Fiscal

Highlights All three of Trump's signature policy proposals - fiscal stimulus, a more restrictive immigration policy, and trade protectionism - are dollar bullish. The implementation of these policies could cause the U.S. economy to overheat, forcing the Fed to raise rates more than it otherwise would. A Trump presidency is unlikely to lead to major institutional changes at the Fed. Trump is okay with a stronger dollar and higher rates, as long as these do not cause growth to stall. Investors have gone from too bearish to too bullish about what a Trump victory means for equities. A tactically cautious stance is still appropriate. Feature Trump Triumphant Chart 1Trumpism Trumps Unfavorability Trumpism Trumps Unfavorability Trumpism Trumps Unfavorability The late film critic Pauline Kael allegedly once said that there was no way that Richard Nixon could have won the 1972 election because she didn't know a single person who voted for him. Kael actually never said this, but the story rings true because one can imagine many people saying something like that. I spent the last few days meeting clients in New York City. The expression on the faces of people while walking down the streets in Manhattan - which went 87%-to-10% for Clinton over Trump - said it all. Most people seemed dazed and confused by what happened on November 8th. Trump did not win because of his personality. He won in spite of it. As I have emphasized over the past 18 months - starting with my presentation at the 2015 BCA New York Conference, which featured the prediction that "The Trumpists Will Win" - Trumpism is a lot more popular than Trump. How else can someone with a 62% unfavorability rating become the next president of the United States (Chart 1)? The reason that Trump won is because he addressed many of the legitimate grievances of blue collar workers in swing states that establishment politicians had long ignored. As we discussed last year in a report entitled "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know,"1 trade with China has led to a hollowing out of the U.S. manufacturing base; low-skilled immigration has dragged down blue collar wages; and the flow of drugs into the U.S. from across the southern border is a legitimate problem. Donald Trump And The Markets I will have much more to say about the long-term economic and political consequences of Trump's victory in a special report that I intend to publish next week. For now, however, let me concentrate on the near-term investment implications. Global equities plunged in the immediate aftermath of the election results, while the dollar weakened and Treasurys rallied. This knee-jerk reaction largely stemmed from the fear that a Trump presidency would be highly destabilizing for the global economy. In such an environment, the Fed would not be able to raise rates very much, which is a clear negative for the greenback. Trump's conciliatory victory speech helped soothe frayed nerves, sending both the dollar and Treasury yields higher. This was consistent with our expectations. As we argued in "A Trump Victory Would Be Bullish For The Dollar" and in "Three New Controversial Calls: Trump Wins And The Dollar Rallies," all three of Trump's signature policy proposals - fiscal stimulus, a more restrictive immigration policy, and trade protectionism - are bullish for the dollar and bearish for bonds.2 Fiscal Stimulus On The Horizon Now that Donald Trump has a Republican House and Senate to work with, there is a high probability that he will be able to push through a sizable infrastructure bill (sidebar: I am writing these words from the Kabul-like departure area at LaGuardia airport. My flight to Montreal is delayed because Trump's plane, which he dubs Trump Force One, will be taking off soon). In addition to increasing infrastructure spending, Trump has pledged to raise defense expenditures and enact sizable tax cuts. The Tax Policy Center estimates that Trump's tax plan alone would increase the federal debt by $6.2 trillion over the next ten years (excluding additional interest), representing approximately 2.6% of GDP of fiscal stimulus per year.3 We doubt that Congress will approve anything close to that. Nevertheless, even if he gets one quarter of the revenue and expenditure measures that he is seeking, this would be enough to boost aggregate demand growth by 0.5%-to-1% per year over the next two years. Pulling Back The Welcome Mat Chart 2Trump's Hard Line On Trade ##br##And Illegal Immigration Would##br## Benefit Low-Skilled Workers Trump's Hard Line On Trade And Illegal Immigration Would Benefit Low-Skilled Workers Trump's Hard Line On Trade And Illegal Immigration Would Benefit Low-Skilled Workers Immigration policy is one of those areas where the president can do a lot without congressional approval. Existing U.S. immigration laws are already very strict; they just happen to be enforced in a highly haphazard manner. High-skilled workers who want to go through the proper legal channels to gain residency must jump through all sorts of burdensome hoops; in contrast, low-skilled workers who enter the country illegally can generally evade detection and prosecution. This obviously makes for a suboptimal immigration system. Trump's campaign rhetoric has generally focused on combating illegal immigration. Although his official immigration policy paper - allegedly ghost-written by Senator Jeff Sessions - mentions cutting back on high-skill H1-B visas, at times Trump has appeared to disavow that view, stressing his desire to bring in only "the best" immigrants. Our suspicion is that a Trump presidency would generally take a fairly soft stance towards high-skilled immigrants, focusing instead on curbing illegal immigration through increased border security and the rollout of a mandatory national E-Verify system. Since illegal immigrants are generally poorly educated, such an outcome would raise the wages of low-skilled workers. Chart 2 shows that the pool of unemployed low-skilled workers has largely evaporated in recent years. Higher wage growth, in turn, could cause the Fed to hike rates more aggressively than it otherwise would, helping to push up the value of the dollar. Protectionism And The Dollar As with immigration, the executive branch has a lot of discretion over trade policy. There is an ongoing debate about whether sitting presidents can withdraw from trade deals that they do not like without congressional approval. The prevailing legal view is that they can, but even if that turns out not to be the case, they can certainly take other measures that increase import barriers. Such tactics have often been used by Republican presidents who liked to portray themselves as free traders. For instance, Ronald Reagan imposed voluntary export restraints on Japanese automakers and major foreign steel producers, raised tariffs on Japanese motorcycles, and tightened quotas on sugar imports. George W. Bush also increased tariffs on steel imports and imposed quotas on Chinese textiles. It goes without saying that Donald Trump would not be averse to taking similar steps. The threat of punitive measures is likely to dissuade some U.S. companies from moving production abroad. On the flipside, the fear of losing access to the U.S. market might persuade some foreign companies to relocate production to the United States. Such worries were a key reason why Japanese automobile companies began to invest in new U.S. production capacity starting in the 1980s. This could help reduce the U.S. trade deficit. A smaller trade deficit, in turn, would increase aggregate demand. This, in conjunction with the adverse supply-side effects that protectionist measures typically result in, would cause the output gap to narrow further, forcing the Fed to step up the pace of rate hikes. In addition, standard trade theory suggests that higher trade barriers would raise real wages for low-skilled workers. Since such workers tend to have the highest marginal propensity to consume, this, too, would boost aggregate demand. Trump And The Fed While Trump's policy proposals are all dollar bullish and bond bearish, where does Trump himself want the dollar and bond yields to go? The answer will obviously influence his relationship with the Fed and how he responds to any dollar strength. As with many of his policy ideas, it is hard to know exactly where Trump stands. Investors are accustomed to politicians who constantly flip-flop on the issues. Trump takes it a step further. He may be the first "quantum" candidate to run for office: Just like an electron can have a different spin and position at the same time, Trump seems capable of believing multiple things at the same time and spinning any position to his liking. With that caveat in mind, we think that a Trump presidency would not represent a significant departure from existing monetary policy. While Trump has said that he would like to replace Janet Yellen with a Republican once her term expires in 2018, he has also said he has "great respect" for the Fed Chair, and that he is "not a person who thinks Janet Yellen is doing a bad job." As far as the direction of interest rates is concerned, Trump has acknowledged that "as a real estate person, I always like low interest rates," but "from the country's standpoint, I'm just not sure it's a very good thing, because I really do believe we're creating a bubble." Chart 3Still Below Past Peaks Still Below Past Peaks Still Below Past Peaks He also seemed to acknowledge that there is a limit to how strong the dollar can get. "If we raise interest rates," he said, "and if the dollar starts getting too strong, we're going to have some very major problems." Our conclusion is that Trump would welcome higher rates, so long as any dollar appreciation does not choke off growth. As we discussed last month in a report entitled "Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen," the combination of a rebound in business capex, less inventory destocking, and continued strong personal consumption growth thanks to rising wages could cause aggregate demand growth to rise to 2.5%-to-3% this year.4 Trump's victory increases the risk to these numbers to the upside. Since we published that report, the broad real trade-weighted dollar has gained about 1.5%. We are still comfortable with our view that the dollar will rise by another 8.5% over the next 11 months. As Chart 3 shows, this would still leave the greenback below its previous 1985 and 2001 highs. Trump And Other Central Banks A more difficult issue to handicap is how a Trump presidency will influence policy outside the U.S. Would China, for example, feel the need to prop up the RMB in order to avoid Trump's wrath? Would Japan be less willing to pursue an accommodative monetary policy in an indirect effort to weaken the yen, if this led to the threat of higher tariffs on Japanese exports to the U.S.? Our sense is that yes, a Trump administration will, to some extent, constrain the ability of other nations to weaken their currencies. That said, the impact is unlikely to be especially dramatic. China does manipulate its currency. But lately it has been selling foreign-exchange reserves in an effort to keep the RMB from falling more than it otherwise would. Thus, an end to China's intervention would mean a weaker yuan, not a stronger one. Likewise, as long as the Bank of Japan is not engaged in direct foreign asset purchases, the ability of the Trump administration to cry foul is limited. Equity Implications We must admit that we are surprised that global equities were so quick to shrug off their losses. Our expectation had been that stocks would weaken somewhat in the wake of a Trump victory. What happened? A few things come to mind. First, there has probably been a fair amount of short-covering from investors who had bought insurance against a Trump win. Second, investors, like all humans, tend to draw on analogies in making their decisions. The best analogy for what happened on November 8th is what occurred after the Brexit vote. The lesson from that episode is that one should buy stocks after a supposedly negative voting outcome. That is exactly what investors did Wednesday morning. Third, there are in fact some legitimate reasons why President Trump may be good for stocks. In addition to the prospect of lower corporate tax rates and fiscal stimulus, a Trump administration is likely to go soft on financial regulation. This, in tandem with a steeper yield curve, could prove to be a positive development for banks. A Trump administration is also good news for energy companies, particularly coal. Defense contractors should benefit from increased military expenditures. The implications for health care stocks is harder to gauge. While the potential repeal of the Affordable Care Act could hurt some companies, it may benefit others. Our hunch is that the net effect for health care earnings will be positive. Even if Obamacare is repealed, it is likely to be replaced with something that looks a lot like the existing legislation, just with more subsidies and giveaways for health care providers and drugmakers (think of Medicare Part D). Having said all this, investors now seem to be a bit too complacent about what a Trump presidency means for stocks. The risk of a trade war is still present. And even if Trump pulls in his protectionist horns, a tighter labor market, exacerbated by a potential shortage of immigrant workers, is likely to eat into corporate profit margins. Higher rates and a stronger dollar will also hurt. As such, we are maintaining our tactically cautious stance on global equities. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Trump Victory Would Be Bullish For The Dollar," dated June 3, 2016, and Special Report, "Three (New) Controversial Calls," (Call #1: Trump Wins, And The Dollar Rallies), dated September 30, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Jim Nunns, Len Burman, Ben Page, Jeff Rohaly, and Joe Rosenberg, "An Analysis Of Donald Trump's Revised Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center, October 18, 2016. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen," dated October 14, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Bond yields have room to move higher in the near run, but a move above 2% would represent a buying opportunity. U.S. elections are too close to call. Even if Trump wins, we caution that federal fiscal spending programs will have to work hard to offset the ongoing drag from sluggish state and local spending. Economic and inflation data will not stand in the way of a Fed rate hike in December. But heightened market volatility associated with the elections could still derail their plans. Feature October was a tough month for Treasuries, as the 10-year climbed 25 basis points since October 1. The sell-off puts Treasury yields closely in line with our bond strategists' estimate of fair value. This week, we review the factors that argue for or against a further rise in bond yields. Our conclusion is that the Treasury sell-off is likely to continue in the near run. Yields above 2% would represent a buying opportunity. The primary bearish driver for Treasuries in the next two months is the Fed. As we discuss below, recent economic data has been decent enough to meet the Fed's threshold for a rate hike and inflation indicators are moving towards the Fed's 2% target. Indeed, the FOMC statement released last Wednesday sent a mildly hawkish signal by highlighting that growth has improved, while both inflation expectations and realized inflation are tracking higher. The statement very much keeps a December rate hike in play, but it does not elevate the odds. In the FOMC meeting just prior to last year's rate hike, the Fed specifically mentioned the "next meeting" as a possibility for a rate increase. The Fed did not go as far this time around1 as policymakers are no doubt wary of spooking the markets when uncertainty is running high ahead of the U.S. election. Whether the Fed actually pulls the trigger in December will continue to hinge on the incoming economic data and the behavior of the markets following the election, but our base case remains that the Fed will follow through with a rate hike. The market is currently priced for a 65% chance of a rate move before the end of the year. This is roughly the same as the probability of a 2015 rate hike at this time last year (Chart 1). As long as the economic data remain reasonably firm, as we expect, then rate hike probabilities should follow last year's path and move to 100% by the December 13-14 FOMC meeting. Last year, the revision in the rate hike probability from November-December corresponded with a 35 bps rise in the 10-year Treasury. Chart 1Room For Expectations To Move Higher Room For Expectations To Move Higher Room For Expectations To Move Higher Since last year, the Fed has drastically downgraded its long-term rate projections. Recall that ahead of the December 2015 FOMC meeting, the Fed projected that the Fed funds rate would reach 1.4% in 2016. Since then, the Fed has revised downward its interest rate forecast to two rate hikes in 2017. Assuming the Fed does not revise these forecasts, it is unlikely that Treasuries respond as negatively as they did in 2015. Moreover, as we noted above, at 1.8% today, Treasuries are already roughly at fair value. During last year's sell-off, bond yields were starting from a substantially overbought level. This argues for a somewhat more muted reaction to a Fed rate hike, although we still expect yields could move higher. Beyond December, i.e. once the rate hike is priced in, our base case is that yields trend sideways for a time. The Fed's forecast for growth in 2017 is 2.0%, which would represent an increase of 0.5% from the first three quarters of 2016. If economic growth meets the Fed's expectation of 2%, then it is reasonable to expect that policymakers would increase twice next year, i.e. in line with their current forecasts. As shown in Chart 1, the Treasury market is not yet priced for this outcome: market participants currently assign only 80% odds to one rate hike by the end of 2017. The message is that the Fed, even with a reasonable (for the first time in years!) forecast for growth, will end up being a source of upward pressure on bond yields beyond 2017. There is nonetheless an important mitigating factor for bond yields: the U.S. dollar. A stronger currency represents a tightening of financial conditions that acts to depress expectations of future economic growth. This can spell trouble for risk assets and also lower the market-implied odds of future rate hikes. Indeed, a central bank can tighten monetary conditions, but does not have control over how much of the tightening comes via interest rates and how much through currency appreciation. In the current environment, the Fed knows that the process of normalizing interest rates will trigger bouts of volatility, because its actions will be exaggerated by movements in the currency. The bottom line is that we expect the Fed to tighten in December, followed by two more quarter-point hikes in 2017. Given that the bond market is not yet priced for this, the recent sell-off in bond yields will continue, perhaps to as high as 2%. Thereafter, we would expect Treasuries to trade in a fairly narrow range, with 2% representing the higher end of the band. A Coin Toss Election In the very near term, the U.S. elections pose an important risk to the view expressed above. For the past several months, market odds of a Trump Presidency have been positively correlated with the uncertainty index and negatively correlated with Treasury yields (Chart 2 and Chart 3). On the eve of the election, the race is once again too close to call. Our expectation has been that any flight-to-quality related to a Trump victory will be short-lived. However, with equity market multiples stretched and the earnings outlook still leaving much to be desired, equity markets are ripe for a correction. Chart 2Bond Market Tracks Uncertainty Bond Market Tracks Uncertainty Bond Market Tracks Uncertainty Chart 3Trump And Uncertainty bca.usis_wr_2016_11_07_c3 bca.usis_wr_2016_11_07_c3 In our September 26 Weekly Report, we warned that investors may be assigning too low odds of a Trump Presidential win. We posited that if the polls remained tight, the potential for further volatility was high. We followed up in mid-October, advising clients how to implement portfolio insurance against downside market risks, and specifically against a Trump election win. One recommended vehicle for insurance that we highlighted was the U.S. dollar, which is part of our Protector Portfolio (Chart 4 and Chart 5). We believe the currency will rally due to the combination of coming fiscal expansion and risk aversion flows on the back of a Trump win. True, this strategy has not held up in recent days, as the U.S. dollar has softened while Trump improves in the polls and risk assets have corrected. Still, the dollar's reputation as a safe-haven currency is well-deserved. It has consistently outperformed during times of crisis - even when the U.S. itself was the source, as most recently demonstrated during the summer 2011 budget impasse. Chart 4Protector Portfolio Components bca.usis_wr_2016_11_07_c4 bca.usis_wr_2016_11_07_c4 Chart 5Protector Portfolio Returns bca.usis_wr_2016_11_07_c5 bca.usis_wr_2016_11_07_c5 In a recent report,2 our geopolitical strategists outline several things to watch for on November 8, the day of the election, and in its immediate aftermath. The immediate developments most relevant for investors are anything that prolongs the period of uncertainty regarding voting. For example, the 2000 election is a reminder that the results may not be clear immediately. Although the 2000 election was held on November 7, the official result was not declared until November 26; Al Gore did not concede until December 12. This time, any number of things could delay declaring a winner, including a tie in the electoral college, or a "faithless elector," i.e. an electoral college member that does not cast his/her ballot for the candidate chosen by popular vote, and therefore causes the Supreme Court to intervene. A delay in declaring the election result would increase uncertainty and therefore be negative for risk assets. Longer term, the margin of victory has become important for policy. It is now clear that a Clinton win, if it were to happen, will be a narrow one. According to our Geopolitical Strategy team, it is almost guaranteed at this point that the chances of a Democratic sweep in the House of Representatives are zero. This is a positive development for the market as a Democratic sweep would mean a slew of anti-business regulation out of Congress. Nonetheless, a narrow win - with sub-50% of the vote - would give Hillary Clinton an extremely weak mandate. The probability of a compromise between the White House and GOP in Congress is therefore declining and puts in jeopardy any possibility of modest fiscal stimulus under a Clinton White House, or of corporate tax reforms. The likelihood of more fiscal spending in 2017 has become common lore among investors. Thus, a disappointment on that front would be negative for risk assets. Post-Election Government Spending Throughout the twists and turns of the U.S. election campaign, one higher conviction view that has endured at BCA is that popular sentiment is shifting away from fiscal austerity and that 2017 would feature more ambitious spending programs. That would be quite welcome, given that real government consumption and investment - at all levels of government - has been a drag on growth during most of the recovery since the Great Recession. Ongoing weakness at the Federal level is due to restraint in defense expenditure, while state and local spending has been weak due to a significant downtrend in tax revenues. It is notable that the decline in state tax revenues is not confined to oil-producing states. A recent report by the Rockefeller Institute compiled state tax revenue forecasts for 2017 and concludes that the decline in tax revenues from all sources (sales, income and corporate) will be slow to recover next year.3 Remember that states can only spend what they take in outside of infrastructure spending. If state and local governments can manage to cut the drag on real GDP to 0%, that would still leave a major onus for government spending on the federal government. Assuming the contribution to real GDP from state and local spending is zero, it would require a 6% annual growth in federal spending to return total government spending as a contribution to GDP back to its historic average of 0.4% (Chart 6). As Chart 7 shows, fiscal spending of that magnitude rarely occurs outside of recession. Chart 6(Part 1) How Much Fiscal Spending? (Part 1) How Much Fiscal Spending? (Part 1) How Much Fiscal Spending? Chart 7(Part 2) How Much Fiscal Spending? bca.usis_wr_2016_11_07_c7 bca.usis_wr_2016_11_07_c7 Importantly, how much long-term effect a fiscal boost will deliver depends on how well fiscal multipliers - which measure how much a dollar of increased government spending or reduced taxes raises output - are working. Indeed, the magnitude of fiscal multipliers continues to be a massive source of disagreement in policy circles. Recent work by the IMF suggests that the multiplier, in some economies and under certain interest rate settings, could be as high as four: for each dollar the U.S. government spends, it will generate another $4 dollars of GDP!4 Other academics put the fiscal multiplier at less than 0.5. The wide range of forecasts is due to several factors, but there are nonetheless some generally held principles: Fiscal stimulus tends to be more effective when the output gap is large: when output is well below its potential, the monetary policy response to an increase in spending is likely to be limited. In other words, fiscal multipliers are larger in recessions than in expansions.5 The type of fiscal stimulus matters, a lot. Table 1 shows a range of CBO estimates for different types of government activity. For example, income tax cuts on high income earners tend to have a low multiplier effect (well below 1), while direct spending by government, e.g. infrastructure outlays, tends to have a much higher multiplier (above 1). Multiplier effects tend to last no more than eight quarters when output is close to potential. Fiscal stimulus tends to have a more impressive impact, although short-lived (four quarters) when the output gap is large. Table 2 shows the CBO-estimated effect of an increase in demand over eight quarters under two different economic scenarios. The first is when monetary policy is constrained, and the second is when monetary policy responds to the increase in demand from government stimulus. Our guess is that we are currently somewhere in between the two economic scenarios presented: there is still an output gap and monetary policy is already off the zero bound. Thus, the fiscal multiplier is likely a little above than one, meaning that government spending does not "crowd out" private spending. Table 1Ranges For U.S. Fiscal Multipliers Policy, Polls, Probability Policy, Polls, Probability Table 2The Effect Of A $1 Increase In Aggregate Demand Over Eight Quarters Policy, Polls, Probability Policy, Polls, Probability Overall, government expenditures will contribute positively to GDP next year, though the amount of fiscal expansion is dependent on the political configuration in Washington after the elections. Similarly, the impact of any spending will depend on what form new fiscal measures takes. CBO research suggests that the fiscal multiplier will be slightly above 1. Business Sentiment: Neither Euphoria Nor Misery Without further participation from the government sector, the economy is likely to achieve above 2% real GDP growth. A more optimistic scenario could unfold if capex improves substantially and/or a Trump win significantly opens the fiscal taps. Recent private sector data shows that businesses are continuing on a mild expansion path. The ISM surveys of business confidence were little changed in October - sentiment among manufacturers is broadly unchanged, while respondents from the service sector were slightly less optimistic than the previous month (Chart 8). Still, the major indices remain above their boom/bust lines and respondents' comments suggest neither euphoria nor misery. Meanwhile, payrolls increased by 161,000 in October. Although this was slightly below the consensus forecast of 175,000, there was a cumulative 44,000 in upward revisions to the prior two months. Elsewhere, wages accelerated more than expected and average hourly earnings rose 0.4% m/m, pushing the annual growth rate to a new cyclical high of 2.8% (Chart 9). Chart 8ISM Surveys Are Steady bca.usis_wr_2016_11_07_c8 bca.usis_wr_2016_11_07_c8 Chart 9Wage Growth Is Perking Up bca.usis_wr_2016_11_07_c9 bca.usis_wr_2016_11_07_c9 To paraphrase from this week's FOMC statement, the employment report provides some further evidence that the U.S. economy is progressing towards the Fed's dual mandate. In itself, it reinforces the case for the Fed raise interest rates in December. It seems now that the only thing that could derail the Fed is an election surprise and related heightened market volatility. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20151028a.htm 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "It Ain't Over 'Till The Fat Man Sings," dated November 1, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/government_finance/state_revenue_report/2016-09-21-SRR_104_final.pdf 4 https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/wp1493.pdf 5 "How Powerful Are Fiscal Multipliers In Recessions? Alan Auerbach and Yuriy Gorodnichenko, NBER Reporter 2015, http://www.nber.org/reporter/2015number2/auerbach.html

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

Highlights The U.S. is not yet a "high-pressure" economy, but slack is dissipating. U.S. growth, while not torrid, will remain high enough to push interest rates higher. The euro area continues to exhibit tepid domestic demand growth, and slack there remains higher than in the U.S. Monetary divergences will grow, weighing on EUR/USD. The Canadian economy displays underlying weaknesses which will prevent the BoC from hiking for an extended period of time. Stay long USD/CAD, but favor the CAD to the AUD and the NZD on a USD rally. Feature Following Janet Yellen's Boston speech last week, a new phrase has entered the lexicon of investors: "high-pressure economy". The speech was originally interpreted as a clarion call to let the economy overheat in order to absorb the slack created by the shock of 2008. However, Yellen still sees some slack in the economy. In her eyes, an easy monetary stance, at this point, will not cause an overheating, it will only bring back to the marketplace workers that had left the labor force. Chart I-1Drying Global Liquidity bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s1_c1 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s1_c1 We have sympathy toward this view, especially when put in an international context where global capacity utilization remains depressed. Also, countries like China, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico have been intervening in the FX markets to preempt or limit downside to their currencies, tightening global liquidity conditions (Chart I-1). Nonetheless, the Fed Chair also highlighted that the FOMC did not want the U.S. economy to overheat as the domestic slack gets absorbed. Doing so would raise the risk that the Fed will have to then overcompensate by tightening rates very aggressively. This would prompt another recession. U.S.: Not High Pressure Yet, But... No indicator suggests that there is a burning need to quickly ratchet U.S. rates higher. However, domestic economic conditions are falling into place to justify a slow move toward higher rates. Our aggregate U.S. capacity utilization gauge is showing a dissipation of U.S. economic slack (Chart I-2, top panel). This is a side-effect of the tepid growth in the capital stock of U.S. businesses this cycle, which limits the expansion of the supply-side of the economy (Chart I-2, bottom panel). Meanwhile, household consumption should remain robust. Not only did 2015 register the strongest growth in the median household's real income since 1967, consumption is unlikely to slow much. In fact, vehicle-miles traveled and the Federal income tax receipts are both pointing toward healthy consumption (Chart I-3). Despite punky construction starts, housing activity shows signs of improvement. Housing inventories are near record lows and construction has underperformed household formation. Moreover, building permits are hooking upward, while housing affordability remains generous (Chart I-4). Additionally, the NAHB survey also points toward a rising share of residential activity in the economy (Chart I-4, bottom panel). Finally, capex intentions are slowly recovering. Moreover, the BCA House view is that the U.S. profit contraction is past its nadir. Going forward, capex and inventories are unlikely to subtract as much from growth as they did in 2015 and 2016. They may even become accretive to GDP growth. Chart I-2Vanishing U.S. Slack Vanishing U.S. Slack Vanishing U.S. Slack Chart I-3Positive Signs For The U.S. Consumer bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s1_c3 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s1_c3 Chart I-4Residential Investment Will Improve bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s1_c4 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s1_c4 Limited slack and a continued economic expansion imply a high likelihood of a Fed hike this year, and maybe two more next year if no shocks to financial conditions emerge. With markets currently pricing in 65 basis points of rate hikes by the end of 2019, this should lift rates across the curve. Higher interest rates on U.S. assets should drive private inflows into the country, pushing the U.S. dollar higher (Chart I-5). From a technical perspective, the U.S. capitulation index is breaking out to the upside following a pattern of lower highs. Since 2008, such breakouts have been followed by a significant rally in the broad trade-weighted dollar (Chart I-6). Thus, we continue to position ourselves for additional dollar strength this cycle. Chart I-5Flows Into The U.S. ##br##Are Set To Grow bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s1_c5 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s1_c5 Chart I-6Favorable Technical ##br##Backdrop For The Greenback bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s1_c6 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s1_c6 Bottom Line: The household sector remains healthy, and U.S. economic slack is dissipating. Hence, the Fed will try, rightfully or wrongly, to push rates higher this year and next, lifting the dollar in the process. Euro Area: Less Pressure A dollar rally could be painful for the euro. Yet, the euro is cheap and supported by a current account surplus of 3.3% of GDP (Chart I-7). What to do with this conflicting picture? For a currency to embark on a durable bull market, productivity growth needs to be stronger than that of its trading partners. A strong currency makes the tradeable-goods sector less competitive, hampering growth. A positive terms-of-trade shock, like that undergone by commodity producers during the previous decade can also do the trick. Neither of these statements currently describe the euro area. Another avenue for a country to withstand a strong currency is for growth to be domestically driven. If household consumption is the main locomotive, exporters' loss of market share do not hurt activity as much. This is true until the domestic economy enters a recession, an event usually driven by higher policy rates. This is why when the share of salaries in the U.S. economy expands, the dollar undergoes cyclical bull markets (Chart I-8). More salaries in the national income means more consumption. Chart I-7Euro ##br##Supports Euro Supports Euro Supports Chart I-8Domestically-Driven Growth##br## Is Good For A Currency Domestically-Driven Growth Is Good For A Currency Domestically-Driven Growth Is Good For A Currency In the euro area, GDP growth is above trend, but, in recent quarters, final private domestic demand has been weak (Chart I-9). In fact, last quarter, net exports were the main contributor to growth. This could explain why, since 2015, stronger European business surveys vis-à-vis the U.S. were unable to boost EUR/USD (Chart I-10). Chart I-9European Consumption##br## Isn't Strong Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences Chart I-10If EUR/USD Could Not ##br##Rally Then, When Will It? bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s1_c10 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s1_c10 We do expect eurozone final domestic demand to remain tepid. Yes, the credit impulse has improved, but this amelioration will prove temporary. The previous rebound in credit flows reflected the movement from a large contraction to a small expansion. Today, the dismal performance of euro area bank stocks - which have been a good leading indicator of European loan growth - points to slowing credit growth (Chart I-11). Fiscal policy is also moving from a small positive to a small negative. Work by the ECB staff shows that the cyclically adjusted budget balance in Europe fell by 0.3%, from -1.7% to -2.0% of GDP in 2016. Aggregate cyclically-adjusted budget balances are forecasted to improve to -1.8% and -1.6% of GDP in 2017 and 2018, respectively, representing a 0.2% fiscal drag each year. While a small number, we have to keep in mind that euro area trend growth is between 0.5% and 1%. This suggests that the European economy remains ill-equipped to handle a stronger euro. Moreover, the European economy exhibits much more slack than the U.S. economy. While total hours worked in the U.S. are 14% above Q1 2010 levels, in Europe, they are only 1.5% above such levels (Chart I-12), a gap much greater than demographics alone would have suggested. This means that monetary divergence will continue between Europe and the U.S. Chart I-11Euro Area Credit Impulse Will Weaken bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s1_c11 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s1_c11 Chart I-12Less Capacity Pressures In Europe Less Capacity Pressures In Europe Less Capacity Pressures In Europe In fact, this week, the ECB did little to dispel this notion. Beyond trying to squash ideas of a sudden end to the QE program or any imminent tapering, president Draghi communicated that December will be the month when the real action occurs. Based on current trends, we expect the ECB to extend its QE program beyond March, but to hint at a tapering of purchases later in 2017. The ECB will also make it very clear that rates will remain as low as they currently are for an extremely long time. Thus, while the ECB might be slowly moving away from its hyper-stimulative stance, it will not do so as fast as the Fed. Therefore, policy divergences should continue to weigh on EUR/USD. Technicals are also pointing toward a lower euro. Not only has EUR/USD broken down its 1-year old series of higher lows, the euro's capitulation index, the intermediate-term momentum indicator, and the euro's A/D line are forming negative divergences with EUR/USD (Chart I-13). An interesting way to play the euro's weakness is to go short EUR/CZK, a position championed by our Emerging Market Strategy service.1 A floor at 27 has been set under EUR/CZK since November 2013. Yet, this floor looks increasingly untenable. Speculators are beginning to pile in. This week, 2-year Czech yields temporarily dipped below those of Swiss 2-year bonds, the current holder of the world's lowest yield. To fight appreciation pressures, the Czech National Bank (CNB) is accumulating a lot of reserves by buying euros, which is fueling a surge in the money supply (Chart I-14, top panel). Chart I-13Worrying Euro ##br##Technicals Worrying Euro Technicals Worrying Euro Technicals Chart I-14CZK: Reserves Expansion##br## Leading To Inflation bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s1_c14 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s1_c14 This accumulation of reserves, in turn, is fanning inflationary forces in the Czech economy. The output gap is closing and core inflation already is increasing at a rate of 1.8% p.a. Easy financial conditions and expanding credit growth are likely to boost already-accelerating unit labor costs and wages (Chart I-14, bottom panel). This means that the 2% inflation target is likely to be hit as early as Q2 2017 according to the CNB. We expect this goal to be handily surpassed if the floor stays in place. Thus, we expect the CNB to abandon the floor within the next twelve months and we are shorting EUR/CZK. Finally, while we are bearish EUR/USD, we do believe that the euro will outperform the pound and commodity currencies. Moreover, despite poorer fundamentals, the euro could also temporarily outperform the SEK and the NOK if the dollar strengthens. The latter two are more sensitive to the USD than the euro is. Bottom Line: EUR/USD is at risk from the broad dollar rally. It is also likely to suffer from the tepid state of the euro area's final domestic demand, fueling monetary-policy divergences with the U.S. A speculative opportunity to short EUR/CZK is emerging, as the CNB's peg is outliving its usefulness. Canada: Falling Pressure USD/CAD has become more correlated with movements in rate differentials than with the vagaries of oil prices (Chart I-15). This puts the actions of the Bank of Canada in sharper focus. As expected, this week, the BoC left policy rates unchanged at 0.5%. More interesting was the quarterly monetary report. The economy has rebounded from the slump induced by the Q2 Alberta wildfires, and many key gauges of the Canadian economy have improved (Chart I-16). Yet, the BoC is looking the other way. Chart I-15CAD: Now More Rates Than Oil bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s1_c15 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s1_c15 Chart I-16The BoC Is Looking The Other Way... bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s1_c16 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s1_c16 The BoC is now forecasting the Canadian output gap to close in mid-2018; in July, this was expected to happen in the second half of 2017. This is because the BoC cut the expected Canadian growth rate by a cumulative 0.5% over the next two years. There have been some worrying developments warranting a more cautious forecast. While the Trudeau government's new childcare benefits are currently being rolled out and new infrastructure spending is to be implemented in 2017, the Canadian private sector's finances are increasingly shaky. The aggregate debt-servicing costs of the non-financial private sector is at record highs, with generous contributions from both households and the corporate sector (Chart I-17). The aggregate credit impulse has responded to this handicap, contracting by 7% of potential GDP, a move driven by the corporate sector (Chart I-18). While not as dramatic, the pace of debt accumulation by the household sector has also weakened. Recent administrative measures to cool the housing market - put in place by various provincial entities as well as the federal government - could accentuate this trend. Chart I-17...Rightfully So bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s1_c17 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s1_c17 Chart I-18Collapsing Canadian Credit Impulse Collapsing Canadian Credit Impulse Collapsing Canadian Credit Impulse Another problem for Canada has been its loss of competitiveness. Non-oil Canadian exports have not responded as expected to the fall in the CAD. This is because many Canadian manufacturers have set up factories in Mexico and other EMs, or are competing with firms operating out of these nations. With these countries' currencies witnessing devaluations as deep as, or deeper than the loonie's, it is no wonder that Canada has lost market shares in the U.S. (Chart I-19). This means that Canadian rates will remain low for longer, making Canada another contributor to global monetary divergences vis-a-vis the U.S. The BoC is right to be worried that the Canadian economy will take longer than anticipated to close its output gap. With the pass-through to inflation of a lower CAD dissipating, the BoC expects Canadian core inflation to remain well contained for the next two years. We see little cause to disagree. This means that despite trading at a premium to PPP, USD/CAD has upside. Moreover, the Canadian dollar's A/D line is rolling over, another factor pointing to upside for USD/CAD (Chart I-20). At this point, the biggest risk to our view is oil. If WTI can breakout above $52 - perhaps in response to an as-yet negotiated OPEC/Russia oil-production cut or freeze - this could mitigate the downside for the CAD. Thus, while we like USD/CAD, we think the CAD has upside against the AUD and the NZD, especially as the loonie is less sensitive to the USD and EM spreads than the two antipodean currencies. Chart I-19Canada Is Losing Competitiveness Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences Chart I-20Falling CAD A/D Line Falling CAD A/D Line Falling CAD A/D Line Bottom Line: The Canadian economy is showing surprising signs of underlying weakness. With the CAD having recently been more correlated to rate differentials than to oil, USD/CAD could rally on monetary divergences. That being said, on the back of a strong USD, CAD is likely to outperform the AUD and NZD. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Central European Strategy: Two Currency Trades", dated September 28, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c1 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c2 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c2 Policy Commentary: "The risks have changed in terms of overshooting what I think is full employment with implications for potential imbalances...Those imbalances might result in a reaction by the Fed that we end up having to tighten more quickly than I would like" - FOMC Voting Member Eric Rosengren (October 17, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c3 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c3 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c4 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c4 Policy Commentary: "An abrupt ending to bond purchases, I think, is unlikely...We remain committed to preserving a very substantial degree of monetary accommodation" - ECB President Mario Draghi (October 20, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c5 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c5 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c6 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c6 Policy Commentary: "Since the employment situation has continued to improve, no further easing of monetary policy may be necessary... at any rate, I would like to discuss this thoroughly with other board members at our monetary policy meeting" - BoJ Board Member Yutaka Harada (October 12, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c7 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c7 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c8 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c8 Policy Commentary: "Our judgment in the summer was that we could have seen another 400,000-500,000 people unemployed over the course of the next few years...So we're willing to tolerate a bit of overshoot in inflation over the course of the next few years in order to avoid that situation, to cushion the blow" - BOE Governor Mark Carney (October 14, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c9 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c9 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c10 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c10 Policy Commentary: "We have never thought of our job as keeping the year-ended rate of inflation between 2 and 3 percent at all times...Given the uncertainties in the world, something more prescriptive and mechanical is neither possible nor desirable" - RBA Governor Philip Lowe (October 17, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c11 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c11 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c12 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c12 Policy Commentary: "There are several reasons for low inflation - both here and abroad. In New Zealand, tradable inflation, which accounts for almost half of the CPI regimen, has been negative for the past four years. Much of the weakness in inflation can be attributed to global developments that have been reflected in the high New Zealand dollar and low inflation in our import prices" - RBNZ Assistant Governor John McDermott (October 11, 2016) Report Links: Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 The Fed is Trapped Under Ice - September 9, 2016 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c13 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c13 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c14 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c14 Policy Commentary: "Given the downgrade to our outlook, Governing Council actively discussed the possibility of adding more monetary stimulus at this time, in order to speed up the return of the economy to full capacity" - BoC Governor Stephen Poloz (October 19, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c15 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c15 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c16 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c16 Policy Commentary: "[On the effects of low interest rates on the housing market]...If you look at the recent past, the dynamics have been a bit more reassuring...[still]let's not forget, this disequilibrium that we have achieved remains very high" - SNB Vice-President Fritz Zurbruegg (October 12, 2016) Report Links: Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 Clashing Forces - July 29, 2016 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c17 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c17 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c18 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c18 Policy Commentary: "A period of low interest rates can engender financial imbalances. The risk that growth in property prices and debt will become unsustainably high over time is increasing. With high debt ratios, households are more vulnerable to cyclical downturns" - Norges Bank Governor Oystein Olsen (October 11, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c19 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c19 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c20 bca.fes_wr_2016_10_21_s2_c20 Policy Commentary: "[On Sweden's financial stability]...it remains an issue because we are mismanaging out housing market. Our housing market isn't under control in my view" - Riksbank Governor Stefan Ingves (October 27, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Dazed And Confused - July 1, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights The near-term RMB outlook is entirely dictated by the movement of the dollar. We expect the CNY/USD to weaken alongside broad dollar strength, which could rekindle financial market volatility and cap the upside in Chinese stocks. The Chinese currency is better prepared for a stronger dollar than a year ago, and therefore the authorities should be able to maintain exchange rate stability. Joining the SDR does not automatically award the RMB international currency status. However, raising the relevance of the SDR as well as the RMB is part of China's long-term strategic plan. Feature The resumption of the dollar bull market has once again generated downward pressure on the RMB. How long the dollar bull run will last remains to be seen, but the broader global backdrop supports its continued strength against other major currencies, at least in the near term, including the yuan. Renewed downward pressure on the RMB may be perceived as a sign of domestic economic troubles, which could expedite capital outflows, creating a self-feeding vicious circle. The saving grace is that the Chinese currency is better prepared for a stronger dollar than a year ago, and therefore the authorities should be able to maintain exchange rate stability. Interestingly, the RMB's renewed weakness came in the wake of its official inclusion in the IMF's Special Drawing Right (SDR) basket early this month. While joining the SDR bears no near-term relevance from both an economic and financial market point of view, it marks an important milestone in the internationalization process of the RMB, with potential longer term implications. The RMB: From Goldilocks To Gridlock Chart 1The RMB: Stronger Or Weaker? The RMB: Stronger Or Weaker? The RMB: Stronger Or Weaker? The relapse of the CNY/USD of late is entirely driven by the strong dollar. While the RMB has weakened against the greenback, it has strengthened in trade-weighted terms (Chart 1). This is undoubtedly bad news for China, as it has very quickly pushed the RMB from a goldilocks scenario to essentially a gridlock. The goldilocks scenario that prevailed over the past several months was ushered in primarily by the weak dollar. It allowed the RMB to stay largely stable against the dollar but weaken substantially in trade-weighted terms - an ideal combination for both the market and the economy. Investors took comfort in a stable CNY/USD, while the Chinese economy benefited from the reflationary impact of a weaker trade-weighted exchange rate. In this vein, the reversal of the dollar trend will also lead to a reversal of this positive dynamic that prevailed over the past several months. Financial markets and investors will once again pay attention to the weakening CNY/USD, while the "stealth" depreciation of the trade-weighted RMB will also be halted, removing its reflationary impact. In other words, a weaker CNY/USD and a stronger trade-weighted RMB is the least desirable combination for both financial markets and the economy. To break this gridlock, the People's Bank of China (PBoC) could either "peg" the currency to the dollar, or weaken it substantially enough to achieve a weaker RMB in trade-weighted terms, neither of which is likely in our view. The path of least resistance is for the PBoC to bear it out, with managed CNY/USD depreciation together with tightened capital account controls to prevent capital flight. This is far from optimal and may still stoke financial market volatility, similar to the several episodes last year when a weakening RMB stoked fears of Chinese financial instability. However, a few factors suggest that this time the PBoC may be better prepared: Frist, the Chinese authorities have been paying much more attention to "open-mouth" operations in communicating their intention to market participants. Overall, investors are less 'spooked" by China's foreign exchange rate policy than a year ago. Second, pressure from capital outflows from the corporate sector will likely subside going forward. Paying down foreign debt has been one of the biggest sources of capital outflows in the past year, which has substantially reduced the domestic corporate sector's foreign currency liabilities (Chart 2).1 Moreover, despite dwindling foreign debt obligations, the corporate sector still holds near-record-high foreign currency deposits (Chart 3), which should further reduce its incentive to hoard the dollar. Chart 2Corporate Sector Foreign ##br##Debt Has Dropped Substantially... bca.cis_wr_2016_10_20_c2 bca.cis_wr_2016_10_20_c2 Chart 3... But Still Hoards ##br##Lots Of Dollar Deposits bca.cis_wr_2016_10_20_c3 bca.cis_wr_2016_10_20_c3 Further, Chinese growth is a tad stronger than last year, due largely to the reflationary impact of previous easing measures, including a weaker trade-weighted RMB. Even though the headline third quarter GDP growth figures reported this week remained essentially unchanged, the industrial sector has recovered notably, with improving activity, strengthening pricing power and accelerating profits. As economic variables typically respond to policy thrusts with a time lag, we expect the economy will continue to build momentum in the coming months, even if the reflationary impact of the RMB begins to diminish. More importantly, the Chinese government appears more willing to engage in fiscal pump-priming than last year, with a focus on infrastructure and private-public-partnership projects. Improving growth momentum and expansionary fiscal policy should be supportive for the exchange rate. Finally, the CNY/USD is already 12% lower than its peak in early 2014, and is no longer significantly overvalued, according to our valuation models (Chart 4). This means that additional CNY/USD weakness will further boost market share of Chinese products in the U.S., helping China to reflate while at the same time acting as an increasingly heavier drag on the U.S (Chart 5). It is therefore in the mutual interests of both the Chinese and U.S. authorities to maintain a steady RMB exchange rate. The U.S. Treasury once again cleared China from being currency manipulator in its last week's semi-annual review, and acknowledged the PBoC's efforts in preventing rapid RMB depreciation as beneficial for both the Chinese and global economies. To be sure, the U.S. and China will not explicitly coordinate monetary policy to regulate exchange rate movements. However, a weaker CNY/USD will lead to much quicker dollar appreciation in trade-weighted terms than otherwise, which in of itself will prove self-limiting. Chart 4RMB/USD Is No Longer Overvalued RMB/USD Is No Longer Overvalued RMB/USD Is No Longer Overvalued Chart 5A Weaker RMB/USD Is ##br##Boosting Chinese Exports To The U.S. A Weaker RMB/USD Is Boosting Chinese Exports To The U.S. A Weaker RMB/USD Is Boosting Chinese Exports To The U.S. The bottom line is that the near-term RMB outlook is entirely dictated by the movement of the dollar. We expect the CNY/USD to weaken alongside broad dollar strength in the near term, but unless the dollar massively overshoots the downside will not be substantial. This could rekindle financial market volatility and cap the upside in Chinese stocks. We tactically downgraded our "bullishness" rating on Chinese H shares from "overweight" to "neutral" last week,2 and this view remains unchanged. At the same time, we continue to argue against being outright bearish, because of the deeply depressed valuation matrix of this asset class, especially H shares. When Will The RMB Float? We expect Chinese regulators will tighten capital account controls significantly in the coming months in order to slow capital outflows in the wake of renewed CNY/USD depreciation. The impossible trinity of international finance dictates that a country cannot target its exchange rate with independent monetary policy and simultaneously allow free capital flows. Among these three conditions, "free capital flows" is the least-costly sacrifice. There is no way the PBoC will raise interest rates to defend the currency. Tightening capital account controls goes against the long-term objective of China's foreign exchange rate reforms, but it is not only justified but necessary in the near term. Pointing at the dilemma the PBoC faces today, some pundits are now singing the "I-told-you-so" song, claiming the country should have moved to a much greater degree of exchange-rate flexibility "back when the going was good", as they had advised. In our view, this argument is completely flawed. In previous years when "the going was good", China was facing massive foreign capital inflows, unleashed by extremely aggressive monetary easing by other central banks in the wake of the global financial crisis. If the PBoC indeed took this advice back then and did not intervene to slow down RMB appreciation by hoarding massive foreign reserves, it would simply have led to a dramatic overshoot of the RMB. By the same token, when the tide turned, capital outflows would have proven overwhelming, leading to an RMB collapse. In fact, without the massive foreign reserves accumulated in previous years during the PBoC's RMB intervention, the Chinese authorities' ability to maintain exchange rate stability would have been much more seriously challenged, particularly in the past year. Chart 6Lopsided Expectations On The RMB ##br##Drive One-Way Moves Of Capital Flows bca.cis_wr_2016_10_20_c6 bca.cis_wr_2016_10_20_c6 In other words, the key problem with China's exchange rate is that expectations on the RMB have been lopsided in recent years (Chart 6). Consequently, the RMB has long been a one-way bet, accompanied by one-way moves of capital flows. The unanimous view on a rising RMB in previous years drove capital inflows; expectations completely reversed in 2015, leading to persistent outflows. In this environment, without the PBoC's intervention, a "greater degree of exchange rate flexibility" as advised by some would simply mean extreme RMB moves, inevitably leading to much greater financial and economic volatility. Therefore, the RMB should only be allowed to float when there is a healthy divergence of views among market participants, so that there are enough "buyers" and "sellers" to collectively price the RMB exchange at a market-determined "equilibrium" level. Until then, any premature and imprudent capital account deregulation would prove catastrophic, and should be avoided at all cost. We are hopeful the Chinese authorities will remain pragmatic enough not to hasten this process. The RMB's SDR Debut: Playing The Long Game The RMB has officially joined the SDR basket since the beginning of October, the first emerging country currency to join this "elite club". The RMB's SDR debut has little economic relevance in the near term. If anything, officially joining the SDR means that the RMB, under China's prevailing capital account regulations, meets the IMF's criteria as a "freely usable" currency. Therefore, it implies that the IMF endorses China's capital control measures currently in place. Some analysts suggest that the Chinese government's determination to join the SDR is largely to show off national pride. In our view, it serves more pragmatic purposes both at the private and official level. Chart 7The RMB's Rising Importance As ##br##An International Payment Currency The RMB's Near-Term Dilemma And Long-Term Ambition The RMB's Near-Term Dilemma And Long-Term Ambition At the private level, an important function of an international currency is for trade invoicing - an area where the RMB has witnessed remarkable progress in recent years. The RMB currently ranks fifth among world payment currencies, accounting for a mere 2% of world payments, which pales in comparison with the dollar's 40% and the euro's 30%. However, an increasingly large share of China-related trade has been settled directly with the RMB. Currently, the RMB accounts for about 13% for all international payments sent and received by value with China and Hong Kong (Chart 7), up from practically zero a few years ago. Moreover, RMB settlement already accounts for over half of Chinese trade with specific regions such as the Middle East and African countries. For Example, the use of the RMB in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Qatar accounted for 74% and 60% of their respective payments to China/Hong Kong in 2015. As the largest trade partner with a growing number of countries, China should have no problem continuing to promote RMB settlement, especially in the emerging world. At the official level, the Chinese government is certainly intent on having the RMB act as an international reserve currency, but not in such a way as to challenge the dollar's mighty dominance. Rather, the government appears to be following dual mandates in its purse. Domestically, it is aiming to use the SDR inclusion as a catalyst to reform its financial system, much like what joining the World Trade Organization (WTO) in the early 2000s did to its manufacturing sector. Globally, it is seeking to play a more active role in reforming the international monetary system. After witnessing the dramatic liquidity crunch during the global financial crisis, the Chinese authorities see the necessity to reduce the world's heavy reliance on the dollar by creating credible alternatives. Neither of these dual mandates can be easily accomplished, but it is important to keep the big picture in mind in understanding China's policy initiatives going forward. The bottom line is that joining the SDR does not automatically award the RMB international currency status, and it is naïve to expect the RMB to challenge the U.S. dollar anytime soon, if at all. However, raising the relevance of the SDR as well as the RMB is part of China's long-term strategic plan. Its determination to internationalize the RMB should not be underestimated. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Mapping China's Capital Outflows: A Balance Of Payment Perspective", dated February 3, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Housing Tightening: Now And 2010", dated October 13, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Recent U.S. economic data have surprised to the upside, raising the odds of a December rate hike. U.S. GDP growth is likely to accelerate further in 2017 on the back of stronger business capex, a turn in the inventory cycle, and a pickup in government spending. Faster wage growth should also support consumption. The real broad trade-weighted dollar will appreciate by 10% over the next 12 months, as the market prices in more Fed tightening. The stronger dollar will pose a headache for U.S. multinationals, as well as emerging markets and commodity producers. However, it will be a boon for Europe and Japan. Global equities are vulnerable to a near-term correction, but the longer-term outlook for developed market stocks outside the U.S. looks reasonably good. Investors should overweight euro area and Japanese equities in currency-hedged terms. Feature Why The Fed Hit The Pause Button When the FOMC decided to hike rates last December, it signaled to investors via its "dot plot" that rates would likely rise four times this year. Ten months later, the fed funds rate remains unchanged. What caused the Fed to stand down? External factors certainly played a role: Fears of a hard landing in China permeated the markets at the start of the year. And just as these worries were beginning to recede, the Brexit vote sent investors into a hurried panic. However, the more important reason for the Fed's decision to hit the pause button is that U.S. domestic activity slowed sharply, with real GDP growing by just 0.9% in Q4 of 2015 and by an average of 1.1% in the first half of 2016. Rays Of Light Fortunately, recent data suggest that the growth drought may be ending (Chart 1): Chart 1Some Bright Spots In the U.S. Data Some Bright Spots In the U.S. Data Some Bright Spots In the U.S. Data The ISM non-manufacturing index jumped 5.7 points in September, the largest monthly increase on record. The ISM manufacturing index also surprised to the upside, with the new orders index jumping six points to 55.1. Factory orders increased by 0.2% in August, against consensus expectations for a modest decline. Initial unemployment claims continue to decline, with the four-week average falling to a 42-year low this week. The Conference's Board's consumer confidence index hit a nine-year high in September. The University of Michigan's index also rose. The key question for investors is whether the recent spate of good data is just noise or the start of a more lasting improvement in underlying demand growth. We think it's the latter. As we expand upon below, the adverse lagged effects on growth from the dollar's appreciation between mid-2014 and early this year should dissipate, pushing aggregate demand higher. Energy sector capex appears to be stabilizing after plunging nearly 70% since its peak in 2014. Stronger wage growth should also keep consumption demand elevated, even as employment growth continues to decelerate. In addition, fiscal policy is likely to loosen somewhat regardless of who wins the presidential election. Lastly, the inventory cycle appears to be turning, following five straight quarters in which falling inventory investment subtracted from growth. To what extent will better U.S. growth translate into a stronger dollar? To answer this question, we proceed in three steps: First, we estimate the magnitude by which U.S. growth will exceed its trend rate if the Fed takes no action to tighten financial conditions. Our answer is "by around one percentage point in 2017," which we think is considerably above market expectations. Second, we assess the degree to which the Fed will need to tighten financial conditions - via higher interest rates and a stronger dollar - in order to keep inflation from significantly overshooting its target. Third, we consider how developments abroad will affect the dollar. Our conclusion is that the real trade-weighted dollar will likely rise by around 10% over the next 12 months. How Quickly Will Aggregate Demand Grow If The Fed Does Not Raise Rates? As detailed below, a bottom-up analysis of the various components of GDP suggests that real GDP growth could reach 2.5% in the second half of 2016 and accelerate to 2.8% in 2017 if financial conditions remain unchanged from current levels. This would represent a significant step up in growth from the average pace of 1.6% experienced between Q1 of 2015 and Q2 of 2016. While growth of 2.8% next year might sound implausibly high, keep in mind that real final sales to private domestic purchasers - the cleanest measure of underlying private-sector demand - has grown by an average of 3% since Q3 of 2014 and increased by 3.2% in Q2 of this year, the last quarter for which data is available. Consumption Assuming that interest rates and the dollar remain unchanged, we project that real personal consumption will grow by an average of 2.7% in Q4 of this year and over the course of 2017. This is equivalent to the average growth rate of real PCE between Q1 of 2015 and Q2 of 2016, but below the 3% pace recorded in the first half of this year. Granted, employment growth is likely to slow over the coming quarters, as labor market slack is absorbed. Nevertheless, real income growth should remain reasonably robust, as real wages accelerate in response to a tighter labor market. A rough rule of thumb is that a 1% increase in real wage growth boosts real household income by the equivalent of 120,000 extra jobs per month over one full year. Thus, it would not take much of a pickup in wage growth to ensure that consumption keeps rising at a fairly solid pace. In fact, one could see a virtuous circle emerging, where accelerating wage growth pushes up consumption, leading to a tighter labor market, and even faster wage growth. At some point the Fed would raise rates by enough to cool the economy, but not before the dollar had moved sharply higher. This may explain why there is such a strikingly strong correlation between the dollar and labor's share of national income (Chart 2). Households may also end up spending a bit more of their incomes. Faster wage growth, rising consumer confidence, continued home price appreciation, and negative real deposit rates have all given households even more incentive to spend freely. While we do not expect the savings rate to fall anywhere close to the rock-bottom levels seen before the financial crisis, even a 0.5 percentage point decline from the current level of 5.7%, spread out over six quarters, would add 0.4% to GDP growth. Residential Investment Real residential investment dropped 7.7% in Q2 after growing by an average of nearly 12% over the preceding six quarters. The Q2 dip was mainly due to the warm winter, which pulled forward home-improvement spending. Housing activity has recovered since then, with new home sales, single-family housing starts, and the NAHB homebuilders index all at or near post-crisis highs (Chart 3). Chart 2The Dollar Is Redistributing Income bca.gis_wr_2016_10_14_c2 bca.gis_wr_2016_10_14_c2 Chart 3U.S. Housing Remains Robust U.S. Housing Remains Robust U.S. Housing Remains Robust The underpinnings for housing continue to look good. The ratio of household debt-to-GDP has declined nearly 20 points from its 2008 high - the lowest figure since 2003 - while the debt- service ratio is back to where it was in the early 1980s (Chart 4). Excess inventories have also been absorbed. The homeowner vacancy rate has fallen to 1.7%, completely reversing the spike experienced during the Great Recession (Chart 5). With household formation picking up and housing starts still 20%-to-25% below most estimates of how much construction is necessary to keep up with population growth, it is likely that housing activity can increase at a reasonably brisk pace over the next two years. We assume that real residential investment will expand by 4% in both Q4 and 2017. Chart 4Household Debt Burdens Have Declined bca.gis_wr_2016_10_14_c4 bca.gis_wr_2016_10_14_c4 Chart 5The Excess Supply In Housing Has Cleared bca.gis_wr_2016_10_14_c5 bca.gis_wr_2016_10_14_c5 Business Capex Growth in business capital spending has been falling since mid-2014 and turned negative on a year-over-year basis in the first quarter of this year. Initially, the deceleration in capital spending was largely confined to the energy sector. Since late last year, however, non-energy capex has also weakened sharply (Chart 6). Chart 6Easing In Energy Sector Retrenchment Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen The recent slowdown in business capex reflects three factors. First, the disaggregated data on corporate investment spending indicate that lower energy prices generated a second-round effect on businesses that are not officially classified as being part of the energy space, but that are nonetheless major suppliers to the sector. Second, the stronger dollar hurt the manufacturing sector more broadly, leading to a lagged decline in capital spending. Third, the backup in corporate borrowing spreads that began in May 2014 and the associated tightening in bank lending standards put further downward pressure on business capex. All three of these headwinds have waned over the past few months (Chart 7). The oil rig count has started to recover, suggesting that energy capex should stabilize and perhaps even improve. The dollar and corporate credit spreads have also come down, while loan growth remains robust (Chart 8). Reflecting these developments, core capital goods orders have risen for the past three months. Corporate capex intentions have also perked up (Chart 9). We project that real business capex will increase by 2.5% in Q4 and 3.5% in 2017 if the dollar and interest rates remain unchanged. Chart 7Borrowing Costs Have Fallen bca.gis_wr_2016_10_14_c7 bca.gis_wr_2016_10_14_c7 Chart 8Solid Loan Growth bca.gis_wr_2016_10_14_c8 bca.gis_wr_2016_10_14_c8 Chart 9Recent Signs Of Improving Corporate Capex Spending Intentions bca.gis_wr_2016_10_14_c9 bca.gis_wr_2016_10_14_c9 Inventories Lower inventory investment shaved 1.2 percentage points off Q2 growth. This marked the fifth consecutive quarter that inventories have been a drag on growth - the first time this has happened since 1956. Real inventory levels fell by $9.5 billion at a seasonally-adjusted annualized pace in the second quarter and are likely to be flat-to-slightly down again in Q3. However, since it is the change in inventory investment that affects growth, this should translate into a modestly positive contribution to Q3 GDP growth. Looking further out, firms are likely to start slowly rebuilding inventories as we head into 2017. The economy wide inventory-to-sales ratio is now back near its trend level (Chart 10). Durable goods inventories excluding the volatile aircraft component rose in the third quarter, as did the inventory component of the ISM manufacturing index (Chart 11). We expect inventory restocking to boost growth by 0.1 percentage points in Q4 and 2017, a big improvement over the drag of -0.6 percentage points between Q2 of 2015 and Q2 of 2016. Chart 10Room To Stock Up Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen Chart 11Inventory Rebuilding Has Commenced Inventory Rebuilding Has Commenced Inventory Rebuilding Has Commenced Government Spending Real government consumption and investment declined by 1.7% in Q2 on the back of lower state and local spending and continued weakness in defense expenditures. The drop at the state and local levels should be reversed, given that tax revenues are trending higher. Federal government spending should also pick up regardless of who wins the presidency. There is now bipartisan support for removing the sequester and increasing infrastructure spending. We are penciling in growth in real government expenditures of 1.5% in Q4 and 2.5% in 2017. Net Exports Net exports shaved 0.8 percentage points off growth in the five quarters spanning Q4 of 2014 to Q4 of 2015. Net exports made a slight positive contribution to growth in the first half of this year. Unfortunately, this was mainly a consequence of sluggish import growth against a backdrop of decelerating domestic demand. Looking out, assuming no change in the dollar index, a rebound in import demand will lead to a modest widening in the trade deficit, which will translate into a 0.2 percentage-point drag from net exports over the remainder of this year and 2017. Putting It All Together The analysis above suggests that the U.S. economy will grow by around 2.5% in Q4 - close to the pace that Q3 growth is currently tracking at - with growth accelerating to 2.8% in 2017. This is a point above the Fed's estimate of long-term real potential GDP growth based on the latest Summary of Economic Projections. How Will The Fed React To Faster Growth? We tend to agree with most FOMC officials who think that the economy is now close to full employment. We also concur that the relationship between inflation and spare capacity is not linear. When spare capacity is high, even large declines in unemployment have little effect on inflation. In contrast, when the labor market becomes quite tight, modest declines in the unemployment rate can cause inflation to rise appreciably. As Chart 12 illustrates, the existence of such a "kinked" Phillips Curve is consistent with the data. Where this publication's view differs with the Fed's is over the question of how much of an inflation overshoot should be tolerated. Considering that the Fed has undershot its inflation target by a cumulative 4% since 2009, a strong case can be made that it should aim for a sizable overshoot in order to bring the price level back to its pre-crisis trend. Most FOMC members do not see it that way, however. This point was reinforced by Chair Yellen at her September press conference when she said that "We don't want the economy to overheat and significantly overshoot our 2 percent inflation objective."1 Chart 13 shows that many measures of core inflation are already above 2%. This suggests that the Fed is unlikely to stand pat if aggregate demand growth looks set to accelerate to nearly 3% next year, as our analysis suggests it will. Chart 12The Phillips Curve Appears To Be Non-Linear Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen Chart 13Some Measures Of U.S. Core Inflation Are Already Above 2% Some Measures Of U.S. Core Inflation Are Already Above 2% Some Measures Of U.S. Core Inflation Are Already Above 2% How high will rates go? This is a tricky question to answer because it requires us to know the value of the so-called neutral rate - the short-term interest rate consistent with full employment. Complicating the matter is the fact that changes in interest rate expectations will affect the value of the dollar, and that changes in the value of the greenback, in turn, will affect the level of the neutral rate. This is because a stronger dollar means a larger trade deficit, which necessitates a lower interest rate to keep the economy at full employment. It is a "joint estimation" problem, as economists call it. One key point to keep in mind is that currencies tend to be more sensitive to changes in interest rate differentials when those differentials are expected to persist for a long time. Chart 14 makes this point using a visual example.2 The implication is that most of the tightening in financial conditions that the Fed will need to engineer is likely to occur through a stronger dollar rather than through higher interest rate expectations. Chart 14The Longer The Interest Rate Gap Persists, The Bigger The Exchange Rate Overshoot Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen A back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that the level of aggregate demand would exceed the economy's supply-side potential by 2% of GDP by end-2019 in the absence of any effort by the Fed to tighten financial conditions.3 We estimate that in order to keep the output gap at zero, the real trade-weighted dollar would need to appreciate by 10% and the fed funds rate would need to rise to 2% in nominal terms, or 0% in real terms. Despite this month's rally, the real broad trade-weighted dollar is still down more than 2% from its January high. Thus, a 10% appreciation would leave the dollar index less than 8% above where it was earlier this year, and well below past peaks (Chart 15). Chart 15Still Far From Past Peaks Still Far From Past Peaks Still Far From Past Peaks In terms of timing, a reasonable baseline is that the Fed will raise rates in December and twice more in 2017. This would represent a more rapid pace of rate hikes than what is currently discounted by markets, but would only be roughly half as fast as in past tightening cycles. How quickly the dollar strengthens will depend on how fast market expectations about the future path of short-term rates adjust. In past episodes such as the "taper tantrum," they have moved quite rapidly. This suggests that the dollar could also rise at a fairly fast clip. The Impact From Abroad Chart 16A Stronger Dollar Could Push Up EM Spreads A Stronger Dollar Could Push Up EM Spreads A Stronger Dollar Could Push Up EM Spreads Exchange rates are nothing more than relative prices. This means that developments abroad have just as much of an effect on currencies as developments at home. Given the size of the U.S. economy, better U.S. growth would likely benefit the rest of the world. Could this impart a tightening bias on other central banks that cancels out some of the upward pressure on the dollar? For the most part, the answer is no. Both the euro area and Japan have more of a problem with deflation than the U.S. The neutral rate is also lower in both economies. This implies that neither the ECB nor the BoJ are likely to raise rates anytime soon. Thus, to the extent that stronger U.S. growth buoys these economies, this will translate into somewhat higher inflation expectations and thus, lower real rates in the euro area and Japan. This is bearish for their currencies. The possibility that the ECB will start tapering asset purchases next March, as many have speculated, would not alter our bullish view on the dollar to any great degree. Granted, if the ECB did take such a step without introducing any offsetting measures to ease monetary policy, this would cause European bond yields to rise, putting upward pressure on the euro. However, anything that strengthens the euro would weaken the dollar, giving the U.S. a competitive boost. This, in turn, would prompt the Fed to raise rates even more than it otherwise would. The final outcome would be that the dollar would still appreciate, although not quite as much as if the ECB kept its asset purchases unchanged. As far as emerging markets are concerned, a hawkish Fed is generally bad news. Tighter U.S. monetary policy will reduce the pool of global liquidity that has pushed down EM borrowing costs (Chart 16). And given that 80% of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars, a stronger greenback could cause distress among some over-leveraged borrowers. To make matters worse, a stronger dollar has typically hurt commodities - the lifeblood for many emerging economies. All of this is likely to translate into weaker EM currencies, and hence, a stronger dollar. Investment Conclusions Today's market climate is similar to the one around this time last year. Back then, the Fed was also gearing up to hike rates. Initially, stocks held their ground even as bond yields edged higher. But then, shortly after the Fed raised rates, the floodgates opened and the S&P 500 fell 13% within the course of six weeks (Chart 17). We are nearing such a precipice again. And, in contrast to earlier this year when the 10-year Treasury yield fell by 70 basis points, there is less scope for the bond market to generate an easing in financial conditions in response to plunging equity prices. The 10-year Treasury yield stood at 2.30% on December 29, just before the stock market began to sell off. Today it stands at 1.74%. Investors should position for an equity correction that sends the S&P 500 down 10% from current levels. Looking out, if U.S. growth does begin to accelerate, that should provide some support to stocks. Nevertheless, a stronger dollar and faster wage growth will weigh on corporate earnings, while stretched valuation levels will limit any further expansion in P/E multiples (Chart 18). Investors should underweight U.S. stocks relative to their global peers, at least in local-currency terms. Chart 17Beware Of A Replay Of The Last Correction Beware Of A Replay Of The Last Correction Beware Of A Replay Of The Last Correction Chart 18U.S. P/E Ratios: High, Very High U.S. P/E Ratios: High, Very High U.S. P/E Ratios: High, Very High Turning to bonds, while an equity market correction would not cause Treasurys to rally as much as they did in January, the 10-year yield could still touch 1.5% if risk sentiment were to deteriorate. Once the dust settles, however, bond yields will resume their upward grind. Lastly, a stronger dollar will pose a significant headwind for commodities. That said, as we discussed in last week's Fourth Quarter Strategy Outlook, recent cuts to capital spending are likely to generate supply shortages in some corners of the commodity complex.4 BCA's commodity strategists prefer energy over metals and are particularly bullish on U.S. natural gas heading into 2017. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Transcript of Chair Yellen's Press Conference September 21, 2016," Federal Reserve, September 21, 2016. 2 To understand this concept in words, consider two countries: Country A and Country B. Suppose rates in both countries are initially the same, but that Country A's central bank then proceeds to raise rates by one percentage point and pledges to keep them at this higher level for five years. Why would anyone buy Country B's short-term debt given that Country A's debt yields one percent more? The answer is that people would be indifferent between investing in Country A and Country B if they thought Country A's currency would depreciate by 1% per year over the next five years. To generate the expectation of a depreciation, however, Country A's currency would first have to appreciate by 5%. Now modify the example with the only difference being that Country A's central bank pledges to keep rates higher for ten years, rather than five. For interest rate parity to hold, Country A's currency would now have to overshoot its fair value by 10%. The implication is that the longer interest rates in Country A are expected to exceed those in Country B, the more "expensive" Country A's currency must first become. 3 For the purposes of this calculation, we assume that the output gap this year will be -0.5% of GDP and that aggregate demand growth will exceed potential GDP growth by 1% in both 2017 and 2018, with the gap between demand and supply growth falling to 0.5% in 2019 and stabilizing at zero thereafter. The New York Fed's trade model suggests that a 10% appreciation in the dollar would reduce the level of real GDP by a cumulative 1.2 percentage points over a two-year period. A slightly modified Taylor Rule equation implies that an 80 basis-point increase in interest rates on average across the yield curve would reduce the level of real GDP by 0.8 percentage points after several years. We assume that Fed tightening would lead to a flatter yield curve so that short-term rates rise more than long-term yields. 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Strategy Outlook, "Fourth Quarter 2016: Supply Constraints Resurface," dated October 7, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Hillary Clinton has a 65% chance of winning the election; she receives 334 electoral college votes according to our model. Trump still requires an exogenous shock to win. Meanwhile, the USD is poised to rally - and leftward-moving policymakers will applaud its redistributive effects while MNCs suffer the consequences.

The fiscal spending impulse in China is still positive but receding. The nation's productivity and potential GDP growth are bound to decline due to a rising role of government in capital and resource allocation. Hence, cyclical stabilization could well be overwhelmed by a structural slowdown. Another bubble is forming in China, this time in the corporate bond market. The amelioration in Korean and Taiwanese exports is due to the technology sector/semiconductors, and does not reflect broad-based improvement in global trade.

The secular bond bull market is over. Safety is in a bubble. The shift from monetary to fiscal easing is the most likely candidate to prick the bubble in safety.
In this piece we revise our yield portfolio to increase its resilience to interest rate shocks.

The lack of inflation makes a Fed rate hike before December unlikely. In the interim, the continued flow of liquidity could sustain the high-risk rally.