they can pony up $200,000 to buy one. It remains to be seen whether President Trump will acquiesce to these changes. He has repeatedly insisted that no one will lose medical coverage under his administration. However, one of his first actions in office was to loosen the mandate that requires healthy individuals to purchase insurance under the Affordable Care Act. Such a measure, however well intentioned, could greatly undermine the Act. If healthy people can wait until they are sick to sign up for insurance, only sick people will sign up. In order to cover their costs, insurance providers would have to raise premiums, ensuring that even fewer healthy people sign up. Such a vicious "adverse selection cycle," as economists call it, could lead to the collapse of health insurance exchanges, which currently provide coverage for 12.7 million Americans. Our guess is that Trump will ultimately put the kibosh on any plan to radically cut government spending or curtail Medicare and Social Security benefits. Say what you will of Trump, he has proven to be a skilled political operator for someone who has never been elected to public office. He knows that people were chanting "build the wall" at his rallies, not "cut my Medicare." Indeed, it is possible that Trumpcare will ultimately look a lot like Obamacare but with more generous subsidies for health care providers. Nevertheless, the path to this more benign investment outcome will be a bumpy one, suggesting that market volatility could rise in the months ahead. Investment Conclusions Chart 11DM Stocks Are Overbought Markets tend to swing from one extreme to another. This time last year, investors were fixated on secular stagnation. Now they are convinced that we are on the edge of a new global economic boom. Neither position is justified. Global growth has picked up, and this should provide a tailwind to risk assets over the next 12 months. However, as this week's discussion makes clear, there are still plenty of headwinds around. This suggests that the recovery will be a halting affair, with plenty of setbacks along the way. The surge in developed market equities since the U.S. presidential election has pushed stocks deep into overbought territory (Chart 11). A correction is likely over the next few weeks. We expect global equities to fall by 5%-to-10%, paving the way for higher returns over the remainder of the year. Once that recovery begins, European and Japanese stocks will outperform their U.S. counterparts in local-currency terms. We continue to expect EM equities to lag DM. In contrast to stocks, bond yields have already moved off their highs. As we discussed in our Strategy Outlook in early January, the transition from deflation to inflation will be a protracted one.4 Nevertheless, the path of least resistance for yields is to the upside. The Fed is likely to raise rates three times this year, one more hike than the market is currently pricing in. This should be enough to keep the dollar bull market intact. We expect the trade-weighted dollar to rise another 5% by year-end, with the risk tilted to the upside if Congress ends up approving a border adjustment tax. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017," dated January 20, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Alexander Bolton, "Trump Team Prepares Dramatic Cuts," The Hill, dated January 19, 2017. 3 Please see Stephen C. Goss memorandum to Sam Johnson, "Estimates Of The Financial Effects On Social Security Of H.R. 6489, The 'Social Security Reform Act Of 2016,' Introduced On December 8, 2016 By Representative Sam Johnson," Social Security Administration, Office Of The Chief Actuary (December 8, 2016). 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook First Quarter 2017: From Reflation To Stagflation," dated January 6, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights Trump administration will likely at least initially negotiate with China on trade issues rather than rush to meaningful punitive measures. Bilateral negotiations will likely focus on correcting China's allegedly unfair trade practices and increasing market access for American firms. It is, however, not difficult to find common ground that China is able or even willing to accommodate. A more inward looking U.S. generates a mutual desire among China and other economies to work more closely, potentially creating a new "globalization process" with distinct Chinese characteristics. Feature Fears of a trade war between the U.S. and China are now firmly on investors' radar screens, with President Donald Trump's inauguration speech last week doing little to assuage concerns. Even though he fell short of his campaign promise to label China as a currency manipulator in his first days in office, there is little doubt that trade tensions between the world's two largest economies will rise going forward. The challenge for investors is that U.S. trade policy under the new administration has simply become unpredictable. This week's report lays out our base case scenario for how things might evolve. Threat Or Policy? The biggest unknown at the moment is whether President Trump's threats to impose sanctions on Chinese goods are a mere negotiating tactic in order to gain concessions, or a real policy choice and direction. Unless one assumes that Trump will completely resort to radical and reckless policies that intentionally lead to a loss-loss situation for both the U.S. and China, we suspect the Trump administration will at least initially negotiate with China on trade issues rather than rush to meaningful punitive measures. Chart 1Exports Also Matter For the U.S. First, the grand strategy of President Trump on trade is to reduce America's massive and growing current account deficit. However, basic economics suggests that a country's current account deficit is fundamentally determined by its domestic savings and domestic capital spending. A deficit country, like the U.S., means its domestic savings fall short of its domestic investment, and therefore it needs to import capital from abroad to fill the gap. On the contrary, surplus countries, like China, have domestic savings in excess of their domestic investments, and therefore "export" capital abroad. In the U.S.'s case, the fact that the dollar is the main global reserve currency has allowed it to run chronic current account deficit without experiencing a balance-of-payments crisis. Unless 'Trumponomics' fundamentally changes the savings and investment balance in the U.S. economy, protectionism will not shrink the U.S. current account deficit. Punitive tariffs against Chinese goods will only shift America's deficit to China's competitors, often higher-cost producers, thus likely jacking up prices and hurting American consumers. Second, the U.S., although much less dependent on global trade than most countries, is not as isolated as commonly perceived. Exports of goods and services account for about 13% of U.S. GDP, compared with 22% for China and a global average of 30% (Chart 1). Moreover, exports as a share of the Chinese economy have almost halved since the global financial crisis, while exports' share in the U.S. economy has continued to climb to near all-time high levels. Major disruptions in global trade certainly hurt China more, but they would have also removed a major economic driver for the U.S. in recent years, which contradicts Trump's pro-growth objective. Chart 2China's Growing ATP Demands Offers Potential ##br##For U.S. Manufacturing Jobs Third, Trump's economic white paper released in September prepared by Peter Navarro and Wilbur Ross,1 both now senior administration staff, explicitly states that "tariffs will be used not as an end game but rather as a negotiating tool to encourage our trading partners to cease cheating," and "If, however, the cheating does not stop, Trump will impose appropriate defensive tariffs to level the playing field." Moreover, in the confirmation hearing process, Treasury Secretary nominee Steven Mnuchin hinted that he would go through the existing statutory process on the currency manipulation issue, which reduces the odds of naming China as a manipulator, as China currently does not fit the Treasury's criteria.2 All of this means the Trump administration will at least try to negotiate with the Chinese on trade-related issues. Finally, creating manufacturing jobs is one of President Trump's primary goals, and some advanced-technology products (ATP) and industries have been singled out in the September economic white paper that the administration intends to promote, such as aerospace, chemicals, electronics, motor vehicles, pharmaceuticals, railroad rolling stock, and robotics. On the other hand, high-tech products have been a growing share in China's total imports, and its demand for global ATP will continue to increase as its economy becomes more sophisticated (Chart 2). Since the early 2000s, however, the U.S. has been losing market share in China's high-tech imports. In this vein, re-gaining market share for American ATP goods in Chinese imports may be a crucial part of Trump's job creation plan. Bottom line: Cooperation rather than confrontation is the rational policy choice of President Trump, given the prevailing economic circumstances. What Trump Wants, And Can China Budge? If tariffs are indeed used as a negotiation chip, it is important to understand what specific concessions the Trump administration will seek from China, which so far have not been made clear. In the September economic white paper, Trump's senior advisors laid out the "sins" that China has committed to gain unfair trade advantages, including "currency manipulation, theft of intellectual property, forced technology transfers, a widespread reliance upon both 'sweat shop' labor and pollution havens, illegal export subsidies, and massive dumping of select products such as aluminum and steel below cost." Moreover, President Trump has openly complained that Chinese tariffs on certain goods are prohibitively high for foreign producers, and that American firms have been much more restricted in doing business in certain industries in China than vice versa. Therefore, bilateral negotiations, if any, will likely focus on correcting China's allegedly unfair trade practices and increasing market access for American firms. It is, however, not difficult to find common ground that China is able or even willing to accommodate on the issues. On currency manipulation. The RMB is now under significant downward pressure, and the People's Bank of China may not be against the idea of cooperating with the U.S. to support the yuan and weaken the greenback. On intellectual property and technology transfers. China's attitude towards technology and intellectual property rights has changed dramatically in recent years, not only because of improving legal procedures, but more importantly because of the growing awareness of IPR protection among the Chinese business community. China's patent applications have skyrocketed in recent years, which naturally pushes the country's IPR practices towards the western standard (Chart 3). Chinese patent applications topped 1 million in 2015, by far the largest in the world and almost as many as the next three largest applicants, the U.S., Japan and Korea, combined. In short, China has developed a keen self-interest for better IPR protection, simply because it now has a lot more to protect than in the past. On "sweat shop" and pollution havens. There is little doubt among Chinese leadership that China has long passed the "sweat shop" model. Cheap labor-intensive sectors account for an increasingly smaller share in China's total industrial output and exports, and they will be further marginalized as the country's income level continues to rise (Chart 4). In fact, Chinese entrepreneurs have been leading the exodus of moving production capacities in these industries to lower-cost countries. Moreover, pollution has become an overwhelming social issue in major metropolitan centers, and there is a growing sense of urgency in Chinese society to take immediate action on environmental protection. In other words, there is not much interest among the Chinese leadership to protect these "sweat shops" and pollution havens that the Trump administration is complaining about. Chart 3China's Developing Self-Interest In IPR protection Chart 4"Sweat Shops" Are Already Marginalized On illegal export subsidies and dumping of base metals. It is an open secret that the Chinese government subsidizes certain labor-intensive industries in growth downturns to prevent excessive job losses. It is important to note, however, that the government has systemically phased out subsidies as a lifeline for the corporate sector. Government subsidies for loss-generating enterprises, which accounted for over 20% of fiscal expenditures in the early 1990s, have now essentially disappeared (Chart 5). In addition, the Chinese government has also been trying to weed out excess capacity in the base metal industries such as steel and aluminum that President Trump has singled out for "massive dumping." Moreover, the anti-dumping measures adopted by the Obama administration targeting these Chinese products have already dramatically curtailed Chinese sales in the U.S. market in recent years. For example, the U.S. accounts for a mere 1% of Chinese steel exports, down from almost 10% in 2010 (Chart 6). It is possible that the Trump administration will continue to target industries it perceives as illegally subsidized by the Chinese government. However, the macro implications of such measures should not be significant. On further market access and lower tariffs for American goods. Even though state-owned enterprises still enjoy a monopoly in certain industries, the big picture of China's economic progress has been characterized by deregulation, privatization and increasing openness. Last week, the State Council released a new plan to further open up to foreign investment, removing or easing restrictions on foreign investment in rail equipment, motorbikes, ethanol fuel, shale gas, oil sands and other mineral resources sectors. It is also aiming to lower restrictions on foreign investment in financial services, such as the banking, securities, investment management, futures, insurance, credit ratings and accounting sectors, as well as in telecom, the Internet, culture, education and transportation. The latest push on "opening up" appears to be timed to supplement President Xi Jinping's speech at the Davos World Economic Forum last week - and possibily to offer an olive branch to the newly inagurated U.S. president - it nonetheless fits with the long-standing strategy of China's economic reforms. Chart 5Subsidies Are ##br##No Longer Vital Chart 6Chinese Steels Are No Longer ##br##Dumped In The U.S. Meanwhile, China's average tariff rate has declined dramatically in the past two decades (Chart 7), and is now not much higher than the global average and developed nation levels (Chart 8). Chinese tariffs on certain consumer goods are indeed punitively high. However, excessively high tariffs have only pushed Chinese consumers to travel overseas to buy these products, which has done little to help domestic producers. There have long been proposals among Chinese policy circles to cut tariffs and taxes to boost consumption and create local jobs. Chart 7Chinese Tariffs Have Already Collapsed... Chart 8...But Still Room For Improvement In short, on all the pressure points that could lead to trade disputes between the U.S. and China, the positions on both sides are not as deeply divided as perceived. China may have different perspectives by varying degrees, and may push back on specific issues, but the country's economic reform is not fundamentally against what Trump demands. This offers a hopeful starting point of bilateral engagement and negotiations. The primary risk to the negotiations is that Trump attempts to punish China retroactively for the cumulative effect of its past transgressions on the above issues, or makes ultimatums on the speed of the reform process that China either cannot or will not accept. Globalization With Chinese Characteristics? Regardless of whether the Trump's administration simply wants to deal "fairly" or intends to start a trade war, China will inevitably continue to push for a more predictable global growth environment for its exporters. A more inward-looking U.S. casts a long shadow on global trade, but it will also generate a mutual desire among China and other economies to work more closely, potentially creating a new "globalization process" with distinct Chinese characteristics. First, similar to existing trade agreements that intend to eliminate tariffs and other trade and investment barriers, China will continue to explore bilateral and multilateral free trade agreements (FTA) with its main trade partners. China currently has 19 FTAs under construction, among which 14 agreements have been signed and implemented. President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) will also push other countries to participate in China-led free-trade initiatives as the only other viable alternative. In fact, China is a far bigger trade partner of TPP signatories than the U.S. (Chart 9). It will not be surprising to see the pace of negotiations for the "Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)" accelerate. Second, besides tariff reductions, China also aims to extend its trade reach through expansion of transportation infrastructure via the ambitious "One Belt One Road" (OBOR) mega project. The OBOR promises to link China, Eurasia, South Asia, Oceania and North Africa with railway, highway and seaports, and has been quietly gaining momentum since it was unveiled in October 2013. Routine railway freight between China and western European countries has already been established, adding to existing air and maritime trade routes. The Silk Road Fund, a state-owned fund of the Chinese government to foster investment in countries along the OBOR, is already in operation. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a China-led international financial institution to aid the OBOR strategy, was established in December 2015 with 57 member countries, and is expected to add another 25 soon. With promises of improving infrastructure, it should be easier for China to sell its version of "globalization" to other countries. The impact of the OBOR will likely become increasingly visible going forward. Finally, China has been offering capital and technical aid to lesser-developed resource-rich countries, particularly in Africa (Chart 10). Unlike financial aid from other developed countries, which is often associated with governance and human right demands, Chinese investment in these regions is mostly offered with no political conditions attached, something that has generated a great deal of controversy. Some have accused China of being "neo-colonialist" to exploit the continent's natural resources, while others support the initiatives to build and upgrade local infrastructure such as roads, railways and telecom systems, as they will benefit Africa's manufacturing sector and the welfare of the local population. Regardless, China is likely to continue to push forward on these investment projects, which will also intensify the trade links between China and these countries. Chart 9China Matters More For TPP Countries Chart 10China's Strengthening Ties With Africa How Will The Market Respond? Brewing trade tensions between the world's two largest economies are undoubtedly negative for both the global economy and financial markets. A full-fledged trade war conjures up dreadful images of the 1930s Great Depression, which is full-stop bearish for risk assets. Investors should certainly hedge against such a scenario with a small portion of their portfolios, with long positions on the dollar, gold, and the VIX. Chart 11Industrial Stocks Will Remain Depressed Table 1Chinese H Shares Are Mostly Domestic Driven Barring such an extreme scenario, targeted tariffs and low-profile trade disputes will hurt specific industries and companies, but the impact on the broader market should not be significant. Specifically, Chinese H share-listed companies are heavily concentrated in domestic businesses (Table 1). Some heavyweights in the H-share index such as financials, telecom and utilities are mostly domestic driven. The industrial sector, which is more exposed to global demand, has already been chronically underperforming (Chart 11), and will likely continue to struggle amid growing global uncertainty. However, industrials are only about 5% of total China investable market cap, much smaller than both the Chinese A-share index and the U.S. market (Table 2). From this perspective, A shares are more vulnerable to trade disruptions given their higher weight in industrial stocks. The IT sector accounts for almost a third of the MSCI China Free index, but the largest constituents of the Chinese tech sector such as Alibaba, Tencent and Baidu derive almost all of their revenue from domestic sources (Table 2). Some smaller Chinese hardware producers with heavy exposure to global markets are vulnerable, but they represent a negligible share in the Chinese investable index. Table 2Top Ten Chinese Tech Firms And Their Foreign Exposure Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 "Scoring the Trump Economic Plan: Trade, Regulatory, & Energy Policy Impacts" available at https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Trump_Economic_Plan.pdf 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China As A Currency Manipulator?" dated November 24, 2016 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

The previous Insight showed that the broad tech sector will have trouble if overall inflationary pressures continue to build, sustaining upward pressure on bond yields. The communications equipment sub-group should be somewhat immune to these forces, however, given already cheap valuations. Nevertheless, the strong U.S. dollar already appears to be causing a competitive response. Industry pricing power has plunged deeper into the deflation zone, with more downside ahead as Asian currencies devalue (second panel). The good news is that U.S. telecom equipment exports have actually perked up, and the telecom services sector appears to have stabilized capital spending based on the message from new facilities construction. That will help offset deflationary pressure, but if exports roll over and/or domestic capital spending indicators cool, communications equipment stocks could go from consolidation to underperformance. Stay neutral, for now. The ticker symbols for the stocks in this index are: BLBG: S5COMM-CSCO, MSI, HRS, JNPR, FFIV.

An Insight on December 13 showed that the tech sector and the U.S. dollar have historically been positively correlated during the initial phase of a currency bull market, but that correlation reverses in the latter stages. The loss of competitiveness and anti-globalization are serious headwinds for the tech sector, particularly given that inflation pressures in the broader economy have started to build. The tech sector shines in deflationary periods rather than inflationary environments. Rising bond yields and rising headline inflation imply higher discount rates and by extension, lower valuations, all other things equal, for the long duration tech sector. While the broad market has maintained strong momentum, the tech sector is unlikely to keep pace. Reducing exposure on price strength is a prudent strategy.

Highlights Look below the surface, and the euro area economy reveals some surprising and encouraging truths: Euro area employment is near an all-time high. Euro area inflation is little different to other major economies. The euro area excluding Germany is among the world's top-performing major economies. Stay underweight German bunds versus U.S. T-bonds. Stay long euro/pound until the trigger of Article 50. Stay long euro/yuan structurally. But underweight the Eurostoxx600 because the European equity index is a play on sectors and currencies, not on the euro area economy. Feature "There's nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it." - William James In today's post-truth world, the rigorous scrutiny and analysis of facts and data has never been so important. With that in mind, this week's report puts some of the prejudices about the euro area economy under the microscope. Look below the surface, and euro area employment, inflation and growth reveal some surprising and encouraging truths. Euro Area Employment: Near An All-Time High The percentage of the euro area population in employment is close to an all-time high (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekThe Percentage Of The Euro Area Population In Work Is Near An All-Time High How could this be when the unemployment rate stands at a structurally elevated 10%? The answer is that euro area labour participation is in a very strong uptrend (Chart I-2). As millions of formerly inactive citizens have entered the labour market, it has structurally swelled the numbers of both the employed and the unemployed. Remember that to count as unemployed, a person has to be in the labour market looking for work. Chart I-2Euro Area Labour Participation Is In A Strong Uptrend The euro area's strongly rising labour participation means that we must interpret the headline unemployment rate with care. Indeed, we would argue that the healthy percentage of the working age population in employment is the truer measure of labour utilisation. One counterargument is that euro area citizens have simply flooded into the registered labour force to claim generous and long-lasting unemployment benefits. This argument might be valid during downturns, but it cannot explain the 17-year uptrend since the turn of the century. Unpalatable as it might be to the euro doomsayers, we are left with a more positive explanation. Since the monetary union, many euro area countries have succeeded in bringing down structurally high inactivity levels in the working age population that was the accepted norm in previous decades. Admittedly, Italy and Greece are the laggards in this structural movement, and still have much work to do - but even they have made substantial progress in recent years (Chart I-3). Chart I-3Italy And Greece Are The Laggards, But Even They Are Making Progess Bottom Line: the structural state of euro area employment is much better than the headline unemployment rate might suggest. Euro Area Inflation: Little Different To Other Major Economies The euro area and U.S. inflation rates are almost identical when compared on an apples for apples basis. The key words here are "apples for apples". A fair comparison between inflation rates in the euro area and the U.S. must adjust for a crucial difference in the two price baskets. The euro area's Harmonized Index of Consumer Prices - excludes the consumption costs of owner-occupied housing; whereas the U.S. CPI includes it at a substantial 25% weighting. As Eurostat explains,1 "the comparison of inflation across different countries and regions can be undermined by the use of different approaches to owner-occupied housing." To compare apples with apples, a simple approach is to exclude housing costs from the U.S. CPI too. This shows that the ex-shelter inflation rates - both headline and core - are almost identical in the euro area and the U.S. (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Chart I-4Apples For Apples: Little Difference In ##br##Euro Area And U.S. Headline Inflation... Chart I-5...Or Core##br## Inflation A more correct approach would be to estimate the inclusion of housing costs in the euro area consumer basket, given that they represent a sizable proportion of euro area household expenditures. The proportion of homes that are owner-occupied in the euro area, 67%, is actually higher than that in the U.S., 65%. Our approach uses two steps. First, to realise that owner-occupied housing cost inflation just follows house price inflation. Second, to observe that house price inflation in the euro area is now identical to that in the U.S. (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). We infer that if owner-occupied housing were included in the euro area consumer basket, there would be no major difference in the euro area and U.S. inflation numbers. But what about inflation expectations? The market-based expectations for the euro area and U.S. 5 year inflation rate 5 years ahead - the so-called 5 year 5 year inflation swap - show that the euro area is consistently below the U.S., albeit by just 0.5% (Chart I-8). But again, this difference exists largely because the market is ignoring owner-occupied housing costs, which are not in the euro area's official inflation rate. Chart I-6House Price Inflation Is Now Identical ##br##In The Euro Area And U.S. Chart I-7Owner Occupied Housing Inflation##br## Follows House Price Inflation Chart I-8Inflation Expectations Move Together ##br##In The Euro Area And U.S. Bottom Line: The euro area is not suffering a noticeably greater deflation threat than any other major economy. Euro Area Growth: One Of The Best In Class Since the end of 2013, euro area real GDP per capita has outperformed both the U.S. and Japan. Once again, we must compare apples with apples. To adjust for the different demographics in the major economies, a fair comparison of economic performance must be on a per capita basis. But isn't the euro area's outperformance due mostly to Germany? Actually, no. Over the past three years, the star performers are Spain and the Netherlands, whose per capita real GDPs have grown by 9% and 4.5% respectively. By comparison, the U.S. clocks in at 3.5% and Japan at 3%. The ECB might argue that its extraordinary policy is responsible for this outperformance. However, the evidence does not support this thesis. The revival in the euro area economy began in early 2014, long before the ECB had even mooted its asset-purchases, TLTROs or negative interest rates. Instead, the turning-point can be traced back to December 31, 2013, the mark-to-market date for the bank asset quality review (AQR). As soon as euro area banks ended the aggressive de-levering that the stress tests forced upon them, a deeply negative credit impulse also eased. Which allowed the economy to begin a sustained recovery. Bottom Line: The euro area excluding Germany is among the world's top-performing major economies (Chart I-9). Chart I-9The Euro Area Ex Germany Is Among The World's Top-Performing Major Economies The Investment Implications The proportion of the euro area working age population in employment is close to an all-time high, underlying inflation is almost identical to that in the U.S., and the euro area ex Germany is the world's best-performing major economy over the past three years. Yet the expected difference between ECB looseness and Federal Reserve tightness stands at a multi-decade extreme (Chart I-10). Chart I-10The Expected Difference Between ECB Looseness And Fed Tightness Is Too Extreme Lean against this. Either go long the Eurodollar two year out interest rate future contract and short the equivalent Euribor contract. Or go long the U.S. 5-year T-bond and short the German 5-year bund.2 A further ramification comes in the currency market. The dominant recent driver of the euro has been the so-called fixed income portfolio channel. When global bond investors fled the euro area in search of higher safe nominal yields, the euro came under pressure. These outflows are abating, and indeed reversing, as investors come to realise that the ECB's radical and experimental policy-easing has peaked. Stay long euro/pound until the trigger of Article 50. Stay long euro/yuan structurally. Finally, contrary to popular perception, the state of the euro area economy does not translate into Eurostoxx600 relative performance. Major equity market indexes are a collection of multinational dollar-earning companies which happen to be quoted in a particular city - say, Frankfurt, London, or New York - in a particular currency - say, the euro, pound, or dollar. Therefore, as demonstrated in More Investment Reductionism,3 the main driver of equity market relative performance tends to be currency movements, or the relative performance of industry sectors that dominate the particular index. Based on this currency and sector logic, stay underweight Eurostoxx600 versus FTSE100, and underweight Eurostoxx600 versus S&P500.4 Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Detailed Technical manual on Owner-Occupied Housing for Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices, Eurostat. 2 BCA strategists differ on this position. 3 Published on November 24, 2016 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com 4 BCA strategists differ on this position. Fractal Trading Model* This week's trade is to go long Norwegian krone / Russian ruble. 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 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields 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-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations