Fixed Income

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

Highlights U.S. Investment Grade (IG): We recommend overweights in Energy, Financials, Airlines, Building Materials within an overall neutral allocation to U.S. Investment Grade. Euro Area IG: Maintain overweights in Euro Area IG vs U.S. equivalents, favoring Energy, Financials and Wireless sectors. U.K. IG: Maintain an above-benchmark stance on U.K. IG, favoring Banks, Technology and Telecommunications sectors. Feature Last September, we introduced a new element to the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy investment framework - translating our views on individual bond markets into a model portfolio. This was intended to be a tool providing something closer to a "real world" percentage allocation among the various countries and sectors that we cover, more in line with the day-to-day decisions faced by a typical bond manager. We came up with a custom benchmark for that portfolio, combining government debt, corporate bonds and other spread products from the major developed economies. We used the market capitalization weightings of the Bloomberg Barclays bond indices to determine the relative size of each sector. Our chosen benchmark index goes into considerable detail for our government bond allocations, with several maturity buckets, to allow for more precision in our overall country and duration calls. As the next step in the evolution of our model portfolio framework, we are adding a detailed sectoral breakdown of the Investment Grade (IG) corporate bond universes for the U.S., Euro Area and U.K. This will provide more granularity in our IG recommendations, and give our clients additional investment ideas beyond our major portfolio allocation calls. Going forward, we will provide a regular update of our sector allocations in our first Weekly Report published each month. For this week, we are recommending sectors that have cheaper valuations but with riskiness close to the overall IG indices where spreads remain tight. For example, in the U.S., overweight Energy within an overall neutral IG allocation; in the Euro Area, overweight Wireless within an overall above-benchmark IG allocation; and in the U.K., overweight Basic Industries within an overall above-benchmark IG allocation (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekSome Of Our Preferred IG Sectors A Brief Description Of Our Sectoral Relative Value Framework Our existing sector relative value methodology assesses the attractiveness of each IG sector within a cross-sectional analysis. The option-adjusted spread (OAS) for each sector is regressed against common risk factors (interest rate duration and credit quality) with the residual spread determining the valuation of each sector. As an additional measure of the overall riskiness of each sector, we use the concept of "duration times spread" (DTS). We have shown in previous research that allocating to sectors in an IG corporate bond portfolio using a DTS weighting scheme produces better risk-adjusted returns with lower drawdown risk.1 It is our plan to eventually incorporate DTS-weightings into our asset allocation framework more directly, as we build out our model portfolio infrastructure to include quantitative risk management metrics. For now, we will look at the relationship between the OAS residuals from our sector relative value models to the DTS of each sector to give a reading on the risk/reward tradeoff for each sector. In some cases, we may not wish to overweight sectors with cheap spreads (positive residuals in our model) that have an above-average DTS, if we are relatively more cautious on taking overall spread risk. The opposite could also occur, where we could overweight sectors that do not have positive spread residuals but have a DTS close to our desired level of credit risk. At the moment, we see overall IG spreads as fully valued in the U.S., Europe and the U.K., so we are aiming for sectors with credit risk closer to the levels of the benchmark indices. Therefore, in the absence of any strong sector-specific views, we are looking for sectors with positive residuals from our relative value model, but with a DTS close to the level of the overall IG index for each region. U.S. Investment Grade - Stay Cautious In Sector Allocations, Except For Energy In Table 1, we present the output of our U.S. IG sector valuation model. The index OAS, model residual ("risk-adjusted valuation"), and DTS is provided for each sector. In addition, a four-letter abbreviation is shown which is used in Chart 2, a scatter diagram showing the residuals versus the DTS for all the sectors. TABLE 1U.S. Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation* Within the U.S. IG universe, our valuation model shows spreads are attractive in sectors within Basic Industry (most notably, Metals & Mining and Paper), Building Materials, Energy (most notably, Independent, Refining and Midstream), Communications (most notably, Cable & Satellite and Wireless), Airlines and Financials (most notably, Brokerages/Asset Mangers/Exchanges, Finance Companies, Life Insurers and Property/Casualty Insurers). Among those sectors, the names that have a DTS relatively close to, or lower than, the overall U.S. IG index DTS are: Finance Companies, Building Materials, Airlines, and Brokerages/Asset Managers/Exchanges. These are also sectors with an absolute (non-risk-adjusted) OAS above that of the overall U.S. IG index, adding to their attractiveness. Despite our overall cautiousness on spread risk, the Energy-related sectors represent a special case where we would consider overweighting these higher DTS names. As global oil markets have rebalanced in the latter half of 2016, the subsequent rise in oil prices helped reduce the large risk premiums that had built up in Energy corporate debt (both IG and high-yield). BCA's Commodity strategists see oil prices holding up well over the next year, trading in a range between $50/bbl and $65/bbl for the Brent benchmark. In that scenario, we see a full convergence of the spread between Energy related names and the U.S. IG index, which makes the case for overweighting the cheaper Energy sub-sectors a compelling one, even with the higher risk as measured by DTS. This is particularly true given the large weighting of those names in the overall IG benchmark (just over 6%). Therefore, in our recommended U.S. IG sector allocation, we are adding overweights in Independent Energy, Refining and Midstream to the other names mentioned above. The actual percentage sector allocations for our model portfolio are shown in Table 2. The table is presented in a similar format to the model portfolio tables that we present in the back of our Weekly Reports. The weightings reflect all the investment goals outlined above, including the preferred overweights, while delivering a portfolio DTS that is equal to the overall IG index DTS of 9. Bottom Line: We recommend overweights in Energy, Financials, Airlines, Building Materials within an overall neutral allocation to U.S. Investment Grade. Chart 2U.S. Investment Grade Corporate Sector Risk Vs Reward* TABLE 2Our Recommended U.S. IG Corporate Sector Portfolio Allocation Euro Area Investment Grade - Overweight Vs U.S., Favoring Wireless, Energy & Financials In Table 3, we show the output for our Euro Area IG sector model and, in an identical fashion to the U.S. IG analysis above, we show a scatter diagram showing the model residuals versus the sector DTS scores in Chart 3. TABLE 3Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation* Chart 3Euro Area Investment Grade Corporate Sector Risk Vs Reward* In this case, we are sticking with our current model portfolio recommendation to overweight Euro Area IG, but while maintaining the same relatively cautious stance towards the DTS exposure given tight overall spread levels. Our call to overweight European IG is a relative one versus U.S. IG, given the stronger signals given by our relative Corporate Health Monitors and the ongoing presence of European Central Bank corporate bond asset purchases (Chart 4). Within Euro Area IG, the cheapest valuations within our model framework are among the Financials - specifically, within the Insurance sectors. The Insurers, however, have very high DTS scores relative to the overall index, and thus we are choosing not to overweight the names despite the wider risk-adjusted spreads on offer. From a fundamental perspective, higher Euro Area interest rates will be required to make us turn more bullish on the Insurers, which is an outcome that we do not anticipate until at least the latter half of 2017. We are recommending overweights in sectors with non-zero model residuals that have relatively neutral DTS scores: Wireless, Packaging, Integrated Energy, Banks, Brokerages/Asset Managers/Exchanges, and Other Finance. Our recommended Euro Area IG sector allocations are presented in Table 4, with the weighted DTS of our portfolio in line with the index DTS of 6. Bottom Line: Maintain overweights in Euro Area IG vs U.S. equivalents, favoring Energy, Packaging, Financials and Wireless sectors. Chart 4Continue To Favor Europe IG Over U.S. IG TABLE 4Our Recommended Euro Area IG Corporate Sector Portfolio Allocation U.K. Investment Grade - Stay Overweight, Focusing on Financials, Technology & Telecommunications Table 5 contains the output from our U.K. IG sector model, while the scatter diagram of model residuals versus DTS scores is in Chart 5. Again, the Insurers look attractive in the U.K. as in the Euro Area, but the high DTS score deters us from overweightings these names. Banks and Other Financials look attractive, with lower DTS scores, as does the debt of Metals & Mining, Cable & Satellite, Wireless, & Technology. TABLE 5U.K. Investment Grade Corporate Sector Valuation* Chart 5U.K. Investment Grade Corporate Sector Risk Vs Reward* We continue to recommend an above-benchmark allocation to U.K. IG within out model portfolio, given the highly stimulative monetary settings in the U.K. (low interest rates, a deeply undervalued currency), as well as the continued presence of Bank of England corporate bond asset purchases. Our recommended allocation within the above-benchmark allocation to U.K. IG can be found in Table 6. Again, we sought an overall DTS score in line with the U.K. IG DTS of 12. Bottom Line: Maintain an above-benchmark stance on U.K. IG, favoring Banks, Technology and Telecommunications sectors. TABLE 6Our Recommended U.K. IG Corporate Sector Portfolio Allocation Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy/Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "Managing Bond Portfolios In A Rising Spread Environment, Part 1: Choosing The Right Benchmark", dated September 1, 2015, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com and gfis.bcaresearch.com. The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index

Highlights Inflation: Inflation will trend higher this year, but at a measured pace. The impact of a tight labor market and accelerating wage growth will be mitigated by deflating import prices. Even if the economic recovery remains on track, year-over-year core PCE inflation is likely to still be below the Fed's 2% target by the end of this year. Yield Curve: With core inflation still low, the Fed will be quick to back away from its rate hike plans if there is any indication that inflation might reverse its uptrend. This supports a bear-steepening of the yield curve and the continued outperformance of TIPS versus nominal Treasuries. Spread Product: Excess returns to spread product are not likely to turn deeply negative until core PCE inflation is above 2% and Fed policy becomes more focused on halting inflation than supporting the recovery. We retain a neutral allocation to spread product in our portfolio. Feature Chart 1A Sustainable Recovery After seven years of false starts and disappointments, a durable recovery in inflation is finally under way (Chart 1). The key difference between the current uptrend and prior episodes of rising inflation - such as those witnessed in 2011 and 2014 - is that this time around most labor market indicators suggest the economy is very close to full employment. For this reason the recovery in core inflation is likely to persist, and will eventually settle at a level close to the Fed's 2% target for core PCE. That being said, it is still far too soon for investors to worry about inflation, particularly as it relates to the performance of risk assets. The remainder of this report discusses why the recovery in inflation is likely to be slow moving, and also how the inflation outlook impacts our major fixed income investment calls. Some Near-Term Headwinds There are two reasons why year-over-year measures of core inflation are likely to moderate during the next three months. First, diffusion indexes for both CPI and PCE inflation have recently dipped below the zero line (Chart 2), meaning that more components of each index have decelerating prices than have accelerating prices. Historically, rising year-over-year core inflation has been associated with diffusion indexes above zero. Second, January and February of last year saw incredibly large price increases in both core CPI and core PCE (Chart 3). This means that gains in January and February of this year will also have to be very strong to overcome the large base effect and cause the year-over-year growth rates to move higher. Chart 2Diffusion Indexes Point To Deceleration Chart 3A Large Base Effect In Jan & Feb Now these are only very short term arguments. The base effects will be out of the way by March and diffusion indexes can reverse course very quickly. However, they do suggest that inflation readings are likely to be relatively weak during the next few months. This will be critical for the near-term path of monetary policy and, in our view, makes it likely that the Fed will keep rates steady until the June FOMC meeting. The Phillips Curve Chart 4A Phillips Curve Model Of Inflation Turning to the longer run outlook for inflation, we employ a Phillips curve model of core PCE inflation based on one that Janet Yellen referred to in a speech from September 2015.1 In this framework, the year-over-year change in core PCE inflation is modeled using: Lagged core inflation Inflation expectations (from the Survey of Professional Forecasters) Non-oil import price inflation relative to core PCE inflation Resource utilization (calculated as the difference between the unemployment rate and the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) estimate of the natural rate of unemployment) The model does an excellent job capturing changes in core PCE inflation since 1990 (Chart 4), and is also useful because it gives us a glimpse of the mental framework that Fed policymakers apply to the task of inflation forecasting. Most importantly, the model allows us to generate inflation forecasts given estimates for inflation expectations, the unemployment rate and the U.S. dollar (which closely tracks relative import prices). For example, in a base case scenario where we assume that inflation expectations and the dollar remain flat, but that the unemployment rate declines from its current level of 4.7% to 4.5% by the end of this year, the model predicts year-over-year core PCE inflation will rise from its current level of 1.65% to 1.87% by November, still below the Fed's 2% target. If we keep the same forecast for a steadily declining unemployment rate but also incorporate a 5% increase in the value of the trade-weighted U.S. dollar, then core PCE inflation is projected to rise to 1.76% by November. The stronger dollar means that import prices exert a bit more of a drag. Conversely, if we keep the same unemployment assumption but assume that the U.S. dollar depreciates by 5%, then core PCE inflation is projected to reach 1.98% by November. In this scenario import prices actually provide a slight boost to core inflation. Overall, to create a scenario where core inflation reaches the Fed's target before the end of this year we need to make a fairly optimistic assumption about the unemployment rate and also incorporate a substantial dollar depreciation. In our view, it is more likely that the dollar remains under mild upward pressure this year as the U.S. economy continues to de-couple from the rest of the world. Fiscal policy remains the wildcard, as any protectionist measures implemented by the new U.S. government could lead to import price shocks. Although at first blush any watering-down of trade deals, imposition of tariffs, or protectionist tweaks to the tax code would seem likely to send import prices higher, much depends on how much of the adjustment to the new trade policy occurs through the exchange rate or through prices. This is incredibly hard to determine until the details of any protectionist trade measures are known. Our Global Investment Strategy service explored the potential ramifications of one such trade proposal - a border-adjusted corporate tax - in a Special Report published last week.2 A Bottom-Up Perspective An alternative to the Phillips curve approach is to split core inflation into its major sub-components: shelter, core goods and core services excluding shelter. We can then examine each sub-component separately and identify different macro drivers for each (Chart 5). Shelter has been the strongest contributor to core inflation so far in this recovery and can be modeled using home prices, the rental vacancy rate and household formation (Chart 5, panel 1). Based on these relationships, we expect shelter inflation will remain elevated for quite some time, while our model suggests it is even likely to move a bit higher during the next few months. After briefly seeming like it might rebound earlier last year, the rental vacancy rate has since fallen to new lows while home price appreciation continues at a steady rate of just above 4% per year (Chart 6). Further, the vacancy rate should remain under downward pressure and home prices under upward pressure as long as household formation continues to outpace home construction. The top panel of Chart 6 shows that the difference between housing starts and household formation closely tracks the rental vacancy rate. The vacancy rate rose throughout the 1990s and early 2000s as housing starts outpaced the creation of new households, but starts have not been sufficiently robust so far in this recovery. In addition, housing inventory as a percent of households is near the lows of the early 1990s (Chart 6, bottom panel). This inventory calculation includes the "shadow inventory" from foreclosed homes which has almost normalized back to pre-crisis levels, in any case. Chart 5The Components Of Core CPI Chart 6Drivers Of Shelter Inflation We expect that shelter inflation will remain elevated at least until housing construction starts to outpace the creation of new households, but will moderate once that supply response starts to emerge. Chart 7Atlanta Fed Wage Growth Tracker* ##br##Versus Unemployment Rate Core goods inflation (Chart 5, panel 2) has been, and will continue to be, the major source of deflation in this cycle. A large fraction of core goods are imported and, as such, core goods inflation tends to follow the trend in the U.S. dollar. The bull market in the U.S. dollar will continue to keep a lid on core goods prices, and will limit how quickly inflation can rise. Any meaningful increase in inflation this year is likely to come from the core services excluding shelter component, which historically tends to track fluctuations in wage growth (Chart 5, bottom panel). As we have previously highlighted, the labor market is close to full employment and the relationship between the unemployment rate and wage growth remains strong (Chart 7). In this environment, even modest further declines in the unemployment rate should exert meaningful upward pressure on wages. Bottom Line: Inflation will trend higher this year, but at a measured pace. The impact of a tight labor market and accelerating wage growth will be mitigated by deflating import prices. Even if the economic recovery remains on track, year-over-year core PCE inflation is likely to still be below the Fed's 2% target by the end of this year. Investment Implications Duration & TIPS Chart 8Leading Inflation Indicators & Breakevens Long-maturity TIPS breakeven inflation rates still have upside, although the rate of increase is unlikely to maintain its current rapid pace. As core inflation converges with the Fed's target so should long-dated measures of inflation expectations such as TIPS breakevens. Historically, core PCE inflation close to 2% has coincided with long-dated TIPS breakevens in a range between 2.4% and 2.5%. With the 10-year breakeven currently at 2.05%, we expect it has another 35 to 45 basis points of upside. Measures of pipeline inflation pressure, such as producer prices and the prices paid and supplier deliveries components of the ISM manufacturing survey also point to rising breakevens (Chart 8). We continue to recommend an overweight allocation to TIPS versus nominal Treasury securities. With rate hike expectations still relatively depressed,3 real yields do not have much downside. Rising breakevens should therefore also pressure long-dated nominal yields higher in the months ahead. While we currently recommend a benchmark duration stance, we are actively looking for an opportunity to shift to below-benchmark duration, as was discussed in last week's report.4 Yield Curve As breakevens and nominal yields move higher the yield curve should also steepen (Chart 9). The strong positive correlation between the slope of the yield curve and TIPS breakevens is the result of the impact of Fed policy on both variables. Chart 9Wider Breakevens Correlated With A Steeper Yield Curve Fed policy tends to be accommodative in the early stages of a recovery, and this causes the yield curve to steepen and breakevens to widen as investors logically expect that easy money will cause both growth and inflation to move higher. In contrast, the yield curve tends to flatten and breakevens tend to fall later in the recovery once Fed policy turns more restrictive. Chart 105-Year Bullet Still Cheap Given that core inflation and TIPS breakevens both remain below the Fed's targets, it is too soon to expect a shift toward restrictive Fed policy. In other words, the Fed will be quick to back away from its rate hike plans if there is any indication that breakevens or inflation might reverse their uptrends. It is only once core inflation and TIPS breakevens have returned to the Fed's targets that the stated purpose of Fed policy will shift from supporting the recovery to snuffing out inflation. To profit from a steeper yield curve we entered a long 5-year bullet short duration-matched 2/10 barbell trade on December 20. So far this trade has returned 14 bps, and the 5-year bullet continues to look very cheap on the curve (Chart 10). Spread Product In prior research we considered the performance of spread product throughout the four phases of the Fed cycle (Chart 11).5 We define the four phases of the Fed cycle as follows: Phase I represents the early stage of the withdrawal of monetary stimulus. This phase begins with the first hike of a new tightening cycle and ends when the fed funds rate crosses above its equilibrium level. Phase II represents the late stage of the tightening cycle, when the Fed hikes its target rate above equilibrium in an effort to slow the economy. Phase III represents the early stage of the easing cycle. It begins with the first rate cut from the peak and lasts until the Fed cuts its target rate below equilibrium. Phase IV represents the late stage of the easing cycle. It encompasses both the period when the fed funds rate descends to its cycle trough and the subsequent adjustment period when the Fed remains on hold in an effort to kick start an economic recovery. Chart 11Stylized Fed Cycle Using a very simple estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate based on potential GDP and a long-run moving average of the funds rate itself, we have found that excess returns to investment grade corporate bonds are highest in phase IV and phase I, when the fed funds rate is below equilibrium (Table 1). However, the key problem with this analysis is that it is very difficult to estimate the equilibrium fed funds rate in real time. As stated above, the estimate used in Table 1 incorporates the CBO's estimate of potential GDP which is frequently revised after the fact. So while we are confident that we are currently in phase I of the Fed cycle, the challenge becomes looking for other indicators that might warn us about the transition from phase I to phase II, where excess returns are much worse. We have found that core PCE inflation is one such indicator. We calculated average monthly excess returns to investment grade corporate bonds when year-over-year core PCE inflation is below 1.5%, between 1.5% and 2%, and between 2% and 2.5% (Table 2). Table 1Investment Grade Corporate Bond Excess Returns* Under The Four Phases##br## Of The Fed Cycle (August 1988 To Present) Table 2Investment Grade Corporate Bond Excess Returns* Under Different Ranges##br## For Year-Over-Year Core** PCE (August 1988 To Present) The results show that the highest returns occur when inflation is below 1.5%. This should not be surprising since an environment of low inflation is most likely to coincide with phase IV of the Fed cycle. We found mixed results for when inflation is between 1.5% and 2%. In this environment average monthly excess returns are close to zero and a 90% confidence interval places them between -19 bps and +17 bps. This environment likely encompasses phase I of the Fed cycle and the transition into phase II. It is not until core PCE inflation is above 2% that excess returns turn decisively negative. Monthly excess returns average -13 bps in this environment, with a 90% confidence interval of -35 bps to +10 bps. With inflation likely to remain between 1.5% and 2% for the balance of the year, it is too soon to turn all-out bearish on spread product. For the moment we recommend a neutral allocation, but with an underweight allocation to high-yield bonds where valuations are exceedingly tight. Given that inflation is low and Fed policy is accommodative, we would be quick to upgrade both investment grade and high-yield corporates on any near-term sell off. The current uncertainty surrounding fiscal policy also complicates the outlook for spread product. On the one hand, it raises the risk of a near-term sell off if it appears as though some of the more stimulative aspects of Trump's agenda will not be implemented. On the other hand, in addition to headline-grabbing promises of increased infrastructure spending, there are many other policy details that could also have significant market implications. One example would be the elimination of the tax deductibility of corporate interest expenses. Such a provision is currently included in the Republican's plan for corporate tax reform, and would severely diminish supply in the corporate bond market if it is implemented. Bottom Line: Excess returns to spread product are not likely to turn deeply negative until core PCE inflation is above 2% and Fed policy becomes more focused on halting inflation than supporting the recovery. We retain a neutral allocation to spread product in our portfolio. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20150924a.htm 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017", dated January 20, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 3 The overnight index swap curve is priced for 54 basis points of rate hikes during the next twelve months. 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Is It Time To Cut Duration?", dated January 17, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy / U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bonds And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle", dated May 27, 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Dear client, We have received several questions about a potential U.S. border tax adjustment. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President of BCA's Global Investment Strategy service addresses this issue in the attached Special Report titled, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017". Peter analyses the economic and financial market implications of the plan and concludes it is likely to be an additional support to the dollar bull market should it be implemented in full. We trust you will find this report very interesting and relevant. As always, please do not hesitate if you have further questions. Best regards, Lenka Martinek Highlights House Republicans are pushing for a radical overhaul of the existing tax code, including adding a "border adjustment" mechanism that would effectively subsidize exports and tax imports. Despite President Trump's apparent mixed feelings about border taxation, we see a 50% chance that some version of the proposal will be implemented. This is a higher probability than the market currently is discounting. The trade-weighted dollar will rally by another 5% even in the absence of any tax changes, but could rise by 15% if the border adjustment tax is introduced. If the latter were to happen, it would take some time for the dollar to rise to its new equilibrium level. This, in conjunction with sticky import and export prices, would likely lead to a temporary narrowing of the U.S. trade deficit. Such an outcome could prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would. Investors should underweight U.S. bonds on a currency-hedged basis. A stronger dollar will push down commodity prices and hurt external borrowers with dollar-denominated loans. A protectionist backlash against the U.S. might ensue. We are closing our long Chinese banks trade for a gain of 32%, and our long RUB/USD trade for a gain of 20%. Feature Making The Tax Code Great Again? Republicans in Congress are proposing an ambitious revamp of the tax code. A central element of their plan is the replacement of the existing corporate income tax with a so-called "destination-based cash flow tax." Key features of this plan include: Cutting the current federal corporate tax from a top rate of 35% to 20%. Allowing businesses to depreciate capital expenditures immediately, rather than writing them off over many years. Disallowing businesses from deducting interest expenses when calculating their tax bills. Moving to a system of territorial taxation, meaning that taxes would only be assessed on the value added of goods consumed in the United States. Since not all goods that are produced in the U.S. are consumed in the U.S., and not all goods that are consumed in the U.S. are produced in the U.S., a destination-based system requires what is known as a "border adjustment." Such an adjustment would tax the value added of imports and rebate the value added of exports at an equivalent rate. While border adjustments are routinely used in other settings - most notably by countries that have VATs - their application to corporate income taxes is a novel idea. As such, it is not surprising that the proposal has generated significant confusion among investors. With that in mind, we offer our thoughts on the matter using a Q&A format. Q: How exactly would a border adjustment on corporate income taxes work? A: Under current U.S. law, corporate income taxes are assessed on worldwide profits, which are the difference between worldwide revenues and worldwide costs. The introduction of a border tax adjustment would change the tax system to one where taxes are assessed only on the difference between domestic revenues and domestic costs (i.e., revenues derived in the U.S. minus costs incurred in the U.S.). Table 1 offers a simplified example to illustrate this point. Consider three types of companies: 1) A purely domestic producer whose revenues and costs are realized at home; 2) An exporter whose revenues are entirely derived from abroad but whose costs are all incurred in the U.S.; 3) An importer whose revenues are completely generated in the U.S. but whose costs are all incurred abroad. Suppose that all three companies have revenues of $100 and costs of $60 - implying $40 in pre-tax profits - and face a corporate tax rate of 20%. Before the border adjustment, each company would pay a tax of $8 ($40 times 0.2). The border adjustment is zero for the domestic producer. However, it would impose an additional tax of $12 on the importer ($60 times 0.2), while giving the exporter a rebate of $20 ($100 times 0.2). In the end, the importer and exporter face final tax bills of $20 and -$12, respectively, while the domestic producer continues to pay $8. Note that this conforms with the tax paid on domestic revenues minus domestic costs (for the domestic producer, domestic revenue minus domestic cost is equal to $40; for the exporter it is equal to -$60; and for the importer, it is equal to $100). Q: A tax on imports and a subsidy on exports? Sounds like massive protectionism! A: That depends on the extent to which the dollar appreciates. As Table 1 shows, if the dollar appreciates by 1/(1-tax rate) = 1/(1-0.2) = 25%, there would be no impact on the trade balance or on the distribution of after-tax corporate profits in the economy. This is because the stronger dollar would nullify the subsidy on exports, while reducing import costs by precisely the amount necessary to restore importers' after-tax profits to their original level. Q: This seems like splitting hairs. If a country imposes a 20% tax on imports, most people would still regard this as a protectionist act, even if a currency appreciation offsets the impact. A: That's why a corresponding export subsidy is necessary. That may sound strange since export subsidies are also seen as protectionist measures, but consider the following: Imagine that the government only taxes imports. A tax on imports would curb import demand, implying less demand for foreign currency. This would push up the value of the dollar, leading to lower import prices. How high would the dollar go? Suppose it rose so much that the decline in import prices exactly offset the tariff, thereby restoring import volumes (and importer profits) back to their original level. Is that a stable equilibrium? The answer is no because a stronger dollar would also reduce the demand for U.S. exports, causing the trade deficit to swell. Thus, for the trade balance to remain unchanged, the dollar would have to rise only part of the way, leaving importers worse off than before the tariff was introduced. Such a policy would be protectionist because it would favor U.S.-based companies that produce for the domestic market over foreign exporters. Only in the case where importers are subject to a tax and exporters receive a subsidy will the dollar strengthen to the point that neither exports nor imports change. Intuitively, this is because an export subsidy indirectly benefits importers by pushing up the value of the dollar, while directly benefiting exporters by offsetting the effect of a stronger dollar on profits. Q: If there is no change in the trade balance, what is the advantage of border-adjusting the corporate income tax? A: Contrary to Donald Trump's assertion that border adjustments are "too complicated," their chief advantage is their simplicity. Accurately assessing taxes on worldwide income is hard. Companies routinely engage in practices that purposely lower taxable profits. In particular, importers may overstate the value of their imports and exporters may understate the value of their exports. In a world where many companies have overseas subsidiaries, such "transfer pricing" machinations are easy to pull off. Border adjustments eliminate such incentives in one fell swoop. Recall that with a border adjustment, taxes are assessed on the difference between domestic revenues and domestic costs - both of which the IRS has the means to monitor. Yes, a U.S. company that overstates imports will be able to report a lower gross profit to the IRS, but now it will be on the hook for a higher import tax. What it puts in one pocket it takes from the other. Likewise, an exporter that understates its overseas sales will end up with a lower gross profit, but will now receive a smaller subsidy. Q: And I suppose that because the U.S. imports more than it exports, the border adjustment will end up raising additional revenues? A: That is correct. The annual U.S. trade deficit currently stands at $500 billion. A border adjustment tax rate of 20% would thus raise $100 billion in additional revenue. Given that the corporate income tax brings in about $350 billion, this would allow corporate taxes to be substantially cut without any loss in overall revenue. And this calculation excludes any indirect revenue that would accrue to the Treasury from reducing the incentive for U.S. companies to engage in profit-shifting behavior. Keep in mind, however, that the revenue boost from the border adjustment will decline if the U.S. trade deficit narrows over time. To the extent that the U.S. must finance its trade deficit through the sale of assets such as stocks, bonds, and property, it is possible that foreigners will one day decide to swap all these assets in exchange for U.S. goods. This would lead to an improvement in the U.S. trade balance. Indeed, to the extent that the U.S. is a net debtor to the rest of the world, it is possible that the average future U.S. trade balance will be positive. If that were to happen, the government would lose revenue from the border adjustment over the long haul. Meanwhile, a 25% appreciation in the greenback would reduce the dollar value of the assets that Americans hold abroad, without much of a corresponding decline in U.S. external liabilities. A reasonable estimate is that this would impose a paper loss on the U.S. of about 13% of GDP.1 Q: Ouch! But this assumes that a 20% border adjustment tax will lead to a 25% appreciation in the dollar. That is a mighty big can opener your fellow economists are assuming! What's to say this actually happens? A: Good point. Less than 10% of the turnover in the global foreign exchange market is directly related to the cross-border trade in goods and services. The rest represents financial market transactions. There are many things that can influence the value of the dollar beside trade flows. For example, suppose the government introduces a border adjustment tax, but the Federal Reserve fails to raise rates sufficiently fast in response to rising inflation stemming from a narrowing trade deficit. In that case, U.S. real rates could actually decline, leading to a weaker dollar. Our sense is that this won't happen, but the point is that there is no automatic link between a border tax and the dollar. Much depends on how the Fed responds and the underlying economic conditions. And even if the Fed does hike rates to keep the economy from overheating, two important forces will limit the extent of any dollar appreciation: First, questions about the timing and magnitude of the border adjustment tax - including the possibility that such a measure could be reversed by a future Congress - are likely to lead to only a partial appreciation in the dollar. Second, other central banks - particularly in emerging markets - are liable to take steps to limit the dollar's ascent so as not to place too great a burden on borrowers with dollar-denominated debt. Q: So what happens to countries with hard currency pegs to the dollar? Borrowers with dollar-denominated loans will be spared, but won't these countries end up suffering due to a sharp loss of competitiveness against other economies that have more flexible currencies? A: Correct. It is damned if you do, damned if you don't. Assuming that countries with exchange rate pegs to the dollar are strong enough to fend off a speculative attack, they will still need to engineer an equivalent real depreciation of their currencies via a decline in their nominal wages relative to U.S. wages - what economists call an "internal devaluation." That could impose a deflationary impulse on those economies. Q: You're losing me. A: Think about an extreme case - one where all countries have currency pegs to the dollar. How would the economic adjustment to a U.S. border tax work then? The answer is that initially, a tax on U.S. imports, combined with a subsidy on U.S. exports, would lead to a smaller trade deficit. This would cause the U.S. economy to overheat, putting upward pressure on prices and wages. By definition, an improving trade balance in the U.S. implies a worsening trade balance in the rest of the world. This would sap demand in other countries, putting downward pressure on prices and wages abroad. The adjustment will be complete only after relative wages have shifted enough to restore the U.S. trade balance to its original level. The important point is that in a world where some countries have flexible exchange rates while others have fixed exchange rates or dirty floats, the economic adjustment to a U.S. border tax will come through some combination of a stronger nominal dollar, higher U.S. inflation, and lower inflation abroad. Q: Bullish for the dollar, but bearish for U.S. bonds, correct? A: Precisely. The degree to which bond yields adjust around the world depends on the extent to which nominal exchange rates and domestic prices are sticky. If exchange rates are slow to change, more of the adjustment has to occur through higher inflation in the U.S. and lower inflation everywhere else. But even if nominal exchange rates adjust quickly, sticky goods prices would still push up U.S. bond yields. To see this point, consider what would happen if the dollar appreciated by 25% in response to the introduction of a border adjustment tax, but neither import prices nor export prices (expressed in U.S. dollars) changed. If that were to happen, the profit margins of U.S. importers would tumble because they would now have to pay an import tax but would not benefit from lower import prices. Meanwhile, the margins of U.S. exporters would soar as export prices stayed firm and they received a subsidy from the government. The result would be less imports and more exports, and hence, an improved trade balance. This would raise U.S. aggregate demand and put upward pressure on inflation and Treasury yields. Considering that 97% of U.S. exports and 93% of U.S. imports are denominated in dollars, such an outcome is hardly far-fetched. The bottom line is that in the "real world," the introduction of a border adjustment tax would cause Treasurys to sell off and the dollar to rally. Q: What sort of numbers are we talking about? A: Assuming a 20% border tax is introduced, a reasonable guess is that the trade-weighted dollar would rise by 10% over a 12-month period above and beyond our current forecast of a 5% gain. This would imply 15% upside from current levels. The 10-year Treasury yield would probably rise to about 3%. Q: It still puzzles me how you can claim that bond yields will rise if the dollar strengthens. Wouldn't a stronger dollar normally lead to lower bond yields? A: Your premise is wrong. It is not the stronger dollar that leads to higher bond yields. It is a third factor - namely the improvement in the trade balance arising from the decision to tax imports and subsidize exports - that causes both the dollar and bond yields to rise. This is similar to what happens when the government loosens fiscal policy. Mind you, at some point the positive correlation between the dollar and bond yields could break down. If the dollar rises too much, emerging markets will crumble under the stress. This will trigger safe-haven flows into the Treasury market, leading to a stronger dollar and lower yields. Such an outcome is not our base case, but it cannot be dismissed. Q: Got it. Presuming that the global economy holds up, it sounds like a border tax would be great news for Boeing, but bad news for Walmart? A: Yes, but there are two important qualifications to consider. First, it is possible that the dollar overshoots its new long-term equilibrium level, so that the pain to Boeing from the appreciation of the greenback ends up outweighing the benefits from the export subsidy it receives. Second, given the potential economic and financial dislocations from the shift to a destination-based tax system, there is likely to be some delay between when the tax bill is signed into law and when it is implemented. And even once implementation begins, the adjustment in tax rates may be phased in only gradually. Since the dollar will rise in anticipation of all this, it is possible that exporters will actually suffer initially, while importers receive a temporary boost to profits. Nevertheless, we think that investors will see through the near-term hit to exporter margins and focus on the medium-term gains. As such, equity investors should maintain a preference for exporting companies over those that heavily rely on imports (Chart 1). Q: This assumes that the market has not fully priced in this outcome already. What are the chances that this border adjustment tax proposal actually sees the light of day? A: The border tax idea originated in the House of Representatives and has its strongest support there. There might be more opposition in the Senate, but this could be overcome if enough Democrats with protectionist leanings can be found. President Trump panned the idea in an interview with the Wall Street Journal earlier this week.2 He noted that "Anytime I hear about border adjustment, I don't love it... because usually it means we're going to get adjusted into a bad deal. That's what happens." Trump's comments suggest he may not fully understand how border adjustments work. This implies that he might be persuaded to go along with the idea if Republican legislators are able to reach a "great deal" on adjustments in his eyes, whatever that means. Subjectively, we would assign 50% probability to a border tax being introduced in some form or another, although our sense is that it will be somewhat watered down so as not to generate major dislocations for the economy. This might entail excluding certain types of imports from a border tax if they are consumed disproportionately by the poor or represent an important input for U.S. manufacturing firms. Apparel and energy products would probably be on that list. It might also entail reducing the border adjustment tax to a lower level, say 10%, as Tom Barrack, head of Donald Trump's inaugural committee, has suggested. It is hard to know how much of this is already reflected in asset prices. The dollar fell after the WSJ article was published, but that may have had less to do with border adjustments and more to do with Trump's comment that he prefers a weaker dollar - an unprecedented statement for a U.S. president. Goldman Sachs' securities group has constructed two baskets using firm-level data, one comprised of "destination tax winners" and the other of "destination tax losers."3 The loser basket actually outperformed in the immediate aftermath of the election. While the relative performance of the winner basket has recovered more recently, it still remains below where it was last April (Chart 2). The limited reaction to the prospect of a border adjustment tax has been echoed in the fact that market expectations of the future volatility of the dollar has not changed much since the election, despite the possibility that the coming legislative debate could lead to wild swings in the greenback (Chart 3). Chart 3Dollar Volatility Has Not Escalated On balance, we conclude that investors are understating the likelihood of even a watered down border adjustment tax being introduced as part of a comprehensive tax reform program. This is broadly consistent with our client discussions, which have revealed that most investors - with a few notable exceptions - are only vaguely aware of the issue. Q: Won't the WTO rule against a border adjustment tax? That could explain why investors are discounting it. A: Yes, it probably will. The WTO permits border adjustments in the case of "indirect" taxes such VATs, but not in the case of direct taxes such as income or corporate profit taxes. Granted, the U.S. has brushed off WTO decisions in the past, such as when it ignored the trade body's ruling that U.S. laws restricting internet gambling contravened the General Agreement on Trade in Services. Considering that Donald Trump threatened to pull the U.S. out of the WTO during the election campaign, such an outcome cannot be easily dismissed. Nevertheless, given the magnitude of the border tax issue, even the Trump administration is likely to think twice about running afoul of WTO rules. Nevertheless, it might be possible to modify the border adjustment proposal to make it WTO-compliant. The distinction between direct and indirect taxes is one of those things self-styled experts like to pretend is important, but is not. It does not really matter whether a tax is levied on the sale of a good or service, or whether it is levied on income. In the end, someone has to pay the tax - be it a worker or a shareholder. The adoption by the U.S. of a border-adjusted destination tax would move the global economy in the direction of greater harmonization, not away from it. As noted at the outset, most other countries border adjust their value-added taxes. They do this so that their VATs mirror a consumption tax, as Table 2 illustrates with a simple example. Conceptually, a corporate cash flow tax coupled with a payroll tax functions in much the same way as a VAT (bottom part of Table 2). The U.S. already has both a corporate income and a payroll tax, so it is not that far away from having a VAT. All that is missing is a few tweaks to depreciation rules and the addition of the border adjustment. Yes, the dollar would strengthen if that were to happen, but this would put the greenback on par with other currencies. Chart 4 shows that the U.S. has run a trade deficit with the rest of the G7 since 1990, despite the fact that the dollar has traded on average 9% below its Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) over this period. One of the reasons this has occurred is that other G7 economies have a VAT, whereas the U.S. does not (Chart 5). This has kept the dollar weaker than it otherwise would have been. Chart 4The Dollar Was Cheap For A Reason Q: Okay, let's wrap this up. What are the main investment implications I should take away from this? A: Our main takeaway is that investors are underestimating the likelihood that the U.S. adopts a destination-based tax system. This suggests that the risks to the dollar are to the upside, as are the risks to U.S. Treasury yields. Global investors should underweight U.S. bonds on a currency-hedged basis. The implications for global equities are more nuanced. It may take some time for the dollar to adjust to the border tax. This, combined with the fact that import and export prices tend to be sticky in the short run, implies that the U.S. trade deficit will decline, boosting U.S. aggregate demand in the process. While that is potentially good news for U.S. corporate profits, the benefits will be curtailed by the fact that the U.S. economy is approaching full employment. This means that any further stimulus could simply result in higher real wages for workers without any offsetting increase in unit sales for U.S. companies. A shrinking U.S. trade deficit will diminish America's role as "the global consumer of last resort." This is problematic for export-dependent emerging markets. While a border adjustment may be justifiable on economic grounds, politically, it could be seen as the first volley in a global trade war. This could sour sentiment towards EM stocks. To make matters worse, a stronger dollar would harm emerging markets with high levels of dollar-denominated debt such as Turkey, Malaysia, and Chile, while also weighing on commodity prices. We recommend that investors underweight EM stocks relative to their DM counterparts. With these considerations in mind, we are closing our long Chinese banks trade for a gain of 32% and our long RUB/USD trade for a gain of 20%. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 U.S. external assets amount to 133% of GDP, while foreign liabilities stand at 175% of GDP. About 68% of U.S. external assets are denominated in foreign currency, compared with only 16% of external liabilities. Thus, the paper loss to the U.S. from a 25% appreciation in the dollar would be (175*0.16-133*0.68)*(1-1/1.25) = 12.5% of GDP. 2 Please see "Donald Trump Warns On House Republican Tax Plan," The Wall Street Journal, dated January 16, 2017, available at www.wsj.com. 3 The Bloomberg tickers for these baskets are GSCBDTW1 and GSCBDTL1. For more information, please see "US Daily: What Policy Changes Is The Equity Market Expecting?" Goldman Sachs Economic Research, dated January 11, 2017.

Highlights House Republicans are pushing for a radical overhaul of the existing tax code, including adding a "border adjustment" mechanism that would effectively subsidize exports and tax imports. Despite President Trump's apparent mixed feelings about border taxation, we see a 50% chance that some version of the proposal will be implemented. This is a higher probability than the market currently is discounting. The trade-weighted dollar will rally by another 5% even in the absence of any tax changes, but could rise by 15% if the border adjustment tax is introduced. If the latter were to happen, it would take some time for the dollar to rise to its new equilibrium level. This, in conjunction with sticky import and export prices, would likely lead to a temporary narrowing of the U.S. trade deficit. Such an outcome could prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively than it otherwise would. Investors should underweight U.S. bonds on a currency-hedged basis. A stronger dollar will push down commodity prices and hurt external borrowers with dollar-denominated loans. A protectionist backlash against the U.S. might ensue. We are closing our long Chinese banks trade for a gain of 32%, and our long RUB/USD trade for a gain of 20%. Feature Making The Tax Code Great Again? Republicans in Congress are proposing an ambitious revamp of the tax code. A central element of their plan is the replacement of the existing corporate income tax with a so-called "destination-based cash flow tax." Key features of this plan include: Cutting the current federal corporate tax from a top rate of 35% to 20%. Allowing businesses to depreciate capital expenditures immediately, rather than writing them off over many years. Disallowing businesses from deducting interest expenses when calculating their tax bills. Moving to a system of territorial taxation, meaning that taxes would only be assessed on the value added of goods consumed in the United States. Since not all goods that are produced in the U.S. are consumed in the U.S., and not all goods that are consumed in the U.S. are produced in the U.S., a destination-based system requires what is known as a "border adjustment." Such an adjustment would tax the value added of imports and rebate the value added of exports at an equivalent rate. While border adjustments are routinely used in other settings - most notably by countries that have VATs - their application to corporate income taxes is a novel idea. As such, it is not surprising that the proposal has generated significant confusion among investors. With that in mind, we offer our thoughts on the matter using a Q&A format. Q: How exactly would a border adjustment on corporate income taxes work? A: Under current U.S. law, corporate income taxes are assessed on worldwide profits, which are the difference between worldwide revenues and worldwide costs. The introduction of a border tax adjustment would change the tax system to one where taxes are assessed only on the difference between domestic revenues and domestic costs (i.e., revenues derived in the U.S. minus costs incurred in the U.S.). Table 1 offers a simplified example to illustrate this point. Consider three types of companies: 1) A purely domestic producer whose revenues and costs are realized at home; 2) An exporter whose revenues are entirely derived from abroad but whose costs are all incurred in the U.S.; 3) An importer whose revenues are completely generated in the U.S. but whose costs are all incurred abroad. Suppose that all three companies have revenues of $100 and costs of $60 - implying $40 in pre-tax profits - and face a corporate tax rate of 20%. Before the border adjustment, each company would pay a tax of $8 ($40 times 0.2). The border adjustment is zero for the domestic producer. However, it would impose an additional tax of $12 on the importer ($60 times 0.2), while giving the exporter a rebate of $20 ($100 times 0.2). In the end, the importer and exporter face final tax bills of $20 and -$12, respectively, while the domestic producer continues to pay $8. Note that this conforms with the tax paid on domestic revenues minus domestic costs (for the domestic producer, domestic revenue minus domestic cost is equal to $40; for the exporter it is equal to -$60; and for the importer, it is equal to $100). Q: A tax on imports and a subsidy on exports? Sounds like massive protectionism! A: That depends on the extent to which the dollar appreciates. As Table 1 shows, if the dollar appreciates by 1/(1-tax rate) = 1/(1-0.2) = 25%, there would be no impact on the trade balance or on the distribution of after-tax corporate profits in the economy. This is because the stronger dollar would nullify the subsidy on exports, while reducing import costs by precisely the amount necessary to restore importers' after-tax profits to their original level. Q: This seems like splitting hairs. If a country imposes a 20% tax on imports, most people would still regard this as a protectionist act, even if a currency appreciation offsets the impact. A: That's why a corresponding export subsidy is necessary. That may sound strange since export subsidies are also seen as protectionist measures, but consider the following: Imagine that the government only taxes imports. A tax on imports would curb import demand, implying less demand for foreign currency. This would push up the value of the dollar, leading to lower import prices. How high would the dollar go? Suppose it rose so much that the decline in import prices exactly offset the tariff, thereby restoring import volumes (and importer profits) back to their original level. Is that a stable equilibrium? The answer is no because a stronger dollar would also reduce the demand for U.S. exports, causing the trade deficit to swell. Thus, for the trade balance to remain unchanged, the dollar would have to rise only part of the way, leaving importers worse off than before the tariff was introduced. Such a policy would be protectionist because it would favor U.S.-based companies that produce for the domestic market over foreign exporters. Only in the case where importers are subject to a tax and exporters receive a subsidy will the dollar strengthen to the point that neither exports nor imports change. Intuitively, this is because an export subsidy indirectly benefits importers by pushing up the value of the dollar, while directly benefiting exporters by offsetting the effect of a stronger dollar on profits. Q: If there is no change in the trade balance, what is the advantage of border-adjusting the corporate income tax? A: Contrary to Donald Trump's assertion that border adjustments are "too complicated," their chief advantage is their simplicity. Accurately assessing taxes on worldwide income is hard. Companies routinely engage in practices that purposely lower taxable profits. In particular, importers may overstate the value of their imports and exporters may understate the value of their exports. In a world where many companies have overseas subsidiaries, such "transfer pricing" machinations are easy to pull off. Border adjustments eliminate such incentives in one fell swoop. Recall that with a border adjustment, taxes are assessed on the difference between domestic revenues and domestic costs - both of which the IRS has the means to monitor. Yes, a U.S. company that overstates imports will be able to report a lower gross profit to the IRS, but now it will be on the hook for a higher import tax. What it puts in one pocket it takes from the other. Likewise, an exporter that understates its overseas sales will end up with a lower gross profit, but will now receive a smaller subsidy. Q: And I suppose that because the U.S. imports more than it exports, the border adjustment will end up raising additional revenues? A: That is correct. The annual U.S. trade deficit currently stands at $500 billion. A border adjustment tax rate of 20% would thus raise $100 billion in additional revenue. Given that the corporate income tax brings in about $350 billion, this would allow corporate taxes to be substantially cut without any loss in overall revenue. And this calculation excludes any indirect revenue that would accrue to the Treasury from reducing the incentive for U.S. companies to engage in profit-shifting behavior. Keep in mind, however, that the revenue boost from the border adjustment will decline if the U.S. trade deficit narrows over time. To the extent that the U.S. must finance its trade deficit through the sale of assets such as stocks, bonds, and property, it is possible that foreigners will one day decide to swap all these assets in exchange for U.S. goods. This would lead to an improvement in the U.S. trade balance. Indeed, to the extent that the U.S. is a net debtor to the rest of the world, it is possible that the average future U.S. trade balance will be positive. If that were to happen, the government would lose revenue from the border adjustment over the long haul. Meanwhile, a 25% appreciation in the greenback would reduce the dollar value of the assets that Americans hold abroad, without much of a corresponding decline in U.S. external liabilities. A reasonable estimate is that this would impose a paper loss on the U.S. of about 13% of GDP.1 Q: Ouch! But this assumes that a 20% border adjustment tax will lead to a 25% appreciation in the dollar. That is a mighty big can opener your fellow economists are assuming! What's to say this actually happens? A: Good point. Less than 10% of the turnover in the global foreign exchange market is directly related to the cross-border trade in goods and services. The rest represents financial market transactions. There are many things that can influence the value of the dollar beside trade flows. For example, suppose the government introduces a border adjustment tax, but the Federal Reserve fails to raise rates sufficiently fast in response to rising inflation stemming from a narrowing trade deficit. In that case, U.S. real rates could actually decline, leading to a weaker dollar. Our sense is that this won't happen, but the point is that there is no automatic link between a border tax and the dollar. Much depends on how the Fed responds and the underlying economic conditions. And even if the Fed does hike rates to keep the economy from overheating, two important forces will limit the extent of any dollar appreciation: First, questions about the timing and magnitude of the border adjustment tax - including the possibility that such a measure could be reversed by a future Congress - are likely to lead to only a partial appreciation in the dollar. Second, other central banks - particularly in emerging markets - are liable to take steps to limit the dollar's ascent so as not to place too great a burden on borrowers with dollar-denominated debt. Q: So what happens to countries with hard currency pegs to the dollar? Borrowers with dollar-denominated loans will be spared, but won't these countries end up suffering due to a sharp loss of competitiveness against other economies that have more flexible currencies? A: Correct. It is damned if you do, damned if you don't. Assuming that countries with exchange rate pegs to the dollar are strong enough to fend off a speculative attack, they will still need to engineer an equivalent real depreciation of their currencies via a decline in their nominal wages relative to U.S. wages - what economists call an "internal devaluation." That could impose a deflationary impulse on those economies. Q: You're losing me. A: Think about an extreme case - one where all countries have currency pegs to the dollar. How would the economic adjustment to a U.S. border tax work then? The answer is that initially, a tax on U.S. imports, combined with a subsidy on U.S. exports, would lead to a smaller trade deficit. This would cause the U.S. economy to overheat, putting upward pressure on prices and wages. By definition, an improving trade balance in the U.S. implies a worsening trade balance in the rest of the world. This would sap demand in other countries, putting downward pressure on prices and wages abroad. The adjustment will be complete only after relative wages have shifted enough to restore the U.S. trade balance to its original level. The important point is that in a world where some countries have flexible exchange rates while others have fixed exchange rates or dirty floats, the economic adjustment to a U.S. border tax will come through some combination of a stronger nominal dollar, higher U.S. inflation, and lower inflation abroad. Q: Bullish for the dollar, but bearish for U.S. bonds, correct? A: Precisely. The degree to which bond yields adjust around the world depends on the extent to which nominal exchange rates and domestic prices are sticky. If exchange rates are slow to change, more of the adjustment has to occur through higher inflation in the U.S. and lower inflation everywhere else. But even if nominal exchange rates adjust quickly, sticky goods prices would still push up U.S. bond yields. To see this point, consider what would happen if the dollar appreciated by 25% in response to the introduction of a border adjustment tax, but neither import prices nor export prices (expressed in U.S. dollars) changed. If that were to happen, the profit margins of U.S. importers would tumble because they would now have to pay an import tax but would not benefit from lower import prices. Meanwhile, the margins of U.S. exporters would soar as export prices stayed firm and they received a subsidy from the government. The result would be less imports and more exports, and hence, an improved trade balance. This would raise U.S. aggregate demand and put upward pressure on inflation and Treasury yields. Considering that 97% of U.S. exports and 93% of U.S. imports are denominated in dollars, such an outcome is hardly far-fetched. The bottom line is that in the "real world," the introduction of a border adjustment tax would cause Treasurys to sell off and the dollar to rally. Q: What sort of numbers are we talking about? A: Assuming a 20% border tax is introduced, a reasonable guess is that the trade-weighted dollar would rise by 10% over a 12-month period above and beyond our current forecast of a 5% gain. This would imply 15% upside from current levels. The 10-year Treasury yield would probably rise to about 3%. Q: It still puzzles me how you can claim that bond yields will rise if the dollar strengthens. Wouldn't a stronger dollar normally lead to lower bond yields? A: Your premise is wrong. It is not the stronger dollar that leads to higher bond yields. It is a third factor - namely the improvement in the trade balance arising from the decision to tax imports and subsidize exports - that causes both the dollar and bond yields to rise. This is similar to what happens when the government loosens fiscal policy. Mind you, at some point the positive correlation between the dollar and bond yields could break down. If the dollar rises too much, emerging markets will crumble under the stress. This will trigger safe-haven flows into the Treasury market, leading to a stronger dollar and lower yields. Such an outcome is not our base case, but it cannot be dismissed. Q: Got it. Presuming that the global economy holds up, it sounds like a border tax would be great news for Boeing, but bad news for Walmart? A: Yes, but there are two important qualifications to consider. First, it is possible that the dollar overshoots its new long-term equilibrium level, so that the pain to Boeing from the appreciation of the greenback ends up outweighing the benefits from the export subsidy it receives. Second, given the potential economic and financial dislocations from the shift to a destination-based tax system, there is likely to be some delay between when the tax bill is signed into law and when it is implemented. And even once implementation begins, the adjustment in tax rates may be phased in only gradually. Since the dollar will rise in anticipation of all this, it is possible that exporters will actually suffer initially, while importers receive a temporary boost to profits. Nevertheless, we think that investors will see through the near-term hit to exporter margins and focus on the medium-term gains. As such, equity investors should maintain a preference for exporting companies over those that heavily rely on imports (Chart 1). Q: This assumes that the market has not fully priced in this outcome already. What are the chances that this border adjustment tax proposal actually sees the light of day? A: The border tax idea originated in the House of Representatives and has its strongest support there. There might be more opposition in the Senate, but this could be overcome if enough Democrats with protectionist leanings can be found. President Trump panned the idea in an interview with the Wall Street Journal earlier this week.2 He noted that "Anytime I hear about border adjustment, I don't love it... because usually it means we're going to get adjusted into a bad deal. That's what happens." Trump's comments suggest he may not fully understand how border adjustments work. This implies that he might be persuaded to go along with the idea if Republican legislators are able to reach a "great deal" on adjustments in his eyes, whatever that means. Subjectively, we would assign 50% probability to a border tax being introduced in some form or another, although our sense is that it will be somewhat watered down so as not to generate major dislocations for the economy. This might entail excluding certain types of imports from a border tax if they are consumed disproportionately by the poor or represent an important input for U.S. manufacturing firms. Apparel and energy products would probably be on that list. It might also entail reducing the border adjustment tax to a lower level, say 10%, as Tom Barrack, head of Donald Trump's inaugural committee, has suggested. It is hard to know how much of this is already reflected in asset prices. The dollar fell after the WSJ article was published, but that may have had less to do with border adjustments and more to do with Trump's comment that he prefers a weaker dollar - an unprecedented statement for a U.S. president. Goldman Sachs' securities group has constructed two baskets using firm-level data, one comprised of "destination tax winners" and the other of "destination tax losers."3 The loser basket actually outperformed in the immediate aftermath of the election. While the relative performance of the winner basket has recovered more recently, it still remains below where it was last April (Chart 2). The limited reaction to the prospect of a border adjustment tax has been echoed in the fact that market expectations of the future volatility of the dollar has not changed much since the election, despite the possibility that the coming legislative debate could lead to wild swings in the greenback (Chart 3). Chart 3Dollar Volatility Has Not Escalated On balance, we conclude that investors are understating the likelihood of even a watered down border adjustment tax being introduced as part of a comprehensive tax reform program. This is broadly consistent with our client discussions, which have revealed that most investors - with a few notable exceptions - are only vaguely aware of the issue. Q: Won't the WTO rule against a border adjustment tax? That could explain why investors are discounting it. A: Yes, it probably will. The WTO permits border adjustments in the case of "indirect" taxes such VATs, but not in the case of direct taxes such as income or corporate profit taxes. Granted, the U.S. has brushed off WTO decisions in the past, such as when it ignored the trade body's ruling that U.S. laws restricting internet gambling contravened the General Agreement on Trade in Services. Considering that Donald Trump threatened to pull the U.S. out of the WTO during the election campaign, such an outcome cannot be easily dismissed. Nevertheless, given the magnitude of the border tax issue, even the Trump administration is likely to think twice about running afoul of WTO rules. Nevertheless, it might be possible to modify the border adjustment proposal to make it WTO-compliant. The distinction between direct and indirect taxes is one of those things self-styled experts like to pretend is important, but is not. It does not really matter whether a tax is levied on the sale of a good or service, or whether it is levied on income. In the end, someone has to pay the tax - be it a worker or a shareholder. The adoption by the U.S. of a border-adjusted destination tax would move the global economy in the direction of greater harmonization, not away from it. As noted at the outset, most other countries border adjust their value-added taxes. They do this so that their VATs mirror a consumption tax, as Table 2 illustrates with a simple example. Conceptually, a corporate cash flow tax coupled with a payroll tax functions in much the same way as a VAT (bottom part of Table 2). The U.S. already has both a corporate income and a payroll tax, so it is not that far away from having a VAT. All that is missing is a few tweaks to depreciation rules and the addition of the border adjustment. Yes, the dollar would strengthen if that were to happen, but this would put the greenback on par with other currencies. Chart 4 shows that the U.S. has run a trade deficit with the rest of the G7 since 1990, despite the fact that the dollar has traded on average 9% below its Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) over this period. One of the reasons this has occurred is that other G7 economies have a VAT, whereas the U.S. does not (Chart 5). This has kept the dollar weaker than it otherwise would have been. Chart 4The Dollar Was Cheap For A Reason Q: Okay, let's wrap this up. What are the main investment implications I should take away from this? A: Our main takeaway is that investors are underestimating the likelihood that the U.S. adopts a destination-based tax system. This suggests that the risks to the dollar are to the upside, as are the risks to U.S. Treasury yields. Global investors should underweight U.S. bonds on a currency-hedged basis. The implications for global equities are more nuanced. It may take some time for the dollar to adjust to the border tax. This, combined with the fact that import and export prices tend to be sticky in the short run, implies that the U.S. trade deficit will decline, boosting U.S. aggregate demand in the process. While that is potentially good news for U.S. corporate profits, the benefits will be curtailed by the fact that the U.S. economy is approaching full employment. This means that any further stimulus could simply result in higher real wages for workers without any offsetting increase in unit sales for U.S. companies. A shrinking U.S. trade deficit will diminish America's role as "the global consumer of last resort." This is problematic for export-dependent emerging markets. While a border adjustment may be justifiable on economic grounds, politically, it could be seen as the first volley in a global trade war. This could sour sentiment towards EM stocks. To make matters worse, a stronger dollar would harm emerging markets with high levels of dollar-denominated debt such as Turkey, Malaysia, and Chile, while also weighing on commodity prices. We recommend that investors underweight EM stocks relative to their DM counterparts. With these considerations in mind, we are closing our long Chinese banks trade for a gain of 32% and our long RUB/USD trade for a gain of 20%. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 U.S. external assets amount to 133% of GDP, while foreign liabilities stand at 175% of GDP. About 68% of U.S. external assets are denominated in foreign currency, compared with only 16% of external liabilities. Thus, the paper loss to the U.S. from a 25% appreciation in the dollar would be (175*0.16-133*0.68)*(1-1/1.25) = 12.5% of GDP. 2 Please see "Donald Trump Warns On House Republican Tax Plan," The Wall Street Journal, dated January 16, 2017, available at www.wsj.com. 3 The Bloomberg tickers for these baskets are GSCBDTW1 and GSCBDTL1. For more information, please see "US Daily: What Policy Changes Is The Equity Market Expecting?" Goldman Sachs Economic Research, dated January 11, 2017.

Highlights Global Growth: If global demand follows the recent improvements seen in economic sentiment, growth will surprise positively relatively to expectations in 2017. With global inflation also likely to continue drifting higher over the course of the year, the medium-term bearish implications for bonds are clear. Duration Technicals: Government bond markets remain technically stretched, as the bearish positioning from late 2016 is still intact. Combined with price momentum measures that have barely corrected from oversold extremes, yields are not quite ready to resume their ascent. It is too soon to reduce portfolio duration exposure to position for the higher yields that we expect this year. Canada: The Canadian economy has shown clear signs of improvement of late. This trend can continue in the first half of 2017, thus we are closing our short Canadian corporates/long Canadian provincial debt trade and entering a new position - shorting Canadian 10-year government bonds versus 10-year U.S. Treasuries. Feature Chart of the Week Post-Truth: relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief. - Oxford Dictionary Oxford voted that term, "post-truth", as the 2016 international word of the year. That is not a surprise, as the two dominant news stories of the past twelve months, Brexit and Trump, represented triumphs of hot emotional arguments over cold hard facts. Pessimists may argue that what we are currently seeing in the U.S. is a "post-truth" economic upturn, where confidence is soaring in expectation of the potential positive impact from Donald Trump's proposed pro-business agenda, but without a corresponding boost in actual growth. Financial markets appear to have already discounted a more rapid pace of growth, as evidenced by the surge in government bond yields in November/December and sharp outperformance of economically-sensitive asset classes like equities and high-yield (Chart of the Week). We do expect growth to deliver some upside surprises in 2017, putting additional upward pressure on government bond yields and downward pressure on credit spreads. In the meantime, however, markets need to consolidate the recent moves while the hard economic data catches up to booming sentiment. This leads us to maintain a cautious tactical investment stance, both towards duration exposure and credit allocations, while looking for more attractive levels to position for the improving global growth dynamic in 2017 by re-establishing below-benchmark duration positions and increasing corporate bond exposure. Real Growth Or Fake News? In our previous Weekly Report, we discussed how improving U.S. business confidence within the corporate sector could lead to a revival of capital spending after three years of decline.1 Not all of this is attributable to the "Trump effect", though. Global leading economic indicators were already starting to tick upward even before the U.S. election, while actual data in the major economies was surprising to the upside. This suggests that some pickup in global growth is likely in the next few quarters which would put additional upward pressure on the real component of government bond yields (Chart 2). Growth forecasts remain subdued, however, even with the recent bump in sentiment. The Bloomberg consensus expectation for real global GDP growth in 2017 is 3.2%. The International Monetary Fund is slightly more optimistic, projecting growth of 3.4% in 2017 but with only 2.3% growth in the U.S. (this is an updated forecast released yesterday, so after the U.S. election). Central bank growth forecasts at the country level are also relatively downbeat; for example, the Fed is expecting U.S. growth of only 2.1% in 2017 while the European Central Bank (ECB) is projecting Euro Area growth of 1.7%. Given the relatively high level of uncertainty over the potential effects of the incoming Trump administration's economic agenda, it is no surprise that professional forecasters are being cautious as they wait for the details to unfold. Yet while improving sentiment among consumers and businesses does not guarantee a faster pace of economic growth in the absence of rising household incomes and healthier corporate profits. However, greater confidence (i.e. "animal spirits") is often a prerequisite before a cyclical upturn can blossom, turning "post-truth" sentiment into a true recovery. Looking at the data among the major economic regions shows that, if the confidence indicators are to be believed, then global growth could deliver some upside surprises this year: United States: Consumer confidence is soaring, with the Conference Board measure reaching an 8-year high at the end of 2016. The December reading for U.S. National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) survey released last week showed a similar spike in confidence among U.S. small businesses, with capital expenditures, hiring plans and overall optimism returning to levels not seen since before the Great Recession (Chart 3). This is a similar move to the strong confidence data for corporate CEOs that we presented in last week's report. Chart 2A Cyclical Upturn In Growth & Yields Chart 3U.S. Economic Confidence Improving Euro Area: Euro Area sentiment measures, such as the European Commission confidence surveys or the widely-followed German IFO and ZEW indices, hooked upward at the end of 2016 (Chart 4). Both household and business confidence improved, underscoring how the current cyclical upturn in the Euro Area is broad-based. Japan: While Japan should not be expected to be a major contributor to overall global growth given its well-known structural economic impediments (contracting population, weak productivity, high government debt, etc), the most recent data does show a slight uptick in consumer confidence, business confidence and the Japan leading economic indicator (Chart 5). Chart 4A Solid Uptick In Euro Area Confidence Chart 5Japanese Sentiment Inching Higher Chart 6Upside Risks For Chinese Growth? China: Both consumer and business confidence have improved alongside the cyclical Chinese recovery seen in 2016, but this has not been enough to boost consensus forecasts for Chinese growth this year. Importantly, this creates the possibility of an upside growth surprise as both the OECD leading indicator for China and the proprietary GDP growth model from our colleagues at BCA China Investment Strategy are calling for faster growth in 2017 (Chart 6).2 A potential increase in trade or even military tensions between China and the U.S. is a potential risk to this sunny scenario but, given what we know now about the underlying economy, China looks poised to deliver another year of solid growth. The data does show that the improvement in economic sentiment goes beyond what is happening in the U.S. Some of that could be the spillover effect from greater optimism on the Trump-fueled U.S. economy to the rest of the world. The synchronized uptick in global leading economic indicators, however, suggests that there is more going on than a simple post-election hope that Trump can deliver faster U.S. growth. A genuine synchronized global upturn is underway, which is not "fake news" (which we expect will be the Oxford word of the year in 2017!) Bottom Line: If global demand follows the improvements seen in economic sentiment, growth will surprise positively relative to expectations. With global inflation also likely to continue drifting higher over the course of 2017, the bearish implications for bonds are clear. Bond Market Technicals Have Not Moved Much Normally, such a growing body of evidence pointing to improving global economic sentiment would be a bearish development for bond prices. Fixed income markets have already moved very rapidly, however, to discount a more optimistic outlook for growth. The rise in yields over the final two months of 2016 has left the major sovereign bond markets in a highly stretched position. This was one of the reasons we shifted our recommended duration stance from below-benchmark to neutral in early December.3 Looking at technical indicators such as the deviation of 10-year government bond yields from their 200-day moving averages, or momentum measures such as the 26-week total return for the sovereign bond indices, show that bonds remain deeply oversold in the main "G-4" markets: the U.S. (Chart 7), Germany (Chart 8), the U.K. (Chart 9) and Japan (Chart 10). Chart 7UST Technicals: Stretched Chart 8German Bund Technicals: Stretched Chart 9U.K. Gilt Technicals: Stretched Chart 10JGB Technicals: Stretched In the case of U.S. Treasuries, indicators of market positioning suggest that most traders have not unwound their bearish bets. The Commitment of Traders report shows that speculators currently have the largest net short position in Treasury futures in the history of the data. Meanwhile, the Market Vane index of Treasury sentiment has bounced slightly off the recent lows, but remains at generally downbeat levels (Chart 11) - and still above the levels that heralded prior peaks in yields in 2010, 2013 & 2015. Only the JPMorgan duration survey has shown a closing of net short positions for the more "active" trader base, but not for the overall set of bond investors. We will continue to monitor these positioning and momentum indicators in the weeks ahead to assess when the oversold market conditions have unwound enough to justify a shift back to a below-benchmark duration stance. For now, keep portfolio duration exposure at benchmark. Bottom Line: Government bond markets remain technically stretched, as the bearish positioning from late 2016 is still intact. Combined with price momentum measures that have barely corrected from oversold extremes, yields are not quite ready to resume their ascent. It is too soon to reduce portfolio duration exposure to position for the higher yields that we expect this year. Encouraging Signs From Canada Last October, this publication laid out a sobering view on the Canadian economy.4 Softening exports were a concern, especially in the non-commodity related sectors and even with a weaker Canadian dollar. Growth in corporate capital spending growth was still contracting, constrained by tight lending conditions. Moreover, household consumption appeared at risk, given the depressed labor force participation rate and low wage increases. This view led us to adopt: a neutral stance - but with a positive bias - on Canadian bonds versus global hedged benchmarks; a slightly more dovish view then the consensus on the next monetary policy move by the Bank of Canada (BoC), not discarding the possibility of a rate cut in 2017 and; a short position on Canadian corporates versus Canadian provincial government debt. Since then, however, the Canadian economic cycle has taken a positive turn. The euphoria surrounding Trump's economic plan for Canada's largest trading partner has definitely prompted some of the improvements. The enthusiasm towards possible pro-business American economic policies seems to have seeped into Canadian business owners' mindset as well (Chart 12). Chart 11UST Positioning Still Very Short Chart 12Trump Is Also Influencing Canada's Mood But there is more to it than that. First, employment data have firmed up. The net change in Canadian employment has been positive in each of the last five months, increasing on average by a robust 47.5k. The previously declining labor force participation rate has stabilized, posting a 65.8% reading in December versus the July low of 65.3%. Plus, more jobs have been created in the private sector versus the public sector and in more stable "regular" employment rather than self-employment (Chart 13). Second, the business sector's mood has brightened. According to the BoC's Winter Business Outlook Survey, sales expectations, investment plans and employment intentions are all recovering.5 More striking, firms' pricing power has jumped higher; prices of products and services sold are expected to increase substantially in the next twelve months (Chart 14, top panel). Better pricing power should help Canadian corporate profits, going forward. Chart 13Employment Firming up Chart 14A Business Cycle Reversal? Chart 15Exports Perking Up This, combined with better credit conditions, could potentially turn the Canadian economic cycle around. Real capital expenditure has been the big missing ingredient to a healthy economic expansion in the last few years. This is about to change as the BoC's Senior Loan Officer survey shows that Canadian bank lending conditions re-entered "easing" territory in Q4 2016 (Chart 14, bottom panel).6 Looser credit conditions usually lead to faster loan growth and stronger investment spending. Third, better sentiment globally, and especially in the U.S., has lifted demand for Canadian products, with growth for both commodity and non-commodity-related exports showing improvement in the last quarter of 2016. While higher commodity prices have certainly boosted commodity-related exports, improving U.S. consumer confidence suggests that Canadian goods exports numbers will perk up in the coming months (Chart 15). Fourth, Canadian housing prices could still grind higher for a while longer and a broad retrenchment in the construction sector might be avoided again in 2017. Granted, the backdrop remains quite risky given high prices and soaring household debt levels. According to the BoC, about 15% of high loan-to-income mortgages issued in 2016 would have been ineligible under the new regulatory framework for allowable mortgage lending.7 Hence, the construction sector will face some headwinds going forward as some new mortgage loans will be harder to come by, on the margin. However, it is not a given either that housing affordability (or lack thereof) has reached peak levels yet (Chart 16).8 Lately, the housing market has held up relatively well, despite the regulatory tightening measures put in place to reduce the systemic risks from overvalued Canadian real estate. New house prices grew at a 3% year-over-year rate in December - the fastest pace in four years - while housing starts have averaged 198k in the last twelve months, surpassing the levels seen during the previous three years. In sum, the Canadian economy has performed better than we previously expected. As such, we remain open to the idea that it could continue in that vein over at least the first half of 2017. That said, our optimism remains guarded. The health of the Canadian non-financial, non-energy corporate sector has been deteriorating over the last two years, limiting the potential for the kind of revival of animal spirits that we are seeing in the U.S. Plus, the cyclical data for Alberta - Canada's fourth most important province - remains moribund. A more robust expansion in that province would be necessary to solidify our conviction level towards the strength of the overall economy. Chart 16Not That Unaffordable Chart 17No Inflation On The Horizon Canada remains fragile; consumer indebtedness levels are elevated by international standards. Accordingly, this economy remains a hiccup away from disappointing in the event of an external shock. A global equity market correction, softer oil prices, a reversal in the latest Chinese reflationary push, a Trump geopolitical blunder and/or a move toward more trade protectionism in the U.S. (especially concerning NAFTA9) could negatively impact Canada at any moment - and in a much bigger fashion compared to most other developed economies. As such, the BoC will be prudent and probably stay on hold in 2017. Inflationary pressures are simply not strong enough to justify turning hawkish. Unemployment at 6.9% remains close to half a percentage point away from full employment levels.10 Our Canadian weekly earnings diffusion index is pointing to lower wage pressures, as well (Chart 17). The 30% probability of a rate hike by year-end currently discounted in the OIS market could easily be priced out if inflation remains subdued. Nonetheless, we have to acknowledge the improving backdrop in our portfolio recommendations: we are choosing to close our trade, shorting Canadian corporates versus Canadian provincial debt, at a loss of -53bps. The defensive characteristics of that trade, which also incurs negative carry, now appear less appealing, especially considering the global "risk on" environment currently in place. For now, we are maintaining our neutral stance on Canadian bonds in our global model portfolio, with Canada unlikely to see the same degree of upside inflation pressures that we expect in the other developed economies. However, we are opening a tactical trade, shorting Canadian government bonds versus U.S. Treasuries at the 10-year maturity. From a historical stand point, Canadian yields are very low compared to the U.S., offering an interesting entry point. In addition, the Canada-U.S. employment ratio and the price ratio of Brent oil to lumber - which have been broadly correlated to the Canada-U.S. spread over the years - are both hooking up, pointing to a wider Canada-U.S. spread and representing an interesting macro signal (Chart 18). U.S. inflation prospects add to this trade's attractiveness. Our colleagues at BCA U.S. Investment Strategy recently made a compelling case for U.S. inflation not being a major threat in 2017 after assessing the prospects for the main components of U.S. core PCE inflation (shelter, core goods and core services).11 Core PCE should converge on the Fed's target of 2% in the second half of 2017, but an inflation overshoot beyond that is not the base case (Chart 19). That could allow Canadian bonds yields to catch up to higher U.S. yields, especially if the oversold conditions in the U.S. Treasury market described earlier persist. Chart 18Go Short Canadian Bonds Versus U.S. Treasuries Chart 19Only A Mild Uptrend Is Likely In 2017 Bottom Line: The Canadian economy has shown clear signs of improvement of late. This trend can continue in the first half of 2017, thus we are closing our short Canadian corporates/long Canadian provincial debt trade and entering a new position - shorting Canadian 10-year government bonds versus 10-year U.S. Treasuries. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Jean-Laurent Gagnon, Editor/Strategist jeang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "4 Big Questions For Bond Markets In 2017", dated January 10, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: The 2017 Outlook, And The Trump Wildcard", dated January 12, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Bond Vigilantes Take A Break For The Holidays", dated December 6, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Bond Bear Phase Continues", dated October 11, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 5 http://www.bankofcanada.ca/2017/01/bos-winter-2016-17/ 6 http://www.bankofcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/slos-winter2016.pdf 7 http://www.bankofcanada.ca/2016/12/fsr-december-2016/ 8 A description of the Bank of Canada Housing Affordability Index can be found at http://credit.bankofcanada.ca/financialindicators/hai 9 NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) is a treaty between Canada, the United States, and Mexico aimed at removing trade barriers and encouraging economic activity. 10 NAIRU stands at 6.5% 11 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Inflation In 2017: An Idle Threat", dated January 9, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights Duration: In the absence of a major economic shock we will reinitiate a below-benchmark duration recommendation once the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index displays some mean reversion and positioning indicators are at less bearish extremes. Fed Balance Sheet: The Fed could start to reduce the size of its balance sheet as early as the end of this year, but more likely in 2018. In any case, allowing securities to run off its portfolio will not have much of an impact on long-dated Treasury yields. MBS: Remain underweight MBS. Spreads are already low and have near-term upside based on the slope of the yield curve and the uptrend in interest rate volatility. Feature As we pointed out in our December 6 report, the bond selloff had proceeded too far, too fast, and was due for a pause. The 10-year Treasury yield then peaked at 2.6% on December 16 and has now fallen back to 2.4% as we go to press. It is of note that all of the reversal has come from the real component of yields while the compensation for expected inflation has remained firm (Chart 1). Chart 1Bear Market On Pause In our end-of-year "Themes For 2017" Special Report 1 we explained why we believe Treasury yields will level-off in the near term before heading higher throughout most of 2017. Now that we have entered this first "consolidation phase" it is time to consider what factors would cause us to reinstate a below-benchmark duration stance. But first, let us quickly recap our bearish 6-12 month outlook for Treasuries. The Cyclical Outlook For Treasury Yields Many of the headwinds that held back economic growth last year - including fiscal policy, inventory drawdowns and the impact of a distressed energy sector on capital spending - are poised to abate in 2017. With stronger growth and an already tight labor market, core inflation will continue to gradually rise toward the Fed's target. We expect trailing 12-month core PCE inflation will reach the Fed's 2% target near the end of 2017. Consequently, the cost of inflation protection embedded in bond yields will also converge with levels that are consistent with the Fed's target (Chart 2). We judge this level to be in the range of 2.4% to 2.5% for long-dated TIPS breakevens. With the 5-year/5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate at 2.13% and the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate at 2%, long-dated Treasury yields have approximately 30-50 bps of upside from the inflation component alone. Chart 2Breakevens Still Too Low Chart 3Real Yields Also Biased Higher We are less certain about how much higher real yields might move during the next 12 months. However, the downside in real yields is surely limited. Chart 3 shows that changes in the 10-year real yield and changes in our 12-month Fed Funds Discounter2 are almost always positively correlated. At present, the reading from our discounter is 46 bps, meaning the market is priced for about 2 more rate hikes during the next 12 months. Given our positive economic outlook, 2 or 3 rate hikes in 2017 sounds reasonable. Is Now The Time To Trim Duration? Barring any major economic setbacks we will consider three factors when making this decision: (i) valuation, (ii) economic policy uncertainty and (iii) sentiment & positioning. Factor 1: Valuation When we last shifted from a below-benchmark to a benchmark duration stance on December 6 the 10-year Treasury yield traded 14 bps above the fair value reading from our 2-factor Global PMI Model. At present, the 10-year yield is only 9 bps cheap on this model (Chart 4). In other words, valuation is essentially neutral. But since global PMI is likely to trend higher over the course of the year, we would be comfortable cutting duration at current valuation levels should the other two factors on our checklist fall into place. Factor 2: Uncertainty We've been talking a lot about uncertainty recently, mostly in reference to the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index created by Baker, Bloom and Davis.3 This index exhibits a strong inverse correlation with Treasury yields over time and has shot higher during the past couple of months without a corresponding decrease in yields. When we consider the uncertainty index alongside Global PMI and bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar in our 3-factor model of Treasury yields, we find that the 10-year Treasury yield now appears 38 bps cheap (Chart 5). Chart 4Close To Fair Value... Chart 5...But Uncertainty Remains Elevated What is particularly odd is that the uncertainty index has diverged so sharply from measures of both consumer and small business confidence (Chart 6). This epic split can mean only one of two things: Chart 6Excessive Optimism Or A False Reading From The Uncertainty Index? Businesses and consumers are excessively optimistic in the face of an increasingly uncertain back-drop, or The uncertainty index is unable to distinguish between policy shocks with positive and negative economic implications We turn to history in an attempt to determine whether the warning from the uncertainty index should be heeded. Specifically, we searched for other one-month periods when there was a one standard deviation increase in the uncertainty index alongside increases in both consumer and small business confidence. Since 1991, ten months meet these criteria (Table 1). Table 1Periods Displaying One Standard Deviation Increase In Global Economic Policy##br## Uncertainty Index* And Increase In Both Consumer Sentiment Index** ##br##And Small Business Confidence Index*** (1991 To Present) First we note that Treasury yields declined in 7 out of the 10 flagged periods, but in many of those episodes the scale of the positive confidence shocks was not very large. The two months that appear most similar to the present situation are September 2008 and December 2013. Chart 7Investors Still Bearish The Fed announced the tapering of its asset purchases in December 2013 amidst signs of an improving economy. The hawkish Fed announcement and improving economic outlook sent yields higher on the month, while the uncertainty index spiked as a large number of Fed-related news stories hit the papers.4 One thing that makes December 2013 an imperfect comparable to the present day is that the uncertainty shock was relatively small compared to the confidence shocks. In September 2008 the confidence shocks were not as large as the uncertainty shock, much like today, and the 10-year Treasury yield managed a 2 bps increase. However, it is definitely unfair to draw a conclusion based on the extremely volatile price movements that were witnessed at the height of the financial crisis in September 2008. Based on the example of December 2013, we cannot decisively rule out the possibility that the uncertainty index is simply giving a false signal. However, if that is the case we would expect the uncertainty index to mean revert in relatively short order. Given the strong historical relationship between the uncertainty index and Treasury yields, we will wait for some mean reversion in the uncertainty index before shifting back to a below-benchmark duration stance. Factor 3: Sentiment & Positioning When we shifted from a below-benchmark to a benchmark duration stance measures of investor sentiment and positioning were at bearish extremes, sending a decisive signal that the bond market was oversold. As of today, some of these indicators have started to reverse course while others have not (Chart 7). Our BCA Bond Sentiment Indicator, a composite of a survey of bullish sentiment toward bonds and the 13-week rate of change in bond yields is no longer at an oversold extreme. However, net speculative positions in the 10-year Treasury futures contract have moved even further into "net short" territory. The J.P. Morgan client survey shows that investors remain below benchmark duration in aggregate, although active traders are no longer net short. Although some capitulation of shorts has already taken place, we will await some further normalization of positioning - particularly in net speculative futures - before reinitiating a below-benchmark duration stance. Bottom Line: In the absence of a major economic shock we will reinitiate a below-benchmark duration recommendation once the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index displays some mean reversion and positioning indicators are at less bearish extremes. The Fed's Balance Sheet & The Shortage Of Bills The minutes from December's FOMC meeting revealed that: Several participants noted circumstances that might warrant changes to the path for the federal funds rate could also have implications for the reinvestment of proceeds from maturing Treasury securities and principal payments from agency debt and mortgage-backed securities Since then, three different FOMC members have also spoken about the size of the Fed's balance sheet. Philadelphia Fed President Patrick Harker said that the Fed should consider shrinking its balance sheet once the fed funds rate reaches 1%.5 Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren made the case for more immediate action6 and St. Louis Fed President James Bullard said the Fed should consider shrinking its balance sheet in 2017.7 Clearly, talk of unwinding the Fed's balance sheet is heating up. The Fed's only official stated position on this topic is that it will keep its balance sheet level until normalization of the fed funds rate is "well under way", a statement we have long interpreted to mean "until the fed funds rate is 1%, or perhaps even higher". As such, we would not expect any action on winding down the Fed's balance sheet until late this year at the earliest, and more likely in 2018. The Impact On Treasury Yields In any case, as we detailed in a report published in August 2015,8 we do not think that the Fed allowing its balance sheet to shrink will itself have much of an impact on Treasury yields. The reason relates to the way in which maturing Treasury securities are currently rolled over at auction and the persistent shortage of T-bills in the market. Chart 8Fed Runoff Will Increase##br## Issuance To Public ... At the moment, balances of matured Treasury securities are added to upcoming note/bond auctions as non-competitive bids. In other words, as Treasury securities mature the Fed buys an equal amount at upcoming Treasury auctions. If the Fed were to cease this reinvestment, that amount would need to be added to the competitive portion of the auctions and would greatly increase the gross issuance of Treasury debt to the public. For a sense of scale, we calculate that Treasury issuance to the public would need to increase by $426 bn in 2018 and $378 bn in 2019 if the Fed were to cease the reinvestment of its portfolio at the end of this year (Chart 8). We contend, however, that a significant portion of this extra financing requirement will be met through increased T-bill issuance and will therefore not impact long-dated Treasury yields. The Treasury department has had a stated goal of increasing T-bill issuance since May 2015 and bill supply as a percentage of total Treasury debt remains near a multi-decade low (Chart 9). Further, T-bills are still in high demand as evidenced by the fact that they are trading at a substantial premium to other money market instruments (Chart 10). This premium exists despite the fact that the Fed has been soaking up a lot of T-bill demand through its Overnight Reverse Repo facility (Chart 10, bottom panel). If the Fed were to phase this program out alongside a reduction in the size of its balance sheet - which is its current stated exit strategy - the shortage of T-bills would be exacerbated. Chart 9... But Mostly Through T-Bills Chart 10T-Bills In High Demand Of course there is a new regime about to enter the White House and the Treasury department, and also a lot of uncertainty about how large the deficit will be going forward. If the deficit is increased substantially then it would likely be necessary for the Treasury department to increase the size of both bill and coupon issuance in the years ahead. Bottom Line: It is necessary to consider both fiscal policy and the Fed's balance sheet together when forecasting Treasury issuance. Further, whatever the government's financing requirement, a considerable portion of it will be addressed through increased T-bill issuance in the years ahead. This will limit the impact on long-dated Treasury yields. A Quick Note On MBS Chart 11MBS Spreads Are Too Low Any unwind of the Fed's balance sheet will have a much greater impact on MBS spreads than on Treasury yields since it will add directly to the supply of MBS available to the public, which tends to correlate with MBS option-adjusted spreads (Chart 11). Of course, other factors such as the rate of prepayments will determine how quickly the Fed's MBS holdings run off and the state of the housing market will determine how much new mortgage origination takes place. We hope to explore these issues in more depth in the coming weeks. Of more immediate concern for MBS spreads though is the recent divergence between nominal spreads, rate volatility and the slope of the yield curve (Chart 11, bottom two panels). MBS spreads have not widened in recent weeks despite curve steepening and rising rate vol. MBS spreads are already low compared to investment alternatives and have upside in the near term, especially if the yield curve continues to steepen, as we expect it will. Looking further out, the eventual wind down of the Fed's balance sheet is another risk the MBS market will have to face. Bottom Line: Remain underweight MBS. Spreads are already low and have near-term upside based on the slope of the yield curve and the uptrend in interest rate volatility. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Seven Fixed Income Themes For 207", dated December 20, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Our 12-month discounter measures the expected change in the fed funds rate during the next 12 months as discounted in the overnight index swap curve. 3 www.policyuncertainty.com 4 The uncertainty index is in part based on an algorithm that scans newspapers for coverage of policy-related economic uncertainty. 5 http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-harker-idUSKBN14W1W4 6 http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/09/reuters-america-interview-rosengren-urges-more-rate-hikes-slimmer-balance-sheet.html 7 http://www.businessinsider.com/lets-shrink-the-balance-sheet-bullard-says-2016-12 8 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Currencies: The Tail Wagging The Dog", dated August 18, 2015, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Argentina's structural reform story keeps getting better and the bull market in the nation's assets has further to go. Further interest rate cuts means a cyclical economic recovery is in the making. The South American nation will continue to attract, and retain, global capital. Stay with the long ARS / short BRL trade. Dedicated EM and FM investors should remain overweight Argentine equities, and stay with the long Argentina / short Brazil relative equity trade. Sovereign credit traders should stay overweight Argentine credit within EM credit portfolios. In addition, go overweight Argentine local currency government bonds versus the EM benchmark. A new trade: go long 7-year Argentine local currency government bonds, currency unhedged. Feature After taking a pause over the past few months, Argentine share prices have once again begun to climb (Chart 1), and rightfully so. Yet another round of reforms and needed policy adjustments by the all-star cabinet of President Mauricio Macri have been rolled out. In fact, the sheer volume and frequency of orthodox policy measures deployed so far has been so extensive that not a week has gone by when seemingly yet another price control has been lifted or incentive-distorting subsidy scrapped. This is also a sign of how many distortions were in place to begin with, but clearly the government's reform momentum remains in high gear. Chart 1The Bull Market In Argentine Equities Has More To Go With positive long-term reform, however, comes short-term pain, as we highlighted back in September.1 Unsurprisingly, Argentina's recession has been deep and prolonged. This is about to change. A strong disinflationary momentum is starting emerge, and will re-animate growth in the months to come as interest rates drop significantly. Ultimately, what matters for investors is the outlook for the economy's return on capital, and signs point towards a potentially multi-year and sustainable economic expansion in the making. The re-rating process has further to go. Stay long/overweight Argentine assets, including equities, sovereign and local credit, and the Argentine peso versus the Brazilian real. Full-Out Structural Transformation Continues 2017 has been kicked off with a full reform swing in Argentina, as the Macri administration has implemented another round of orthodox measures. Among them: Capital Markets Liberalization. Capital controls have been eliminated. The 120-day holding period for repatriating capital has been abolished. In addition, the central bank has done away the maximum monthly amount of foreign exchange purchases. Energy Reform. A major agreement with oil companies and oil unions has been announced regarding the nation's massive Vaca Muerta shale oil and gas basin. Competitiveness will be boosted via lower labor costs as unions have agreed to more flexible contracts and to limit benefits. In addition, firms have pledged to invest US$5 billion in 2017. Also, export taxes on crude oil and derivatives have been removed, and oil price subsidies will continue to be reduced. Telecom Reform. For the first time since 2001, the government is no longer intervening to block price increases, even for regulated services where tariffs had not increased since 2001. In addition, regulations in the telecommunications sector will be loosened in a bid to increase competition, boost investment and modernize the nation's internet service. On top of these recent reforms, the government is already beginning to implement an ambitious infrastructure plan while currently drafting a long-term strategy - its so-called 2020 Production Plan. The plan boasts eight main pillars, among them: developing and deepening local capital markets to attract more foreign investment; lowering the cost of capital for firms; working towards much needed tax reforms to lower the incredibly high tax burden on corporations; improving labor legislation; fostering innovation; increasing competition; reducing red tape; and boosting infrastructure. This continued supply-side reform push, coupled with a big pullback in the role of the state in the economy to crowd in investment, is exactly what this capital-starved economy needs (Chart 2). Startlingly, even among low savings/investment South American economies, at 14% of GDP, Argentina's capex-to-GDP is the lowest in the region, with Brazil now in a close second-to-last place (Chart 3). As a capex-boom materializes in Argentina, the potential upside for return-on-capital of such a mismanaged and underinvested economy is enormous. Chart 2Argentina: More Investment, Less Government? Chart 3Structural Reforms Will Improve Argentina's Abysmal Investment Rate A clear advantage is that the nation boasts an overall well-educated population, at least by South American standards. The country's tertiary educational enrollment rate, a quantity measure, currently stands at 80% - a high level both in absolute terms and relative to South American peers (Chart 4). And when looking at standardized test scores, a quality measure, Argentina stands close to the middle of the pack relative to other emerging market (EM) and frontier market (FM) economies, but near the top versus its Latin American peers (Chart 5). Overall, a supply-side reform bonanza, agile and orthodox policymaking and a relatively educated population means Argentina's overall return on capital and languishing labor productivity growth could experience a similar surge to the one seen during the 1990s (Chart 6). Chart 4Argentina Versus South America: ##br##Educational Attainment Chart 6Labor Productivity Is Set To Improve,##br##Significantly Bottom Line: Argentina's structural outlook is extremely positive. A Dollar Deluge... In Argentina? Argentina has been known much more for repelling capital (i.e. capital flight) than attracting it. However, its ongoing structural transformation means that foreign capital will continue to make its way back in. Attracting sufficient foreign capital is key to finance the Macri administration's ambitious capex-led growth plan. Yet at 15% of GDP, Argentina's domestic savings rate is low, also reflected by its current account deficit (Chart 7). Will the nation be able to attract sufficient capital to finance its current account deficit of 2.8% of GDP, or US$16 billion dollars? We believe so. If an economy offers a high return on capital, as is likely in Argentina at present for the reasons mentioned above, it will attract more than enough capital to finance its current account deficit - possibly even more than it requires. So far, this appears to be the case in Argentina. For instance: Portfolio inflows have gone vertical over the past year, reaching an astounding annualized level of US$29.1 billion dollars, a 20-year high (Chart 8, top panel). Chart 7Argentina's Domestic Savings Rate Is Low Chart 8Capital Will Likely Continue ##br##To Flood Into Argentina Moreover, cross-border M&A deals, a robust leading indicator for net FDI capital inflows, have surged (Chart 8, bottom panel). Chart 9Argentine Banks Are Flush With Dollars The first phase of a tax amnesty scheme that ran from May to last December has been a massive success. Roughly US$100 billion dollars' worth of assets were repatriated and/or declared, which generated ARS 108 billion, or 1.3% of GDP worth of tax revenues. The second round ends this March, and there may be much more to come. The Federal Reserve has suggested that due to decades of crises, Argentineans along with former Soviet countries have hoarded an enormous amount of (most likely undeclared) U.S. dollars.2 The result of repatriated or undeclared dollar financial assets as well as a boom in agricultural exports receipts, which followed from a more competitive currency and the elimination of almost all export taxes a year ago, has caused foreign currency deposits at commercial banks to soar to US$24 billion, or 20% of total deposits (Chart 9). Chart 10Argentina: Falling Foreign Lending Rates, ##br##Despite Rising U.S. LIBOR As foreign currency loans can only be made to exporters with revenue streams in U.S. dollars, the government has recently loosened regulations so that banks can use the equivalent of half the amount they lend out to exporters, currently US$9 billion in total, to underwrite dollar-denominated Treasury bonds. This means that at least US$4.5 billion worth of U.S. dollar sovereign debt will be able to be bought by local banks, something not possible since 2001. This will provide an additional source of demand for Argentine dollar-denominated debt in the event of any major global financial stress. Lastly, such an ample supply of foreign currency is being reflected in local dollar interest rates, which have been plummeting at a time when U.S. LIBOR rates have been rising fast (Chart 10). This will provide a cushion of cheaper U.S. financing for Argentine exporters as U.S. interest rates continue to rise.3 Importantly, the reason the Argentine peso has been relatively weak in the face of large capital inflows is largely due to the sizable pent-up demand for foreign capital (hard currency assets), following the removal of capital controls in place for so many years. Thus, it was natural there would be some sort of capital flight by households and firms. In addition, corporates that had been previously unable to repatriate profits abroad did so. However, we believe these were one-off's. Going forward the currency should stabilize and/or likely strengthen as the nation's robust macro policy framework boosts the country's return-on-capital, attracting further global capital. Bottom Line: Only a year ago Argentina was locked out of international debt markets and starved for foreign currency. Now, in the face of rising global interest rates, it is flush with foreign currency, with more on the way. A Disinflationary Boom Is On Its Way While the recession in Argentina will likely last a bit longer, there are already signs of an economic recovery in the making. Mainly: Not only has inflation begun to drop in earnest, but importantly inflation expectations are plunging (Chart 11). This is an incredibly significant development as inflation expectations tend to be "adaptive", meaning that they are set based on past experience rather than through some rational, forward-looking thought process. Therefore, such a dramatic fall in inflation expectations appears to be marking the end of Argentina's most recent battle with hyperinflation. Hoping to avoid a major policy mistake on its way toward implementing an inflation-targeting framework, the central bank has been relatively cautious. However, further rate cuts are on their way, which should re-ignite the credit cycle and boost economic activity (Chart 12 and 13). Chart 11Has Hyperinflation Finally Come To An End? Chart 12Much Lower Interest Rates Should Help Support Growth Chart 13Argentina's Credit Cycle Is About To Turn Up For their part, wages in real (inflation-adjusted) terms will be slow to recover (Chart 14), as dislocations to the labor market caused by the Macri government's shock therapy will take time to work themselves out. This is bullish for corporate profit margins and return on capital. In turn, high potential profitability will incentivize local and international companies to ramp up their capital spending in Argentina. Notably, capital goods imports are already rising, a sign that investment is recovering (Chart 15, top panel). As Argentine firms faced foreign currency restrictions for years, an increase in imported capital is bound to go a long way toward boosting productivity. Chart 14Incomes Will Take Time To Recover From Shock Therapy Chart 15Early Signs Of A Recovery In Investment? In addition, rising apparent consumption of cement suggests that the collapse in construction activity is in late stages (Chart 15, bottom panel). Lastly, as to external accounts, chances are the pros and cons will mostly balance out (Chart 16). Chart 16External Accounts Will Not Be A Drag ##br##On Growth Argentina's agribusiness exports will be aided by a competitive currency, and the current investment boom taking place in the sector. However, the country's single largest trading partner, Brazil, which consumes 15% of all its exports and most of its manufactured exports, has so far failed to even recover. Thus, gains from commodities exports will be offset by weak exports to Brazil, which at least will help keep the trade and current account balances in check as import demand recovers. Bottom Line: Aided by structural tailwinds, a cyclical economic recovery is in the making. Politics And Fiscal Policy Exactly one year ago the key risks we highlighted to our bullish Argentine view centered around the ability of the Macri administration to navigate the turbulent waters of shock therapy successfully.4 Specifically, history has shown the failure of Argentine center-right leaders to effectively balance meaningful economic reform with labor relations. In addition, the Macri administration and its alliance – made up mainly of Macri’s Republican Proposal (PRO), the Civic Coalition ARI (CC), the Radical Civic Union (UCR) parties – did not have a majority in either house of Congress, making restoring fiscal discipline challenging, given the deep hole dug by the previous government. While closing the fiscal deficit of 5% of GDP has indeed proved quite difficult in the midst of a recession and full-out structural transformation of the economy, as we expected, Macri's team has brilliantly managed all other risks. Now, as growth is set to recover, the deficit will be lifted by higher tax revenues in real (inflation-adjusted) terms. Chart 17Can Macri Walk On Water? Importantly, with US$19 billion, or 3.1% of GDP, in external debt service due this year (principal and interest), fixed-income markets have been jittery over the 2017 debt financing plan. However, the latest news is once again incredibly bullish for Argentine assets. Just last week the administration unveiled its 2017 debt plan and it has already secured an 18-month repo line with international banks worth US$6 billion. The country also plans on borrowing another US$4 billion from multilateral agencies, and will tap global capital markets with US$10 billion worth of sovereign paper. The government is front-loading the debt issues and tapping global capital before U.S. President-elect Donald Trump takes office on January 20 to hedge against possible market turbulence. External debt service requirements will also drop off considerably after this year - making tapping debt markets now an equally prudent move. To be sure, this year's legislative elections, to be held in October, will be important to monitor, as the balance of power in Congress may speed up or slow down the government's ambitious reform agenda. At present, we do not expect any major change. As a result, Macri's reform efforts will likely continue, particularly if the economy continues to recover. Besides, Macri's team has already proved not only incredibly capable of negotiating with labor unions, but also with politicians of diverse stripes, as was the case during last December's tax reform. To conclude, we warned investors last January that Macri would not "walk on water" when it came to suddenly reining in the fiscal accounts and engineering economic shock therapy. To his and his administration's credit, however, a year on and it appears they have managed to tip-toe on razor-thin ice rather successfully and even maintain a high approval rating to boot (Chart 17). Bottom Line: Argentina's fiscal situation seems poised to improve considerably, which is very bullish for Argentine fixed-income assets. Investment Recommendations Chart 18Stay Overweight Argentine Sovereign ##br##Debt Versus The EM Credit Benchmark Stay long ARS / short BRL. The Argentine peso is not expensive and structural reforms and orthodox macroeconomic policies will likely attract more than enough FDI to fund the nation's balance of payments. And while FDI inflows have also been strong in Brazil, we believe these FDI inflows are set to decelerate,5 in contrast to accelerating inflows in Argentina. Sovereign credit traders should stay overweight Argentine credit within EM credit portfolios (Chart 18), as the growth recovery will greatly improve the nation's fiscal metrics. Fiscal revenues in real (inflation-adjusted) will grow helping contain the fiscal deficit, and the recovery in economic activity will bring down the public debt-to-GDP ratio which currently stands at 57% of GDP. In addition, now that capital controls have been completely lifted, local fixed-income instruments yielding a 1400-basis-point spread above duration-matched U.S. Treasurys are incredibly attractive. Overweight local currency government bonds as well. A new trade: go long 7-year Argentine local currency government bonds, currency unhedged, yielding 15%. Dedicated EM and FM investors should remain overweight Argentine equities via the local market or the more liquid ADR market versus their respective benchmarks, and stay with the long Argentina/short Brazil equity trade. The Argentine FM benchmark and local Merval index are energy heavy, with 20% and 33% of their total market cap, respectively, comprising of energy companies. As we believe energy plays will outperform other commodities plays, particularly industrial metals, Argentine equities will benefit.6 Meanwhile, bank stocks, which account for 38% and 15% of the FM and Merval markets, respectively, are poised to perform well. As there was no credit buildup, unlike in many EMs, the looming rise in non-performing loans (NPL) will not hit earnings much. Moreover, private commercial banks have shifted massively into government bonds since 2014. Public debt holdings have risen 4-fold since 2014, and banks will reap capital gains on these investments as local rates drop. As government bond holdings now stand at nearly 20% of commercial banks total assets, these earnings streams will compensate from a compression in net interest margins (NIM) as interest rates continue falling. As to valuations, although price-to-book values seem elevated, we believe that these valuations have been distorted by hyperinflation. The value of shareholder equity did not rise as much as stock prices and earnings rose with hyperinflation. Thus, we believe Argentine equities will continue to benefit from a genuine re-rating story, and valuations are much cheaper than may appear using conventional metrics. Santiago E. Gómez, Associate Vice President Santiagog@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy and Frontier Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Argentina: Short-Term Pain, Long-Term Gain," dated September 7, 2016, available at fms.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Judsun, Ruth (2012), "Crisis and Calm: Demand for U.S. Currency at Home and Abroad From the Fall of the Berlin Wall to 2011," International Finance Discussion Papers, no. 1058. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System November 2012. 3 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "The U.S. Dollar's Uptrend And China's Options," dated January 11, 2017, available on at ems.bcaresarch.com 4 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Assessing Political And Financial Landscapes In Argentina, Venezuela And Brazil," dated January 6, 2016, available on at ems.bcaresarch.com 5 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Brazil: The Honeymoon Is Over," dated August 3, 2016, available at ems.bcaresarch.com 6 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "EM Got "Trumped," dated November 16, 2016, available at ems.bcaresarch.com

Highlights The global 6-month credit impulse is now in its longest upcycle in a decade. Given also that bond yields have had their sharpest spike in a decade, we would not bet on the upcycle lasting much longer. Lean against the rise in bond yields and bank equities. Underweight the Eurostoxx600 versus the S&P500. Underweight the IBEX versus the Eurostoxx600. Feature A few days into the New Year, two over-arching economic questions are exercising our minds. Is the relationship between sharply higher bond yields and weaker bank credit creation still valid? And is the relationship between weaker bank credit creation and decelerating economic growth still valid? Chart of the WeekCredit Impulses Heading In Different Directions We suspect the answers are yes and yes. European Investors Must Think Globally, Not Locally Europe is not an investment island. Major European stock market indexes comprise large multinational companies whose sales and profits come from across the world. The upshot is that European stock markets almost always move up and down in tandem with other major world stock markets, such as the S&P500 and Nikkei225 (Chart I-2). Mainstream bond markets might seem to be more parochial, given that they are supposedly under the influence of the local central bank. But investors buy and sell high quality bonds as a global asset class. The upshot is that European bond markets also almost always move up and down in tandem with other major developed bond markets (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Major Equity Markets Move Together Chart I-3Major Bond Markets Move Together Hence, European investors must look first and foremost at global drivers. For us, the most important such driver is the global 6-month credit impulse - which sums the 6-month (dollar) credit impulses in the euro area, the United States and China. Does the global 6-month credit impulse have any predictive power? Yes. Chart I-4 shows that it has consistently led the 6-month cycle in the global government bond yield, which is a good proxy for the global growth cycle. Admittedly, this powerful predictive relationship weakened somewhat through 2013-14 during the most aggressive and distortive phase of worldwide QE. However, in the past couple of years, as QE has waned, the global 6-month credit impulse's predictive power has strongly re-asserted itself (Chart I-5). Chart I-4The Credit Impulse Leads ##br##The Global Growth 'Mini-Cycle' Chart I-5The Credit Impulse's Predictive ##br##Power Has Re-Asserted Itself In effect, the charts illustrate that whatever the structural economic backdrop, the global economy experiences a perpetual 'mini-cycle' lasting about 15-24 months. Higher bond yields (or credit restrictions) weaken the credit impulse; the weaker impulse then depresses growth; the depressed growth lowers bond yields; lower bond yields (or credit easing) strengthen the credit impulse; the stronger impulse then boosts growth; the boosted growth lifts bond yields; and back to the beginning... Remember, the credit impulse measures the growth in the credit flow. The important point to grasp is that the impulse can weaken even if the credit flow numbers themselves seem strong. For example, if the credit flow increased from $100bn to $150bn to $190bn it might appear to be growing very healthily. But actually, the impulse would have weakened from $50bn to $40bn, creating a headwind. Where are we in the perpetual mini-cycle? Today, the euro area credit impulse is losing momentum, while the U.S. impulse is waning. Which leaves China's rising credit impulse as the only component supporting the global credit impulse (Chart of the Week). But for how much longer? To repeat, it would just take the global credit flow to decelerate for the impulse to roll over. Now consider that high-quality bond yields have had their sharpest 6-month spike in a decade. And that the current 10 month upcycle in the global credit impulse already makes it the longest in a decade. Hence, we would not bet on this mini-upcycle lasting much longer. A Few Words On Our Credit Cycle Framework Our credit cycle framework has several features which uniquely define it. First, the framework focusses on bank credit. This is because the magic of fractional reserve banking allows a bank to create money and new spending power out of thin air. When somebody borrows from a bank, his bank account and spending power goes up, but nobody's spending power has to go down. In contrast, when somebody borrows by issuing a bond, it merely reallocates spending power from one person to another person. The borrower sees his bank account and spending power go up, but the lender sees his bank account and spending power go symmetrically down. Spending will rise to the extent that the borrower has a higher propensity to spend than the lender, but this may or may not be the case. Second, as already discussed, the framework focusses on the bank credit impulse - which measures the growth in the bank credit flow. This is just to compare apples with apples. Remember that GDP is itself a flow statistic. So the growth in GDP receives a contribution from the growth in the credit flow1 (and not from the flow itself). Third, the framework focusses on the 6-month bank credit impulse. We choose this periodicity because 6 months is about the time that it takes to for credit to be fully spent, thereby yielding the greatest predictive power from the credit impulse to economic activity. Fourth, the framework calculates the credit cycle using bank credit to the non-financial sector2 rather than the more commonly-quoted money supply statistics such as euro area M3. The simple reason is that not all loans generate economic activity. Bank to bank lending may stay trapped in the financial system. The money supply - which is on the liabilities side of the banks' balance sheet - would not pick up this distinction. As M3 captures all bank deposits, it would still be expanding rapidly, giving the false signal that demand should be growing. Hence, it is better to focus on bank lending - which is on the assets side of the banks' balance sheet - and only count lending that is likely to generate economic activity (Chart I-6). This reasoning only works if the official data on bank loans is accurate and complete. In China, this is unlikely to be the case, given its large shadow banking system. But unofficial shadow lending must eventually show up in the money supply. Therefore, exceptionally for the China sub-component, our credit cycle framework does prefer to use the money supply (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Our Euro Area Credit Impulse##br## Uses Bank Lending... Chart I-7...But Our China Credit Impulse ##br##Uses Money Supply A Few Words On Our Reductionist Framework We are also strong believers in Investment Reductionism. This philosophy stems from two guiding principles: Occam's Razor - which says that when there are competing explanations for the same effect, the simplest explanation is usually the best; and the Pareto Principle - which says that 80% of effects come from just 20% of causes.3 The important point is that most of the moves in most financial markets result from a very small number of over-arching macro drivers. To reiterate, Europe is not an investment island. Investment Reductionism means that much of asset allocation, sector selection, and regional and country allocation distills down to getting the global growth cycle right. The remaining charts should leave readers in no doubt. Chart I-8 shows that the global 6-month credit impulse leads the cyclical direction of the global bond yield, and thereby determines asset class selection. Chart I-9 then shows that the direction of bond yields determines sector selection: for example Banks versus Technology. Chart I-8Investment Reductionism Step 1: The Global##br## Credit Impulse Leads The Bond Yield Cycle Chart I-9Step 2: The Bond Yield ##br##Drives Sector Selection Chart I-10 and Chart I-11 then show that the sector selection of Banks versus Technology determines both the regional allocation of Eurostoxx600 versus S&P500, and the country allocation of IBEX versus Eurostoxx600. Chart I-10Step 3: Sector Selection Drives##br## Regional Allocation Chart I-11Step 4: Sector Selection Drives ##br##Country Allocation To sum up, the global 6-month credit impulse is now in its longest up-cycle in a decade, and bond yields have had their sharpest spike in a decade. Hence, we would not chase cyclicality at this juncture. Which means that on a 6-month horizon: Lean against the rise in bond yields and bank equities. Underweight the Eurostoxx600 versus the S&P500.4 Underweight the IBEX versus the Eurostoxx600. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Equivalently, the credit impulse is the growth in the growth (second derivative) of the credit stock. 2 The non-financial sector includes households, (non-financial) firms and government. 3 Often known as the 80-20 rule. 4 BCA Strategists differ on this position. Fractal Trading Model* This week's trade is to express a tactical short in equities via Italy's MIB. An alternative market-neutral trade is to go short Italy's MIB and symmetrically long Hong Kong's Hang Seng. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-12 Chart I-13 Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II_2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations