Fixed Income

Highlights Chart 1More Upside From Inflation We moved to below benchmark duration on July 19, when the 10-year Treasury yield was 1.56%. As of last Friday's close, the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.4% and above the fair value reading from our global PMI model. While our economic outlook still justifies higher Treasury yields on a 12-month horizon, the selloff in bonds has moved too far, too quickly. We recommend tactically shifting to a benchmark duration stance. Longer run, the upside in Treasury yields will be concentrated in the inflation component. The cost of 10-year inflation compensation can rise another 49 bps before it is consistent with the Fed's target. But that adjustment will proceed gradually next year, alongside a shallow uptrend in realized inflation (Chart 1). Higher inflation compensation can occasionally be offset by lower real yields, but this only occurs when the increase in inflation compensation results from an easing of Fed policy, as in 2011-2012. With the Fed in the midst of a hiking cycle, the downside in real yields is limited. We would not be surprised to see the 10-year Treasury yield re-visit the 2%-2.2% range during the next month or two. At that point we would re-initiate a below benchmark duration stance, on the view that the 10-year yield will reach 2.80%-3% by the end of 2017. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 52 basis points in November. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 3 bps on the month and, at 129 bps, it is now slightly below its historical average (134 bps). Spread per unit of gross leverage1 for the nonfinancial corporate sector is slightly above its historical average (Chart 2). But unusually, spreads have been tightening this year despite sharply rising gross leverage. Since 1973, there has only been one other period when spreads tightened despite rising gross leverage. That was in 1986-88 when, similar to today, spreads were tightening from extremely oversold levels. Much like today, elevated spreads in 1986 resulted from distress in the energy sector that dissipated as oil prices recovered. This caused corporate spreads to widen dramatically and then tighten, while in the background gross leverage persistently climbed higher. The current recovery in oil prices could lead to further corporate spread tightening early next year. Indeed, energy sector credits still appear cheap on our model and we continue to recommend overweighting those sectors. This month we also upgrade Paper from neutral to overweight (Table 3). Table 3Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* However, corporate credit fundamentals are deteriorating rapidly and spreads will be at risk when the Fed adopts a more hawkish policy stance, possibly as early as the second half of next year.2 High-Yield: Maximum Underweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 128 basis points in November. The index option-adjusted spread tightened 23 bps on the month and, at 450 bps, it is 71 bps below its historical average. A model based on lagged spreads and default losses explains more than 50% of the variation in 12-month excess junk returns. This model currently forecasts excess junk returns of close to zero during the next 12 months (Chart 3), a forecast that is based on our expectation of a modest improvement in default losses (bottom panel). In a recent report,3 we examined the relationship between default-adjusted spreads and excess junk returns in more detail. We showed that a model based purely on ex-ante estimates of default losses explains around 34% of the variation in excess junk returns. We also showed that, historically, negative excess returns to junk bonds are only likely if the ex-ante default-adjusted spread is below 100 bps. Our current ex-ante default-adjusted spread is 201 bps. Historically, when the ex-ante default-adjusted spread is between 200 bps and 250 bps, junk earns positive excess returns 81% of the time. However, junk earns positive excess returns only 65% of the time if the spread is between 150 bps and 200 bps. Although our economic outlook for next year is fairly optimistic, high-yield valuations are stretched and we expect to get a better entry point from which to upgrade the sector during the next couple of months. MBS: Underweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview Mortgage-Backed Securities underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 47 basis points in November. Other than municipal bonds, MBS has been the worst performing fixed income sector relative to Treasuries, earning year-to-date excess returns of -17 bps. The conventional 30-year MBS yield rose 53 bps in November, driven by a 59 bps increase in the rate component. The compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) declined 10 bps, while the option-adjusted spread widened by 4 bps. Prior to the election, we had been tactically overweight MBS on the view that higher Treasury yields would lead to a lower option cost, benefitting MBS in the near term. Now that Treasury yields have moved substantially higher, our focus returns to the extremely depressed levels of MBS option-adjusted spreads (Chart 4). Extremely low option-adjusted spreads coupled with a housing market that should continue to recover - leading to steadily increasing net supply (bottom panel) - make for a poor risk/reward trade-off in MBS relative to other fixed income sectors. Against this back-drop, MBS are only worth a tactical trade if you have high conviction that Treasury yields are about to rise and option costs about to tighten. We do not expect the Fed to cease the reinvestment of its MBS purchases in 2017. But, if Janet Yellen is replaced as Fed Chair in early 2018, then it is possible that the new Fed will seek to end its involvement in the MBS market. This is a tail risk for MBS in 2018. Government Related: Overweight Chart 5Government Related Market Overview The government-related index underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 19 basis points in November (Chart 5). Domestic Agency bonds and Local Authority bonds outperformed the Treasury index by 2 bps and 61 bps, respectively. Sovereign debt underperformed by 122 bps, Foreign Agency debt underperformed by 54 bps and Supranationals underperformed by 6 bps. More than half of the underperformance in the Foreign Agency sector came from Mexico's state oil company, Pemex, in the aftermath of Donald Trump's election win. Losses in the Sovereign debt sector were similarly concentrated in Mexican issues. Strength in oil prices should permit Foreign Agency debt to outperform going forward, while the strong U.S. dollar will remain a drag on Sovereign debt. Local Authority and Foreign Agency debt both continue to offer attractive spreads relative to U.S. investment grade corporate bonds, after adjusting for duration and credit rating. In contrast, Supranationals and Sovereigns both appear expensive. We continue to recommend an underweight allocation to Sovereign debt within an otherwise overweight allocation to the government related sector. Bullet Agency issues outperformed callable Agency bonds in November, despite the large increase in Treasury yields (bottom panel). We expect this trend will soon reverse, and remain overweight callable versus bullet Agencies. Municipal Bonds: Underweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview Municipal bonds underperformed the duration equivalent Treasury index by 83 basis points in November (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio rose from 99% to 107% in November, and is now above its post-crisis average (Chart 6). We downgraded municipal bonds to underweight on November 15,4 following Donald Trump's election victory. Lower tax rates under the new administration will undermine the tax advantage in municipal bonds, leading to outflows and higher M/T yield ratios. ICI data show that outflows have already begun. Net outflows from Muni funds have exceeded $7 billion in the four weeks since the end of October (panel 4). There are also longer-run concerns related to supply and state & local government credit quality. Depending on how it is structured, increased infrastructure spending next year could lead to a large increase in municipal bond supply. Also, state & local government downgrades are likely to increase later next year, following the lead of the corporate sector. Both of these issues are discussed in more detail in a recent Special Report.5 In October, the SEC finalized new liquidity management standards for open-ended investment funds. Funds must now determine a minimum percentage of net assets that must be invested in highly liquid securities, and no more than 15% of assets can be invested in securities deemed illiquid. At the margin, the new rule could limit funds' appetites for municipal bonds. Treasury Curve: Laddered Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview November's bond rout was concentrated in the belly (5-10 years) of the Treasury curve. The 2/10 Treasury slope steepened 28 basis points on the month, while the 5/30 slope flattened by 8 bps. We believe that the yield curve has room to steepen further in 2017, based largely on the expectation that the Fed will maintain an accommodative stance of monetary policy at least until TIPS breakeven inflation rates are at levels more consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target (Chart 7). In our view, this level is between 2.4% and 2.5% for long-dated TIPS breakevens. However, we are reluctant to initiate a curve steepener one week before the Fed is poised to lift rates. Although we view a "dovish hike", i.e. an increase in the fed funds rate with no upward revision to the Fed's interest rate forecasts, as the most likely outcome. If we are wrong, an upward revision to the Fed's forecasts would cause the curve to bear-flatten on the day. At present, the market expects 55 bps of rate hikes during the next 12 months (panel 1). If expectations remain at these levels until after next week's FOMC meeting they will be consistent with the Fed's median forecast, assuming there are no upward revisions. Also, as we pointed out on the front page of this report, the selloff at the long-end of the Treasury curve appears stretched relative to fundamentals and is likely to take a pause. This should provide us with a more attractive level from which to enter curve steepeners heading into next year. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by 148 bps in November. The 10-year breakeven rate increased 21 bps on the month, and currently sits at 1.91%. The 5-year, 5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate has risen to 2.06% from its early 2016 trough of 1.41%. However, it still has room to rise before it returns to levels that are consistent with the Fed's 2% target for PCE inflation (Chart 8). As economic growth improves next year the Fed will be keen to allow TIPS breakevens to rise toward its target, and will be slow to shift to a less accommodative policy stance. As such, we maintain our recommendation to overweight TIPS relative to nominal Treasuries, with a target of 2.4% to 2.5% for the 5-year, 5-year forward TIPS breakeven rate. While breakevens will continue to trend higher, the rate of increase should moderate to be more in line with the shallow uptrend in realized inflation. With the Fed in the midst of a tightening cycle, it will be difficult for the Fed to lead inflation expectations sharply higher as in past cycles. Trends in realized inflation will be more important for long-dated breakevens this time around. Core and trimmed mean PCE inflation continue to grind slowly higher, a trend that is supported by the PCE diffusion index (panel 4). Assuming the current trend remains in place, core PCE inflation should finally reach the Fed's 2% target before the end of next year. ABS: Maximum Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 10 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +111 bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed the Treasury benchmark by 11 bps on the month, while non-Aaa issues outperformed by 5 bps. Credit card ABS outperformed by 14 bps, while auto ABS outperformed by 7 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS tightened 4 bps in November and, at 43 bps, it is well below its average pre-crisis level. Last month we observed that after adjusting for trailing 6-month spread volatility, Aaa-rated auto loan ABS no longer offer a compelling spread pick-up relative to Aaa-rated credit card ABS. We calculate that it will take 12 days of average spread widening for Aaa-rated auto ABS to underperform Treasuries on a 6-month horizon and 9 days of average spread widening for Aaa-rated credit card ABS to underperform (Chart 9). This spread cushion is not sufficient to compensate for the fact that credit card quality metrics are in much better shape than those for auto loans. The auto loan net loss rate has entered a clear uptrend, while credit card charge-offs are still near all-time lows (bottom panel). CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 74 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +269 bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS tightened 16 bps in November, and has now fallen below its average pre-crisis level (Chart 10). Rising delinquency rates and tightening lending standards make us cautious on non-agency CMBS. This caution has only intensified now that spreads are at their tightest levels since prior to the financial crisis. Further adding to our caution is that more than 6000 commercial real estate loans backing public conduit CMBS deals are set to mature in 2017. This is almost 5x the number that matured last year, according to data from Trepp. Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by 52 basis points in November, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +158 bps. Agency CMBS still offer 45 bps of option-adjusted spread. This is similar to what is offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS (43 bps) and greater than what is offered by conventional 30-year MBS (22 bps) for a similar amount of spread volatility. We continue to recommend an overweight position in Agency CMBS. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Global PMI Model The current reading from our 3-factor Global PMI model (which includes global PMI, dollar sentiment and global policy uncertainty) places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 1.82%. However, the low reading mostly reflects a large spike in global policy uncertainty in November. Large spikes in uncertainty that do not coincide with deterioration in other economic indicators tend to mean revert fairly quickly. So we would be inclined to view the fair value reading from our 2-factor Global PMI model (which includes only global PMI and dollar bullish sentiment) as more representative of 10-year Treasury yield fair value at the moment. The fair value reading from our 2-factor model is currently 2.26% (Chart 11). At the time of publication the 10-year Treasury yield was 2.4%. For further details on our Global PMI model please refer to the U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Model", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. Monetary Conditions And Rate Expectations The BCA Monetary Conditions Index (MCI) combines changes in the fed funds rate with changes in the trade-weighted dollar using a 10:1 ratio. Historically, economic downturns have been preceded by a break in this index above its equilibrium level - calculated using the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of potential GDP growth (Chart 12). Using assumptions for the time until the MCI converges with equilibrium and the annual appreciation of the trade-weighted dollar, it is possible to calculate the expected change in the fed funds rate for the cycle. The shaded region in Chart 13 shows the expected path for the federal funds rate assuming that the MCI reaches equilibrium at the end of 2019. The upper-end of the region corresponds to a scenario where the trade-weighted dollar depreciates by 2% per year and the lower-end of the region corresponds to a scenario where the dollar appreciates by 2% per year. The thick line through the middle of the region corresponds to a flat dollar. Chart 12Monetary Conditions Vs. Equilibrium Chart 13Fed Funds Rate Scenarios Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com Alex Wang, Research Analyst alexw@bcaresearch.com 1 Defined as total debt divided by EBITD. 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Toward A Cyclical Sweet Spot?", dated November 22, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy / Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fourth Tantrum", dated November 29, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Secular Stagnation Vs. Trumponomics", dated November 15, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle", dated October 18, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)

Highlights We update the long-term structural themes that we expect will be key drivers of financial market performance over the next one to five years, drawing investment conclusions from each. Debt Supercycle. The final stage of a debt supercycle is often marked by an increase in public debt, which we may now see in the U.S. Meanwhile, the eurozone and emerging markets are still at an early stage of post-debt deleveraging. Technological Disruption. The IT revolution has reached the mature phase, and behind it is a new wave of technologies including artificial intelligence and biotech. The first and last stages of tech waves are the only times where investors typically make profits. Emerging Market Deleveraging. EM assets will continue to underperform until these countries complete structural reforms and deal with the consequences of a decade of credit excesses. Multipolar Geopolitics. The end of American hegemony raises the risk of military conflicts and will make the world less globalized. End Of The Bond Bull Market. Interest rates have been in structural decline since the early 1980s. With a rotation to fiscal policy and (eventually) higher inflation, the path of least resistance for yields is upwards. Subpar Long-Run Returns. With bond yields low and equities expensive, investors will find it hard to achieve the returns they have become accustomed to over the past 30 years. Substantially more risk will be required to achieve the same level of return. Bear Market In Commodities. Weak demand growth (as China reengineers its economy), excess resource capacity, and an appreciating dollar make this a very different environment to the 2000s. Mal-Distribution Of Income. The backlash from stagnant incomes in Anglo-Saxon economies will continue. Populism is likely to cause the labor share of GDP to rise, hurting profits and lowering investment returns. Feature I. Introduction Chart 1Major Market Cycles The key views in Global Asset Allocation (GAA), as in other BCA services, center on the cyclical time-horizon, six to 12 months. This means analyzing principally where we are in the business cycle, the impact of liquidity and monetary conditions, and the current outlook for economic and earnings growth. But it is also important to understand the long-term picture: the structural trends in asset prices, debt, demographics, technology, and other "long wave" factors that have profound and protracted impacts on investment performance. Specifically, investors need to get right long-term shifts in things such as economic growth, the U.S. dollar, commodity prices, interest rates, and the relative performance of stocks and bonds (Chart 1). Such long-term themes, therefore, represent the road-map around which GAA develops its cyclical views. Ever since the service began in 2011 (and indeed in its predecessor, the BCA Premium Service), we have published a list of Major Themes, that "should be key drivers of financial market performance over the next 1-5 years." This Special Report updates and fleshes out these major themes. We have retained five of our current themes: The End of The Debt Supercycle The End of The 35-Year Global Bond Bull Market Subpar Long-Run Returns Bear Market in Commodities The Mal-Distribution of Income &Social Unrest And have added three new themes: Technological Disruption EM in A Multi-Year Deleveraging Multipolar Geopolitics In the report we describe each of these themes and draw investment conclusions from them. The descriptions are relatively brief (since most of these themes will be familiar to BCA clients), but we spend more time on analyzing the new themes and on the Debt Supercycle, which is central to our world view. We have dropped two of our earlier themes: Financial Sector Re-Regulation: Bank regulation has indeed been drastically tightened in the years since the Global Financial Crisis. As a result, banks have deleveraged significantly in most regions (Chart 2), their profitability has declined (Chart 3), and share price performance has been poor. But this phase may be over. Bank loan growth has recovered in the U.S. and the new Trump administration may both boost demand for borrowing and ease regulation. In Europe and Japan, bank stock performance will henceforth be driven more by shifts in loan demand and the shape of the yield curve than by regulation. Chart 2Banks Have Deleveraged... Chart 3... And Become Much Less Profitable Chart 4The Lowest Interest Rates Ever A Generational Shift: Our concept was that Millennials (usually defined as those who came of age after 2000 - so born between 1977 and 1994) would behave differently: they would own less (preferring to Uber and couch-surf), depend on social media, and be less focused on their careers. Arguably, this has not been the case. Like previous generations, Millennials have started to acquire possessions. In the U.S. last year, one-half of homebuyers were under 36; Millennials bought 4 million cars (making them the second largest group of purchasers behind baby-boomers). Moreover, this is a hard theme to draw investment conclusions from. Every generation is slightly different - but how concretely does this affect asset prices? One final thought. A common thread running through our themes is that there is little new under the sun. Most phenomena in economics and markets are cyclical. Many of the charts in this report show that the same environment comes round time and again, after five, 10 or 50 years. Much analysis in investment theory is based on this (think of Kontratiev waves, "the fourth turning," Dow Theory etc.) But what is fascinating about today's world is that there are trends we are experiencing for the first time in history: Zero or negative interest rates: never in history have governments, companies, and individuals been able to borrow so cheaply (Chart 4), sometimes even being paid for the privilege. Demographics: The world population has grown continuously since the Black Death in 1350. Indeed the fastest population growth on record was as recent as the 1960s (Chart 5). But growth has slowed sharply since, and is expected to be only 0.1% a year by the end of the century. As a result, we are seeing an unprecedented slowdown - and even decline - in the size of the workforce in many countries (Chart 6). Chart 5Population Growth Has Slowed Drastically Chart 6The Workforce In Some Countries Is Shrinking The impacts of these two trends will be profound - but they won't be found by looking at historical precedents. II. Debt Supercycles One of the key ways in which BCA has long looked at the world is through the concept of debt supercycles. Our founder, Hamilton Bolton, wrote in 1967 of "the possibilities inherent in an intensive study of changes in bank credit as a major cyclical and supercyclical investment tool....History shows period after period of excessive bank credit inflation. It also shows a number of periods in which bank credit deflation has been allowed to erode the whole economic and investment structure."1 Simply put, when credit in the economy expands (and these days one needs to look more broadly than at just bank credit) it tends to boost growth, raise asset prices, and underpin the effectiveness of monetary policy. At some point, the level of credit becomes unsustainable and the subsequent deleveraging causes financial conservatism as borrowers focus on repairing their balance-sheets. This makes monetary policy relatively ineffective, and has negative effects on growth and asset prices. The two biggest debt supercycles over the past 50 years were in Japan from 1970 to 1990, and in the U.S. and parts of Europe starting in the early 1980s and culminating with the Global Financial Crisis in 2007 (Chart 7). The fallout from the end of Japan's debt supercycle has been stark: since 1990, Japanese nominal GDP has grown by only 0.4% a year (compared to 6% a year over the previous 10 years) and even today the Nikkei index is 55% below its peak. In the U.S., the early 1980s' financial deregulation and the fiscal policies of the Reagan government caused both private and government debt to begin to rise as a percentage of GDP (Chart 8). From the late 1990s, monetary policy was kept too easy, which culminated in the housing bubble of 2004-7. After that bubble burst, households reduced debt (partly through defaults) and government spending rose sharply for a few years to cushion the recession. Chart 7Debt Supercycles Everywhere Chart 8U.S. Debt Started To Rise From 1980 Since 2009, BCA has been talking about a "post debt supercycle" in the U.S.2 The household savings rate rose (Chart 9), as consumers became cautious, preferring to save rather than spend (Chart 10). This has meant that consumption growth has been lower than wage growth, whereas the opposite was the case up to 2007. Monetary policy also became ineffective since, in such a weak growth environment, companies were not inclined to spend on capital investment despite ultra-low interest rates (Chart 11). Chart 9Household Savings Rate Has Risen Since The Crisis Chart 10Consumers Prefer To Save Than Spend Chart 11Companies Not Spending Despite Low Rates There are two competing theories to explain the sub-trend growth of the current expansion. Larry Summers' theory of secular stagnation3 describes a world in which, even with ultra-low interest rates, desired levels of saving exceed desired levels of investment, leading to chronic shortfall in demand. BCA's debt supercycle explanation is closer to that of economists such as Kenneth Rogoff, who argues that once deleveraging and borrowing headwinds subside, growth trends might rise again.4But the two theories may not be so incompatible: secular factors, such as demographics, play a role in both. The final stage of a debt supercycle is often an increase in public debt. That has certainly been the case in Japan: while the private sector has deleveraged aggressively since 1990, government debt to GDP has risen from 67% to 250% - without having much discernible effect on boosting growth. In the U.S., government debt has stabilized as a percentage of GDP over the past two years, and the baseline projection made by the Congressional Budget Office in March this year forecasts it to increase by only 10 percentage points over the next decade. But the election of President Trump might change that. His campaign promised tax cuts and infrastructure spending amounting to about USD6 Trn which, all else being equal, would increase government debt/GDP by another 30 percentage points over a decade. There are two other regions where we see the debt supercycle being an important factor over the coming years: the Eurozone and emerging markets. In Europe, some of the most indebted countries, notably the U.K. and Spain, have made progress in deleveraging since the Global Financial Crisis - although the balance-sheet repair is likely to remain a drag on the economy for a while longer. But France and Italy have hardly delevered at all, and some smaller countries such as Belgium have seen a substantial increase in private debt/GDP (Chart 12). The Eurozone remains generally a very heavily bank-dependent economy, with total bank credit almost back to a historical peak (Chart 13). Germany, by contrast, has long had an aversion to debt: private sector debt/GDP has never been above 130% and is currently only around 100%. This unwillingness to borrow and spend by the world's fourth largest economy has been a drag on European growth. Chart 12Deleveraging In Europe Has Been Patchy Chart 13Eurozone Bank Loans Have Not Declined Emerging markets delevered after the Asian crisis in 1997-8 but the wave of global liquidity created in 2009-12 flowed into EMs, triggering excessively high credit growth. Private-sector EM debt has reached an average of 140% of GDP (Chart 14), and a higher percentage of global GDP than was U.S. debt at the peak of the housing bubble in 2006. Although the debt buildup is most extreme in China, where private-sector debt/GDP has risen by 70 percentage points over the past seven years, the same phenomenon is apparent in many other emerging markets, notably Brazil, Turkey, Russia and Malaysia (Chart 15). Chart 14The EM Debt Supercycle May Be Ending Chart 15And It's Not Just About China BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy has argued for a while that this is unsustainable and that a period of deleveraging will cause growth to slow in many emerging markets and that the strains from the excessive lending, such as rising NPL ratios, will become apparent.5 The deleveraging has already started to happen, with loan growth in Brazil, Malaysia and Turkey - but not yet China - slowing sharply (Charts 16 & 17). Chart 16EM Bank Lending Now Slowing... Chart 17...Almost Everywhere We draw a number of conclusions for long-term asset allocation from this analysis. The post debt supercycle is likely to remain a drag on global growth, and therefore on returns from risk assets, for some years to come. But the U.S. is likely to be less affected than the eurozone since the household sector there has already substantially deleveraged and the Trump administration is more likely to use government spending to fill the gap. Emerging markets will underperform for some years to come as they too go through a period of deleveraging. III. Disruptive Technology Technological change is a key driving force of economies and markets. As Joseph Schumpeter said, capitalism is a "process of industrial mutation...that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one." Nikolai Kondratiev described 45-60 year waves that were triggered by "the irruption of a technological revolution and the absorption of its effects." Understanding where we are in the technological cycle, then, is very important for investors wanting to catch deep trends. But it is particularly hard at the moment because, at the same time as the world is still seeing ramifications coming through from personal computing (which began as long ago as 1971, with Intel's announcement of the first microprocessor) and from the internet (which started as Arpanet in 1969), there is a new wave of revolutionary technologies still mainly on the drawing-board, including robotics, artificial intelligence, and genetic engineering. The best framework for thinking about technological cycles is provided by economist Carlota Perez.6 She describes five "surges of development" starting with the Industrial Revolution, which she dates from the opening of Arkwright's cotton spinning mill in Cromford in 1771 (Table 1). Her key argument is that these revolutionary technologies have powerful and long drawn-out effects on the financial, social, institutional, and organizational framework and therefore tend to move through a similar pattern of four phases (Chart 18) lasting around 50 years in all. The fifth wave, Information Technology, for example, started in its installation phase with development of the microprocessor, PCs, and mobile phones in the 1970s and 1980s, reached frenzy in the 1990s, hit a turning-point (which often triggers a stock market crash) in 2000-2, before reaching the deployment phase in the 2000s, and may now be at maturity (growth in computers and smart phones is slowing). Table 1The Five Historic Technology ##br##'Surges Of Development' Chart 18The Four Stages Of Technology Waves But Perez wrote her book in 2002, and we could now be close to the beginning of the sixth wave. Think about the situation 30 years ago, in 1986. It would not have been hard to extrapolate how technology might develop over the coming years since some people already used PCs, mobile phones, and the internet but, as William Gibson said at the time, "the future is already, here - it's just not very evenly distributed." Today there are still a few further developments to come in these fifth-wave technologies (we've listed some in Table 2). But there is a whole further set of technologies (self-driving cars, graphene, distributed energy generation) which almost nobody uses now, but which could become important. Many of these build on the developments of the fifth wave (ubiquitous connectivity, cheap and powerful computing) in the same way that previous revolutions grew from their predecessors (cars wouldn't have been possible without steel, for example). Table 2Fifth And Sixth Wave Technologies Still To Come The implications of these new technologies are hard to predict, and many have undoubtedly been over-hyped. As Bill Gates said: "We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten." So how should investors deal with this? The macro implications are enormous. Every new wave of technologies has a large impact on employment, as jobs in dying industries disappear. U.S. farm workers, for example, fell from over half of the labor force in 1880 to only 12% by 1950 (Chart 19). But perhaps more relevant - given that self-driving vehicles may replace taxi, truck, and delivery drivers - is that the number of horses in the U.S. fell from 26 million to 4 million over the 50 years starting in 1915 (Chart 20). These jobs, of course, were replaced by new opportunities in manufacturing or services. And the number of drivers in the U.S. is only 3.8 million currently, or less than 3% of the workforce. Nonetheless, in the maturity phase of the technology wave (where we are now for the IT revolution), Perez points out, there is often popular unrest as "workers organize and demand...the benefits that have been promised and not delivered." Chart 19Farm Workers Were Disrupted ##br##In The Late 19th Century Chart 20...And So ##br##Were Horses Investing in new technologies is naturally appealing to investors, but often tricky to get right. Alastair Nairn7 identifies five similar phases for investing in technology but concludes that investors can usually make money only in the first stage, when initial skepticism reigns, and in the final stage, when the technology has matured and the surviving handful of leading players can now make good profit. Analysis by economists at the Atlanta Fed showed (Table 3) that, of the 24 U.S. PC manufacturers listed on the U.S. stock market between 1983 and 2006, only 10 made a positive return for shareholders.8 Of these, only five beat the overall index. The picture is similar for other technology waves, except perhaps for the nascent auto industry when 12 of 23 listed manufacturers outperformed the index in 1912-1928. Table 3Investments In New Technology Companies Rarely Beat The Market Nairn also argues that it is easier to spot losers than winners: "The winners take many years to emerge and...it is well-nigh impossible to identify them early. ...Conversely, the losers tend to be more obvious, and more obvious at an early stage." Think back to the early days of the internet. Investors would have struggled to pick the eventual winners (Apple, Amazon, Google - but many might have guessed Yahoo or even Pets.com) but should have understood that the media, travel, retailing, and film-camera industries would all be disrupted. Chart 21IT And Healthcare Sectors ##br##Are Likely To Continue To Outperform So how should investors apply these conclusions? If we are in the mature phase of the Fifth Wave and the skepticism phase of the Sixth, this is a time when investors can benefit from tilts towards sectors where technological changes are taking place, most notably IT and Healthcare, which are likely to continue to outperform over the long run (Chart 21). Exposure to what our colleague Peter Berezin calls BRAIN stocks - biotech, robotics, artificial intelligence, nanotech - makes sense.9 This can be captured through venture capital funds. Potential losers might include energy companies and utilities, as improvements in solar energy lead to more distributed power. Even oil company BP reckons that renewables will provide 16% of power generation in 2035 - and 35% in the EU - up from 4% today, with the cost of solar power expected to fall by 40% over the time. Other sectors that could be disrupted include automakers, which could be challenged by developments in electric vehicles, and financial institutions, whose business model could be under threat from peer-to-peer lending, robo-advisers and other developments in fintech. IV. Emerging Markets In A Multi-Year Deleveraging BCA has recommended a structural underweight on emerging market (EM) equities relative to developed markets (DM) since 2010.10 This call worked well until the end of last year. So far this year, however, EM equities have outperformed DM by 5%, despite their sharp selloff (Chart 22) after the U.S. election. Our view is that emerging markets remain structurally challenged and that their long-run underperformance is likely to continue. We view the outperformance this year as simply a counter-trend move driven largely by two factors: a) the extreme relative undervaluation of EM vs. DM at the beginning of the year; and b) unconventional quantitative easing from the ECB and BoJ, and massive back-door liquidity injections (Chart 23) by EM central banks, such as in China and Turkey. Chart 22Counter-Trend Rally Largley Driven By... Chart 23QE / Massive Liquidity Injection By PBoC After the bounce, however, EM equities are no longer especially cheap relative to their DM counterparts, with the relative forward PE ratio now at its five-year average. Going forward, the poor profit outlook - due to persistent structural problems in the EM economies - will continue to weigh on the relative performance of EM assets. We maintain our structural underweight call on EM equities in a global portfolio. First, the factors that drove the massive outperformance of emerging markets in 2002-2010 have disappeared: the once-in-a-generation debt-fueled consumption binge in DM, and the investment-fueled double-digit growth in China which triggered a bull market in commodities (Chart 24). But EM countries did not take full advantage of these exogenous forces to reform their economies: to foster domestic demand, and optimize resource allocation and industrial structure. When China slowed and U.S. consumers went through a much-needed deleveraging after the Great Recession, exports to DM slowed and even contracted, and commodities prices declined sharply. As a result, the export-driven economic model of EM countries has broken down. The structural drivers of economic growth in the EM, both productivity and capital efficiency (Chart 25), have been in a downtrend, while debt (Chart 26) has continued to soar. Chart 24Regime Has Shifted Chart 25Structural Drivers Have Weakened Chart 26Debt Has Soared Structural problems require structural solutions. These solutions vary by country, but in general require less state intervention in the economy, flexible labor markets, and better incentive structures to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. But structural reforms are a painful process and take strong political will to implement. A case in point is China, which delayed its announced supply-side reforms and reverted to monetary and fiscal stimulus when growth slowed. Second, history shows that no credit boom can last forever. Chart 27 shows private non-financial credit-to-GDP ratios in major developed economies. They have experienced periods of deleveraging of various magnitudes and durations, even though these nations have deep and sophisticated banking, credit, and financial markets, and some have plenty of domestic savings. Similar patterns have been observed in EM economies, although their deleveraging episodes have tended to be more frequent and of larger magnitude (Chart 28). Chart 27No Credit Boom Lasts ##br##Forever In DM Economies Chart 28Asian Economies: Many Interruptions During Structural Leveraging Process The main reason for these boom-bust credit cycles is the burden of debt servicing. As the private credit-to-GDP ratio rises, if interest rates are held constant, a larger share of income needs to be allocated to paying interest. At some point, debt service eats too much into debtors' incomes, causing debtors to default and creditors to reduce credit provision. This causes the economy to slow, followed by a painful but necessary restructuring to work off the excess leverage before a new cycle can start. We see no reason see why EM countries, China in particular, can sustain their current high and rising leverage levels. Deleveraging is inevitable. Third, this deleveraging in EM is at a very early stage, since credit in most EM countries continues to grow faster than nominal GDP (Chart 29). After years of booming corporate and household debt, a period of consolidation is inevitable. Hence, credit growth is set to slow to at least the level of nominal GDP growth. The credit impulse - the change in the rate of credit growth - is a key factor influencing GDP and profit growth. Chart 30 shows that if credit growth converges to nominal GDP growth within the next 12-24 months, the credit impulse will turn negative, ensuring a slowdown in the EM economies and a further contraction in corporate earnings, thus putting downside pressure on asset prices. Chart 29A Break In LEveraging Cycle Is Overdue Chart 30Negative Credit Impulse Bodes Ill For Profit And Equities Prices Chart 31Dismal Return on Equity Bottom Line: EM economies are at a very early stage of a multi-year deleveraging to work off credit excesses. Despite their year-to-date outperformance, we expect EM equities will continue to underperform their DM counterparts over the long run until their return on equity (Chart 31) improves significantly. V. Geopolitical Multipolarity Since the end of the Cold War, geopolitics has mostly remained in the background for investors. This is because the collapse of the Soviet Union ushered in an era of American hegemony that lasted for roughly two decades. During this period, the global concentration of economic, trade, and military power increased as the U.S. became the only true superpower (Chart 32). The world entered a period of "hegemonic stability," an era during which regional powers dared not pursue an independent foreign policy for fear of U.S. retaliation and during which the "Washington consensus" of laissez-faire capitalism and free trade was adopted by policymakers in both developed and emerging markets. Chart 32The End Of American Hegemony A central thesis of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy is that the world has entered a multipolar phase.11 Multipolarity implies that the number of states powerful enough to pursue an independent and globally-relevant foreign policy is greater than one (unipolarity) or two (bipolarity). Today, multipolarity is the product of America's decaying unipolar moment. The U.S. remains, by far, the most powerful country in the absolute sense, but it is experiencing a relative decline as regional powers become more capable on both the economic and geopolitical fronts (Chart 33). Multipolarity is not a popular theme with investors. It augurs uncertainty, rising risk premia, and unanticipated "Black Swan" events. In addition, some of our clients take issue with the thesis that the U.S. is in "decline." Although we can measure hard power and illustrate the relative decline of the U.S. empirically, perhaps the greatest evidence of global multipolarity are recent events that were unimaginable just five or ten years ago: Russia's annexation of Crimea; China's military expansion in South China Sea; Turkey's disregard for U.S. interests in Syria; U.S.-Iran détente (with little evidence that Tehran has actually curbed its nuclear capabilities); Dramatic withdrawal of U.S. troops in the Middle East. The point of a multipolar world is not that Russia, China, Turkey, Iran, and other powers seek to challenge America's global reach, but rather that each is more than capable of pursuing an independent foreign policy within their own spheres of influence. As the number of "veto players" in the global "Great Game" increases, however, equilibrium becomes more difficult to achieve. Uncertainty rises and conflicts emerge where none were expected. So what does multipolarity mean for investors? First, we know from formal modeling in political science, and from history, that a multipolar world is unstable and more likely to produce military conflict (Chart 34).12 There are three reasons: Chart 33U.S. Experiencing Relative Decline Chart 34Geopolitical Risk Is The Outcome Of Global Multipolarity During periods of multipolarity, more states can effectively pursue foreign policies that lead to war, thus creating more potential "conflict dyads" in the parlance of International Relations theory. In fact, evidence shows that this has already happened (and continues to happen), with the number of international or internationalized conflicts rising since 2010 dramatically (Chart 35). Power imbalances between states are more likely if there are more states that matter geopolitically. And power imbalances invite conflict as they are more likely to produce a situation in which one country's rising capabilities threaten another. During the Cold War, it didn't matter that Iran was more powerful than Saudi Arabia because the U.S. was present in the Middle East and willing to balance against Tehran. In a multipolar world, the weaker states are on their own. The probability of miscalculation rises due to the number of relevant states making geopolitical decisions simultaneously. For example, last year's shooting down of a Russian jet by the Turkish air force over Syria is an example of an incident that is mathematically more likely in a multipolar world. During the Cold War, the chances that Turkey would independently make the decision to shoot down a Soviet jet was far smaller as its foreign policy was closely aligned with that of its NATO ally the U.S. Chart 35Multipolarity Increases ##br##The Frequency Of Conflict There are a number of derivatives from the multipolarity thesis that will be relevant for investors. For example, despite Brexit, a multipolar world will support European integration.13 With geopolitical uncertainty rising in Europe's neighborhood - particularly in the Middle East and with Russia reasserting itself - Europe's core countries will not follow down the "exit" path that the U.K. pursued. On the other hand, the geopolitical disequilibrium in East Asia is deepening, with China's pursuit of a sphere of influence in the South and East China Seas likely to continue to raise tensions in the region. But the overarching concern for investors should be how multipolarity impacts the global economy. Global macroeconomic imbalances - such as the current combination of insufficient demand and excessive capacity - can be overcome either by unilateral policy from the hegemon or through coordination among the major economic and political powers. A multipolar world, however, lacks such coordination. Globalization is therefore at risk from multipolarity.14 Not only are regional powers pursuing spheres of influence, which is by definition incompatible with a globalized world, but the world lacks the hegemon that normally provides the expensive, and hard to come by, global public goods: namely economic coordination and geopolitical stability. History teaches us that the ebb and flow of trade globalization has been closely associated in the past with the shifting global balance of power (Chart 36). Trade globalization collapsed right around 1880, when the rise of a unified Germany and the ascendant U.S. undermined the century-old Pax Britannica. This trend ushered in a rise of competitive tariffs as the laggards of industrialization attempted to catch up with the established powers. Trade globalization recovered and began to grown again in the early twentieth century and immediately after the First World War, but both attempts were aborted by the lack of a clear hegemon willing to undertake the coordinating role necessary for globalization to take root and persevere. Chart 36Back To The 1930's? The lack of a clear hegemon and the diffusion of geopolitical power amongst multiple states can act as a headwind to global coordination. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the U.K. was too weak to enforce global rules and norms, and the surging U.S. was unwilling to do so. Today, the U.S. is (relatively) too weak and unwilling to do the job of a hegemon, while China is understandably unwilling to coordinate its economic policy with a strategic rival. The investment implications of multipolarity center on three broad themes: Apex globalization: Going forward, the world is going to be less, not more, globalized. This will favor domestic over global sectors and consumer-oriented economies over the export-oriented ones. Globalization is also a major deflationary force, which would suggest that, on the margin, a world that is less globalized should be more inflationary. DM over EM: Multipolarity is more likely to produce a number of conflicts, some of which lay dormant throughout the Cold War and subsequent era of American hegemony. These conflicts tend to be in emerging or frontier markets. Safe Havens: With the frequency of geopolitical conflict on the rise, safe haven assets like the U.S. Treasurys, U.S. dollar, gold, and Swiss and Japanese government bonds, should continue to hold an important place in investors' asset allocation. VI. End Of The 35-Year Global Bond Bull Market Since the early 1980s, interest rates have been in a structural decline on the back of falling inflation expectations. Thirty-five years later, the global bond bull market has reached its end (Chart 37). Importantly, this is not to suggest that a secular bear market in bonds is beginning. The global economy is still suffering from significant spare capacity and markets usually go through a volatile bottoming process before a new secular trend is established. Nevertheless, the path of least resistance for yields is upwards. Chart 37Long-Term Yields Have Bottomed The most significant shift regarding sovereign yields is the global transition from monetary to fiscal stimulus. Over the next few years, central bank asset purchases will be negligible at best, with normalization in central bank balance sheets being far more likely, albeit at a muted pace. From the fiscal perspective, the rotation has already occurred in several regions, with the liberal government in Canada promising to increase infrastructure spending, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe postponing next year's planned VAT tax hike, and incoming U.S. President Donald Trump expected to ramp up fiscal spending. Sovereign bond yields have been weighed down by the rise in inequality. IMF studies found that this increase in inequality has had substantial negative effects on real GDP growth and therefore the real component. Populism is growing, as evidenced by the surprising outcome of the Brexit vote, the rise of anti-establishment parties in Europe, and the highly polarizing candidates in the U.S. elections. However, as populism continues to mount, policymakers will be further pressured to take on additional reflationary measures, inevitably leading to higher inflation. Anemic productivity growth has dampened aggregate demand and applied downward pressure to bond yields. Initially, weak productivity gains are deflationary as they reduce the incentive for firms to invest and consumers to reduce their spending. The longer term effect however, is that the supply side catches up, causing the economy to overheat and inflation to rise (Chart 38). This was the case in low productivity economies in Africa and Latin America. Chart 38A Decline In Productivity Growth Is Deflationary In The Short Run, But Inflationary In The Long Run Nevertheless, not all factors are pointing to higher yields. Demographic trends have been unfavorable, as working age population growth in the major countries has decelerated sharply since 2007. Conditions will likely worsen, with the UN forecasting growth to reach zero in the latter half of the next decade. The effect is further compression in the real component of bond yields as slower labor force growth reduces the incentive for firms to build new factories, shopping malls and office towers. Overall, while the global economy has been plagued by deflation, these signs suggest that the tide is finally turning. Higher consumer prices will not only lead to an increase in the inflation expectations component, but also the inflation risk premium, which compensates investors over the inflation outlook. As the majority of the rise in bond yields will come via the inflation component and not the real component, we advocate a long-term allocation to TIPS. VII. Subpar Long-Run Returns Asset prices have surged following the global financial crisis and have reached fairly expensive valuations. While this not to say that a bear market is imminent, it certainly makes financial assets more vulnerable to correction and it does suggest that long-term return prospects are bleak. Lower future returns will shift the efficient frontier inward, requiring substantially more risk to achieve the same level of returns. Investors will find it far more difficult to achieve returns they have become accustomed to over the past 30 years. Sovereign Bonds: After 35 years, the structural decline in interest rates is at an end. While we do not expect an outright bond bear market, the path of least resistance for yields is up (Chart 39). Across all major countries and regions, starting long-term real yields have been an excellent predictor for future five-year returns. Given that yields are at multi-century lows, and even negative in some regions, future returns will be meager. Investors should reduce their long-term allocation to sovereign debt. Chart 39Yields: The Path Of Least Resistance Is Up Corporate Bonds: Corporate debt is also priced expensively relative to its long-term history. The credit cycle is in its late stages, and while accommodative monetary policy will extend this phase, defaults will eventually grind higher and low starting yields will limit long-term returns. Investment grade real returns can be mostly explained by their starting real yields. In fact, real yields have been an even better predictor for investment grade returns than they have for sovereigns. Investment grade spreads are less important as they have historically been stable, and defaults are fairly rare in this space. For high yield, while starting real yields are important, spreads and defaults are also crucial determinants for performance. All valuation metrics suggest that both future investment grade and high-yield returns will fall far short of investors' ingrained expectations (Chart 40). Equities: The relationship between cyclically-adjusted price-to-earnings ratios (CAPEs) and real returns is well established, as a simple regression generates a high r-squared (Chart 41). Current valuations are expensive, suggesting low to mid single digit returns. However, there is reason to believe that this scenario is overly optimistic. First, global equities have benefitted from the structural decline in interest rates. Going forward however, the end of the bond bull market removes a substantial tailwind. Secondly, the Debt Supercycle, in which each cycle begins with more indebtedness than the one that preceded it, is played out in the developed world. The implication is that household credit demand will be weak and businesses are less likely to spend on capex, thereby dampening economic growth. Chart 40Low Starting Yields = Low Future Returns Chart 41Shiller P/E Suggests Below-Average Long-Run Equity Returns In order for investors to reach their return targets, we recommend several options. The end of the structural decline in interest rates does not bode well for sovereign bond returns. Instead, allocators should increase their structural exposure to equities. Investors should also focus more on bottom-up analysis and differentiating at lower levels, i.e. industry groups (GICS level 2). Finally, we advocate a long-term allocation to alternative assets. Alternatives provide downside protection through volatility reduction and substantial return enhancement potential given their active management and an illiquidity premium. VIII. Structural Bull Market In Resources Is Over Commodities experienced an unusually strong bull market in the 2000s, driven by very supportive global economic and financial conditions (Chart 42): 1) the U.S. dollar spent the decade in decline; 2) investment in mining capacity was depressed following the bear market of the 1990s; 3) rapid industrialization and double-digit growth in China. The bull market of 2000s lasted longer than its predecessors and was driven more by demand growth than by supply shortages. Commodities have never been a long-term buy. While there have been cyclical bull markets, the commodity complex in real terms has been in a structural downtrend for the past two centuries (Chart 43). This is despite a 20-fold increase in real GDP, a sign that rapid economic growth and weaker commodity prices can go hand in hand. The simple reason is that humans constantly find ways to extract commodities from the ground more cheaply and use them more efficiently. The current cyclical downturn is likely to continue for some years. Demand: A number cyclical and structural factors (Chart 44) will weigh on marginal demand for commodities in the long run: Chart 42Very SUpportive Backdrop In The 1990s Chart 43Not A Good Long-Term Investment Chart 44Shaky Demand Outlook Anemic Global Growth: Despite rising incomes, per capita consumption of base metals has been flat in most developed nations. With growth in the working age population slowing to 0.7% in 2010 - 2050, down from 1.7% in 1970 - 2010, the long-term outlook for consumer demand is poor. China: China consumes more zinc, aluminium and copper than the U.S., Japan, and Europe combined. It comprises more than 40% of global base metal demand, while it has only a 15% share of global GDP. With China's plans to transition into a consumer-driven services economy, this magnitude of incremental demand is highly unlikely in the future. Alternatives & Technological Advancements: Improved energy efficiency, the transition to renewable sources, and growth in electric-hybrid vehicles will weigh on demand for traditional sources of energy. A large-scale push towards nuclear energy, led by China's plans for 80GW of installed capacity by 2020, will pose a serious threat to marginal demand. Supply: Coordinated production cuts are a thing of the past. Underutilization (Chart 45) and market share-wars by countries that need to finance rising fiscal deficits have changed supply dynamics: Excess Capacity: Following the Global Financial Crisis, completion of projects which had been previously committed to, led to enormous capacity expansion when global growth was struggling. Both mining and oil & gas extraction capacity have reached new highs led by the U.S. This will continue to put downward pressure on both metals and energy prices until excess capacity has been removed. Proven Reserves: Known reserves of most metals have risen over the past decade and reached new highs: for example, in the case of copper, nearly three tons have been added to reserves for every ton consumed. In the crude oil market, technological progress has led to discovery of unconventional deposits, the best-known being Canadian oil sands, which by some estimates contain more than twice Saudi Arabia's crude oil reserves. Price Elasticity: The shale revolution brought with it leaner drilling operations which have a much shorter supply response time. The key to the price of crude is how quickly U.S. shale oil producers respond once the oil price rises above their current average cash cost of $50. This will limit the upside potential to crude oil for the next few years. U.S. Dollar & Real Rates: The dollar (Chart 46) has much more explanatory power for commodity prices than Chinese demand does. Given monetary policy and growth divergence between the U.S. and the rest of the world, the U.S. dollar will continue to appreciate. When real rates are low, the opportunity cost of keeping resources in the ground is also low. As growth starts to stabilize, rising real rates will add downward pressure on prices. Chart 45Relentless Supply Response Chart 46U.S. Dollar Vs Chinese Growth We remain structurally bearish on the overall commodity complex, but expect short-lived divergences within the group. As more nations agree on production cuts in oil, we expect energy markets to outperform metals. Precious metals will continue to stage mini-rallies on the back of heightened equity market volatility. Agricultural commodities will continue to bear the brunt of poor global demographics. IX. Mal-Distribution Of Income And Social Unrest The decision by the U.K. in June's referendum to leave the EU and Donald Trump's victory in the U.S. presidential election suggest a high degree of dissatisfaction with the status quo in Anglo-Saxon economies. This is hardly surprising given the stagnation of median wages in developed economies since the early 1980s, especially among the less educated (Chart 47), and growing inequality. The middle class (defined as those with disposable income between 25% below and 25% above the median) in the U.S. has fallen to 27% of the population from 33% in the early 1980s, and in the U.K. to 33% from 40% (Chart 48). Note that the decline in the middle class is much less prominent in continental Europe and Canada. Chart 47Wages For Less Educated Have Stagnated Chart 48Middle Class Has Shrunk In U.S. And U.K. But Not In Continental Europe The Gini coefficient in the U.S. has risen to as high a level as during the 1920s (Chart 49). Branko Milanovic, the leading academic working on global inequality, explains the reasons are follows: "The forces that pushed U.S. inequality up in the roaring twenties were, in many ways, similar to the forces that pushed it up in the 1990s: downward pressure on wages (from immigration and/or increased trade), capital-based technological change (Taylorism and the Internet), monopolization of the economy (Standard Oil and large banks), suppression or decreasing attractiveness of trade unions, and a shift toward plutocracy in government."15 Chart 49U.S. Inequality Back To 1920's Level The backlash has begun. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service has described how the median voter in the Anglo-Saxon world is shifting to the left.16 Around the world governments are abandoning austerity and moving to fiscal stimulus and spending to improve infrastructure. Many, for example, are raising the minimum wage. In the U.K., it is due to go up from GBP7.20 to 60% of the median wage (about GBP9.35) by 2020, and in California from $10 to $15 by 2022. The 40 years of a falling labor share of GDP and rising capital share have started to reverse in the U.S. over the past two or three years (Chart 50). These shifts also threaten growth of global trade. Trump opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement and says he will renegotiate or scrap the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Global trade, after continuous growth as a percentage of GDP since World War Two, has slowed since the Great Recession (Chart 51). The WTO reports an increase in trade-restrictive measures and a fall in trade-facilitating measures over the past 12 months (Chart 52). Chart 50Fall In Labor Share ##br##Of GDP Starting To Reverse Chart 51Trade Globalization* Chart 52Trade Measures Are Getting ##br##Increasingly Restrictive Chart 53Populism Could Cause ##br##Profit Margins To Mean Revert These trends have significant implications for investors. The shift to populist politics is likely to be inflationary, as governments increasingly fall back on stimulative fiscal policy. A faster rise in wages will hurt corporate profit margins which, in the U.S., are likely to mean-revert from their current near-record highs (Chart 53). The popular discontent (and the growing unreliability of opinion polls) will make election results more unpredictable, as witnessed in the Brexit vote and the U.S. presidential election. A further pullback in global trade will hurt exporting sectors and export-dependent countries. All these factors lead to the conclusion that returns from investment assets over coming years are likely to be lower, and volatility higher, than has been the case over the past 40 years. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Senior Analyst patrick@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com 1 Money And Investment Profits, A. Hamilton Bolton, Dow-Jones-Irwin Inc, 1967, pp74, 304. 2 For our most recent detailed analysis of this, please see BCA Special Report, "The End Of The Debt Supercycle, An Update," dated May 11, 2016, available at reports.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see, for example, Summers' article in Foreign Affairs, "The Age of Secular Stagnation," dated February 15, 2016. 4 Please see, for example, Rogoff's article, "Debt Supercycle, not secular stagnation," Centre for Economic Policy Research, dated April 22, 2015. 5 Please see, for example, Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Gauging EM/China Credit Impulses," dated August 31, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see, for example, her book Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital, published in 2002. 7 Please see Alasdair Nairn, "Engines That Move Markets," Wiley, dated January 4, 2002. 8 Measured either over the whole period, or between the dates that they were listed during the period. 9 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Human Intelligence And Economic Growth," March 2013, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM Equities: Downgrade To Underweight," dated April 20, 2010, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, and Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Stay The Course: EM Risk - DM Reward," dated January 23, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see Mearsheimer, John "The Tragedy Of Great Power Politics," New York: W.W. Norton & Company (2001). 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-Exit?," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com, and BCA The Bank Credit Analyst, "Europe's Geopolitical Gambit: Relevance Through Integration," dated November 2011, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization: All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014. 15 Please see Branco Milanovic, "Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization," Harvard University Press, 2016. 16 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights An Italian referendum 'no' is not really revolting. Some people are voting no for no change to the current constitution's vital checks and balances. Lean against any knee-jerk widening of the Italian sovereign yield spread versus France that followed a no vote. Lean against any knee-jerk rally in Italian banks that followed a yes vote. A 50bps spike in the JPM Global Government Bond Yield in just 3 months is normally a bad omen for risk-asset performance. Retain a cautious stance to risk-assets on a 3-month horizon. Feature After shock victories for Brexit and Donald Trump at the polls, a 'no' vote in Italy's December 4 referendum on constitutional reform would be the next worrying sign of a growing grassroots revolt against the establishment. Or would it? An Italian 'No' Is Not Really Revolting The votes for Brexit or Donald Trump were clearly votes for change. At first glance, an Italian no would also look like a revolt, with the potential to trigger political uncertainty and instability in the euro area's third largest economy. Chart of the WeekItalian Banks Are Tracking Japanese 'Zombie' Banks The truth is more nuanced. Clearly, some Italians are voting no to reject Prime Minister Renzi. But others - including former Prime Minister Mario Monti - are voting no for no change. These voters want to leave in place the current constitution's vital checks and balances. If Italians vote yes to constitutional reform, the upper house of parliament - the Senate - would be relegated to an advisory chamber. Meanwhile, an already approved new electoral law for the lower house of parliament - the Chamber of Deputies - hands an automatic 55 percent majority of seats to the largest party. Some people fear that this combination would amount to excessive executive power. So they are voting no to mitigate the danger. Granted, a no vote might also force Renzi to resign, but this would not necessarily trigger new elections. President Sergio Mattarella would likely explore options for a new government - perhaps a technocratic government - which the parties in the current governing coalition have a strong incentive to support until the next elections are due in 2018. Even if there were early elections, it is improbable that they would result in a government led by the populist 5 Star Movement. If 5 Star was the largest party, it would hold a 55 percent majority of seats in the lower house, but only 30 percent in the upper house, in proportion to its popular vote share (Chart I-2). Therefore, it could not form a government. Under the current constitution, the government needs the support of both houses. The irony is that a yes vote - by giving the executive excessive powers - would make it more likely for a populist party like 5 Star to form a government in 2018 or beyond. Still, even this might prove a tall order. Italy's constitutional court is reviewing the electoral law change that gives 55 percent of lower house seats to the largest party. The court will likely demand more proportionality, making it hard for any one party to win an outright majority. This means more coalition governments, which 5 Star rejects. Hence, an Italian no will not be the equivalent of the Brexit vote or U.S. election of Donald Trump. Fears that it will unleash a dangerous phase of populism and political instability in Italy are overblown. Yet in the last three months, the Italian sovereign yield spread has widened sharply versus France (Chart I-3). Note also that the 65-day fractal dimension of the Italy versus France sovereign bond performance is close to its technical limit, indicating excessive pessimistic groupthink. Chart I-2The 5 Star Movement Could Not Form A ##br##Government Under The Current Constitution Chart I-3Italy's Political Risk Premium Has ##br##Increased, But Is It Justified? If December 4 brings a no vote in the Italian referendum combined with the election of a far-right President of Austria - whose role is largely ceremonial - the knee-jerk market response might still be fright. In which case, a further widening in the Italy/France yield spread would be a tactical entry opportunity, given that political risk is overstated. Fixing Italian Banks Needs A 'Deep-V' Or A 'Long-L' The real question in Italy is not about an imminent populist backlash. The real question is what does the cure for Italy's banking malaise look like? The answer is either a 'deep-V', meaning a banking crisis forces a quick workout; or a 'long-L', meaning no banking crisis but a very long struggle back to normal health. As an investor, neither seems particularly appealing. Italy's banking malaise has built up stealthily, generating frequent financial tremors but without an outright crisis. In contrast, the housing-related credit booms in Ireland, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S. did eventually cause housing busts and full-blown financial crises - requiring urgent government-led and central bank-led bailouts. Today, Italian banks' non-performing loans (NPLs) account for 18% of gross lending, and NPLs net of provisions equal 85% of equity capital. A few years ago, Irish banks looked even worse. Irish NPLs peaked at 25% of gross lending in 2013 and net NPLs peaked at 100% of equity capital. Following government bailouts Irish banks have recovered well (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Likewise, the Spanish government created a 'bad bank' in 2012 to offload bank NPLs. Subsequently, Spanish banks' NPLs as a share of gross lending has almost halved. Chart I-4Ireland Looked Worse Than Italy##br## For NPLs As A Share Of Loans Chart I-5Ireland Looked Worse Than Italy ##br##For NPLs As A Share Of Capital Compared to Ireland and Spain, Italy's avoidance of outright crisis (thus far) appears a blessing. Unfortunately, it is now a curse. In waiting so long, Italy cannot follow Ireland, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S. in their escapes from their banking woes. The EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD), which came into full force on January 1 2016, has blocked the bailout escape route. The BRRD does allow state intervention in a banking crisis. But the overarching aim is to protect banks' critical functions and stakeholders, specifically: payment systems, taxpayers and depositors. Therefore, in a banking crisis "other parts may be allowed to fail in the normal way... after shares in full... then evenly on holders of subordinated bonds and then evenly on senior bondholders." For bank investors, this would constitute the 'deep-V' cure: likely intense pain up-front albeit with much better long-term prospects thereafter. Alternatively, without a crisis, the process to recognise and expunge NPLs would be largely up to the private sector and markets. But a long chain of events from the repossession of assets under bankruptcy law, to valuation, to full divestment from the banks' balance sheets could take years. Indeed, the Chart of the Week shows a striking parallel between Italian bank profits and Japan's 'zombie' bank profits, if we lag the Japanese experience by 17 years. Japan perfectly illustrates this alternative 'long-L' cure: no outright crisis, just a long and seemingly never-ending struggle back to normal health. Either way, absent any further information, we would lean against any knee-jerk rally in Italian banks that followed a yes vote on December 4. What Happens When Bond Yields Spike? Turning to the broader financial markets, a bigger concern is the impact that sharply higher bond yields will have on growth and/or on risk-asset valuations. Higher long-term borrowing costs depress credit growth as captured in the credit impulse (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). A depressed credit impulse then almost always drags down subsequent GDP growth. The recent spike in U.S. 15-year and 30-year mortgage rates has already caused mortgage refinancing applications to plunge by 40% since July (Chart I-8). Chart I-6Higher Bond Yields Depress##br## Credit Growth In Europe... Chart I-7...And In ##br##The U.S. Chart I-8Mortgage Applications##br## Have Plunged Prior to the current incidence, a 50bps rise in the JPM Global Government Bond Yield in just 3 months has occurred only eight times this century (Chart I-9). Table I-1 lists those eight occasions and the subsequent 3-month performance of the equity market. On three out of the eight occasions, the equity market rose modestly, but on the other five it fell. Chart I-9The Bond Yield Has Spiked Table I-1What Happens When Bond Yields Spike? But perhaps the most interesting finding is that on all eight occasions, the equity market's subsequent 3-month performance consistently deteriorated, on average by -7%, compared to the preceding 3-month performance. For reference, today's preceding 3-month performance is just 0.7%. Given this evidence, it is prudent to retain a cautious stance to risk-assets on a 3-month horizon. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* The Italy versus France sovereign bond underperformance indicates excessive pessimistic groupthink. However, in this instance we would wait until after Italy's December 4 referendum on constitutional reform before initiating the countertrend trade. 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-10 * 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-8Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations

My colleague Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President of BCA’s European Investment Strategy, has penned an excellent update on the upcoming Italian constitutional referendum. Dhaval argues that the market is mispricing risks emanating from the referendum. Not all voters who reject the plebiscite are Euroskeptic. In fact, many will vote against the referendum precisely because it removes checks and balances and increases the odds of an anti-establishment party forming a government. Geopolitical Strategy group agrees with Dhaval and has made a similar point in our November Monthly Report. Our September Special Report also posited that Italy cannot easily disentangle itself from European institutions due to its own incomplete unification. This is not to say that Italy is not a risk to the stability of the euro area. There are plenty of reasons to worry, starting with the banking system, which Dhaval addresses in his missive. However, the market’s obsession with the referendum is overdone and thus presents an investment opportunity. I hope you enjoy the European Investment Strategy report and I encourage you to take a look at Dhaval’s research closely, if you are not already a subscriber. Kindest regards, Marko Papic Highlights An Italian referendum 'no' is not really revolting. Some people are voting no for no change to the current constitution's vital checks and balances. Lean against any knee-jerk widening of the Italian sovereign yield spread versus France that followed a no vote. Lean against any knee-jerk rally in Italian banks that followed a yes vote. A 50bps spike in the JPM Global Government Bond Yield in just 3 months is normally a bad omen for risk-asset performance. Retain a cautious stance to risk-assets on a 3-month horizon. Feature After shock victories for Brexit and Donald Trump at the polls, a 'no' vote in Italy's December 4 referendum on constitutional reform would be the next worrying sign of a growing grassroots revolt against the establishment. Or would it? An Italian 'No' Is Not Really Revolting The votes for Brexit or Donald Trump were clearly votes for change. At first glance, an Italian no would also look like a revolt, with the potential to trigger political uncertainty and instability in the euro area's third largest economy. Chart of the WeekItalian Banks Are Tracking Japanese 'Zombie' Banks The truth is more nuanced. Clearly, some Italians are voting no to reject Prime Minister Renzi. But others - including former Prime Minister Mario Monti - are voting no for no change. These voters want to leave in place the current constitution's vital checks and balances. If Italians vote yes to constitutional reform, the upper house of parliament - the Senate - would be relegated to an advisory chamber. Meanwhile, an already approved new electoral law for the lower house of parliament - the Chamber of Deputies - hands an automatic 55 percent majority of seats to the largest party. Some people fear that this combination would amount to excessive executive power. So they are voting no to mitigate the danger. Granted, a no vote might also force Renzi to resign, but this would not necessarily trigger new elections. President Sergio Mattarella would likely explore options for a new government - perhaps a technocratic government - which the parties in the current governing coalition have a strong incentive to support until the next elections are due in 2018. Even if there were early elections, it is improbable that they would result in a government led by the populist 5 Star Movement. If 5 Star was the largest party, it would hold a 55 percent majority of seats in the lower house, but only 30 percent in the upper house, in proportion to its popular vote share (Chart I-2). Therefore, it could not form a government. Under the current constitution, the government needs the support of both houses. The irony is that a yes vote - by giving the executive excessive powers - would make it more likely for a populist party like 5 Star to form a government in 2018 or beyond. Still, even this might prove a tall order. Italy's constitutional court is reviewing the electoral law change that gives 55 percent of lower house seats to the largest party. The court will likely demand more proportionality, making it hard for any one party to win an outright majority. This means more coalition governments, which 5 Star rejects. Hence, an Italian no will not be the equivalent of the Brexit vote or U.S. election of Donald Trump. Fears that it will unleash a dangerous phase of populism and political instability in Italy are overblown. Yet in the last three months, the Italian sovereign yield spread has widened sharply versus France (Chart I-3). Note also that the 65-day fractal dimension of the Italy versus France sovereign bond performance is close to its technical limit, indicating excessive pessimistic groupthink. Chart I-2The 5 Star Movement Could Not Form A ##br##Government Under The Current Constitution Chart I-3Italy's Political Risk Premium Has ##br##Increased, But Is It Justified? If December 4 brings a no vote in the Italian referendum combined with the election of a far-right President of Austria - whose role is largely ceremonial - the knee-jerk market response might still be fright. In which case, a further widening in the Italy/France yield spread would be a tactical entry opportunity, given that political risk is overstated. Fixing Italian Banks Needs A 'Deep-V' Or A 'Long-L' The real question in Italy is not about an imminent populist backlash. The real question is what does the cure for Italy's banking malaise look like? The answer is either a 'deep-V', meaning a banking crisis forces a quick workout; or a 'long-L', meaning no banking crisis but a very long struggle back to normal health. As an investor, neither seems particularly appealing. Italy's banking malaise has built up stealthily, generating frequent financial tremors but without an outright crisis. In contrast, the housing-related credit booms in Ireland, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S. did eventually cause housing busts and full-blown financial crises - requiring urgent government-led and central bank-led bailouts. Today, Italian banks' non-performing loans (NPLs) account for 18% of gross lending, and NPLs net of provisions equal 85% of equity capital. A few years ago, Irish banks looked even worse. Irish NPLs peaked at 25% of gross lending in 2013 and net NPLs peaked at 100% of equity capital. Following government bailouts Irish banks have recovered well (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Likewise, the Spanish government created a 'bad bank' in 2012 to offload bank NPLs. Subsequently, Spanish banks' NPLs as a share of gross lending has almost halved. Chart I-4Ireland Looked Worse Than Italy##br## For NPLs As A Share Of Loans Chart I-5Ireland Looked Worse Than Italy ##br##For NPLs As A Share Of Capital Compared to Ireland and Spain, Italy's avoidance of outright crisis (thus far) appears a blessing. Unfortunately, it is now a curse. In waiting so long, Italy cannot follow Ireland, Spain, the U.K. and the U.S. in their escapes from their banking woes. The EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD), which came into full force on January 1 2016, has blocked the bailout escape route. The BRRD does allow state intervention in a banking crisis. But the overarching aim is to protect banks' critical functions and stakeholders, specifically: payment systems, taxpayers and depositors. Therefore, in a banking crisis "other parts may be allowed to fail in the normal way... after shares in full... then evenly on holders of subordinated bonds and then evenly on senior bondholders." For bank investors, this would constitute the 'deep-V' cure: likely intense pain up-front albeit with much better long-term prospects thereafter. Alternatively, without a crisis, the process to recognise and expunge NPLs would be largely up to the private sector and markets. But a long chain of events from the repossession of assets under bankruptcy law, to valuation, to full divestment from the banks' balance sheets could take years. Indeed, the Chart of the Week shows a striking parallel between Italian bank profits and Japan's 'zombie' bank profits, if we lag the Japanese experience by 17 years. Japan perfectly illustrates this alternative 'long-L' cure: no outright crisis, just a long and seemingly never-ending struggle back to normal health. Either way, absent any further information, we would lean against any knee-jerk rally in Italian banks that followed a yes vote on December 4. What Happens When Bond Yields Spike? Turning to the broader financial markets, a bigger concern is the impact that sharply higher bond yields will have on growth and/or on risk-asset valuations. Higher long-term borrowing costs depress credit growth as captured in the credit impulse (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7). A depressed credit impulse then almost always drags down subsequent GDP growth. The recent spike in U.S. 15-year and 30-year mortgage rates has already caused mortgage refinancing applications to plunge by 40% since July (Chart I-8). Chart I-6Higher Bond Yields Depress##br## Credit Growth In Europe... Chart I-7...And In ##br##The U.S. Chart I-8Mortgage Applications##br## Have Plunged Prior to the current incidence, a 50bps rise in the JPM Global Government Bond Yield in just 3 months has occurred only eight times this century (Chart I-9). Table I-1 lists those eight occasions and the subsequent 3-month performance of the equity market. On three out of the eight occasions, the equity market rose modestly, but on the other five it fell. Chart I-9The Bond Yield Has Spiked Table I-1What Happens When Bond Yields Spike? But perhaps the most interesting finding is that on all eight occasions, the equity market's subsequent 3-month performance consistently deteriorated, on average by -7%, compared to the preceding 3-month performance. For reference, today's preceding 3-month performance is just 0.7%. Given this evidence, it is prudent to retain a cautious stance to risk-assets on a 3-month horizon. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* The Italy versus France sovereign bond underperformance indicates excessive pessimistic groupthink. However, in this instance we would wait until after Italy's December 4 referendum on constitutional reform before initiating the countertrend trade. 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-10 * 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 Fractal Trading Model

Recommended Allocation The Meaning Of Trump Sudden large shocks in markets are rare. But the election of Donald Trump as U.S. President is one such. After a shock of this magnitude, markets tend initially to overreact, then correct, before settling on a new course. Market action since November 9th has caused many asset prices to overshoot short term. It is likely that U.S. bond yields, inflation expectations, the performance of bank and materials stocks, and the U.S. dollar (Chart 1) will correct over the next month or so, perhaps triggered by the Fed's likely rate hike on December 14th or simply by shifting expectations for Trump's economic policies. But what is the likely long-term course, which should set our asset allocation for the next 6 to 12 months? We think investors should take Trump at least partly at his word when he says he will enact tax cuts and increase infrastructure investment. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service sees few constraints on Trump from Congress in the short term.1 The OECD in its latest Economic Outlook has given its imprimatur, arguing that "a stronger fiscal policy response is needed," and estimating that U.S. fiscal stimulus could add 0.1 percentage point to global growth next year and 0.3 points in 2018.2 If such a policy boosted growth and inflation, it would be negative for bonds. The only question, with 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yields having already risen by almost 100 bps since July, is how much of this is priced in. In the long run, government bond yields are broadly correlated with nominal GDP growth (Chart 2). In H1 2016, U.S. nominal GDP growth was 2.7%, and for 2016 as a whole probably about 3.2%. If it picks up to 4-5% in 2017 (2.5-3% real, plus inflation of 1.5-2%), an additional rise of 50-100 bps in the 10-year yield would not be surprising (though ECB and BoJ asset purchases might somewhat limit the rise in yields). Moreover, growth was already accelerating before Trump's victory. The effects of 2015's commodity shock and industrial and profits recessions have passed, with U.S. Q3 GDP growth revised up to 3.2% and the Fed's NowCasting models suggesting 2.5%-3.6% for Q4. The Citi Economic Surprise Index has surprised on the upside in recent weeks both in the U.S. and Europe - though not in emerging markets (Chart 3). And the Q3 earnings season in the U.S. was well above expectations, with EPS coming in at +3.3% YoY (compared to a consensus forecast pre-results of -2.2%). Analysts' forecasts for 2017 EPS growth are a comparatively modest 11%. Chart 1Some Short-Term Overshoots Chart 2Bond Yields Relate To Nominal Growth Chart 3Growth Was Already Surprising On The Upside But whether this new world will be positive for equities is harder to answer. Trump's unpredictability raises policy uncertainty: how much emphasis, for example, will he put on trade protectionism or confrontational foreign policy? This should raise the risk premium. The Fed's response will also be key. Futures have now priced in the rate hike in December and (almost) the two further rate hikes in the Fed's dots for 2017 (Chart 4). But the market still sees the long-term equilibrium rate (as expressed in five-year five-year forwards) as only just over 2%, compared to the Fed's 2.9%. And, although Janet Yellen has suggested that the Fed will act only after Trump's policies take effect ("We will be watching the decisions that Congress makes and updating our economic outlook as the policy landscape becomes clearer," she said), if core PCE inflation continues to pick up in 2017 beyond the current 1.7% and a strong stimulus package is implemented, the Fed might accelerate its rate hikes. More worryingly, Trump's fundamental views on monetary policy are unknown: does he, as a businessman, like low rates, or will he listen to his "hard money" advisers who believe the Fed has been too lax? Since he can appoint six FOMC governors in his first year in office, he will be able to influence monetary policy. Too fast a rise in Fed rates would be negative for equities. On balance, in this environment we see equities outperforming bonds over the next 12 months. It is unusual for the stock-to-bond ratio to decline outside of a global recession (Chart 5) - and, with the extra boost from fiscal policy (with Trump possibly joined by Japan, the U.K., China and others), a recession is unlikely over our forecast horizon. Chart 4Market Has Priced In 2017 Fed Hikes - ##br##But Not The Long-Term Chart 5Stocks Don't Often ##br##Underperform Outside Recession Accordingly, we are raising our recommendation for global equities to overweight, and lowering bonds to underweight. The problem is timing: we recognize that there may be a better entry point over the next couple of months. Some investors may, therefore, want to implement the change gradually. In addition, some recent market moves are not fundamentally justified: for example, we cannot see how the materials sector would be a significant beneficiary from a Trump fiscal stimulus. We plan to make further detailed adjustments to our equity country and sector recommendations and bond-class recommendations in the next Quarterly Portfolio Update, to be published on December 15th. Currencies: Stronger U.S. growth and tighter monetary policy suggest that the USD will continue to appreciate. The dollar looks somewhat expensive but is still well below the peak of overvaluation at the end of previous bouts of strength in 1985 and 2002. The Bank of Japan's policy of capping the 10-year JGB yield at 0% has worked well (pushing the yen down by 12% against the dollar in the past two months) and, as rates elsewhere rise, this implies further long-run yen weakness. The euro is likely to weaken less, with eurozone growth recently surprising on the upside and the ECB therefore likely to reconsider the amount of asset purchases at some point next year, though probably not at its meeting on December 8th. Emerging market currencies continue to look particularly vulnerable. Equities: In common currency terms, U.S. equities are more attractive than European ones. In local currency terms, however, the call is closer since the strong dollar will depress U.S. earnings relative to those in Europe, and an acceleration of global economic growth should help the more cyclical eurozone stock market. On the other hand, Europe faces structural issues, such as the chronically poor profitability of its banking system, and political risk from a series of upcoming elections (starting with the Italian referendum on December 4th). We continue to like Japan (on a currency hedged basis) and expect that the BoJ's policy will be bolstered by government fiscal and employment policies. We remain underweight on emerging markets. They have always been vulnerable during periods of dollar strength, and political side-effects from their bout of economic weakness in 2011-5 are starting to spread, recently to Turkey, Malaysia, India, Brazil, Korea and South Africa. Fixed Income: The risk of tighter Fed policy and higher yields suggest investors should remain underweight duration. We have liked U.S. TIPS over nominal bonds all year and, with 10-year breakeven inflation still only at 1.8%, they remain attractive in the current environment. We reduced high-yield bonds to neutral on September 30th, on the grounds that investors were no longer being sufficiently compensated for default risk: they have subsequently given -3% return, while equities rallied. We recommend investment grade credits for those investors who need to pick up yield (Chart 6). Commodities: After the OPEC agreement on production cuts, we expect the oil price to move towards $55 in the first few months of 2017 as inventories are drawn down. Over the longer run the risk is to the upside as a dearth of new projects, following cancellations last year, will tighten the supply/demand balance. Metals prices have strengthened since Trump's victory, with the CRB Raw Industrials Index up sharply (Chart 7). This makes little sense. Trump's stimulus will be centered on tax, not infrastructure. China remains a far more important factor: the U.S. represented only 7% of global steel consumption in 2015, for example, compared to 43% for China. And China's recent stimulus is running out of steam. Chart 6Yield On Investment Grade Credits ##br##Still Attractive Chart 7Trump Shouldn't Have ##br##This Much Effect On Metals Prices Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report,"U.S. Election: Outcomes and Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see OECD Global Economic Outlook, November 2016, available at http://www.oecd.org/economy/outlook/economicoutlook.htm. Recommended Asset Allocation

Highlights U.S. bond yields and the U.S. dollar will rise further. Consistently, EM currencies and local bonds will continue selling off. There is meaningful downside in EM exchange rates. We recommend short positions in the following basket of EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar: KOR, MYR, IDR, TRY, ZAR, BRL, COP and CLP. Within domestic bond portfolios, overweight low-beta defensive markets as well as Russia and Mexico. Our underweights are Turkey, South Africa, Malaysia and Indonesia. The latest exponential rise in commodities prices on Chinese exchanges is an unsustainable speculative frenzy. Feature Emerging market (EM) risk assets will likely continue to be driven by both rising U.S. bond yields and a strong U.S. dollar over the next two months or so. Beyond the next couple of months, the focus of the markets will likely switch to China: renewed weakness in growth and possible instability in its financial markets, with negative implications for China plays globally and for commodities prices in particular. The combination of these two negative forces will lead to a considerable drop in EM currencies in the next six months or so. In turn, EM currency depreciation will trigger broad liquidation of EM risk assets. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy service believes that EM risk assets will continue to sell off in absolute terms, and underperform their DM/U.S. peers. EM Local Bonds The total return (including carry) index of JPM GBI-EM1 local currency bonds in U.S. dollar terms has rolled over at a critical resistance level (Chart I-1). The total return index of EM local bonds has also relapsed relative to the total return of 5-year U.S. Treasurys, failing to break above its long-term moving average (Chart I-1, bottom panel). Consistently, domestic bond yields have troughed at important technical levels in several key countries such as Brazil, Turkey, Colombia, Russia, South Africa and Malaysia (Chart I-2A and Chart I-2B). Chart I-1EM Local Bonds' Total ##br##Return In US$: Failed Breakout Chart I-2AHave EM Domestic ##br##Bond Yields Bottomed? Chart I-2BHave EM Domestic ##br##Bond Yields Bottomed? In short, EM local bonds are exhibiting negative technical dynamics that corroborate our downbeat fundamental analysis. Consequently, we believe the total return JPM GBI-EM index in U.S. dollar terms will drop to new lows for the following reasons: Currency swings are responsible for most of the fluctuations in EM local bond total returns. As we have elaborated numerous times and re-assert in this report, the outlook for EM exchange rates remains gloomy. Foreign holdings of EM local currency bonds are substantial (Table I-1). Even though there have been improvements in a few countries, current account and fiscal deficits generally remain wide in the majority of developing nations (Chart I-3A and Chart I-3B). In other words, a number of EM economies are still at risk from a slowdown in foreign funding. Table I-1Foreign Holdings Of EM Local Bonds Chart I-3ACurrent Accounts And Fiscal Deficits Chart I-3BCurrent Accounts And Fiscal Deficits Chart I-4U.S. And EM Local Yields Notably, the bar for exchange rate depreciation is very low in EM economies with current account deficits. It takes only a reduction in net capital and financial inflows - i.e., net outflows are not necessary - for these countries' currencies to depreciate significantly. As net foreign funding diminishes, exchange rates of countries with current account deficits should weaken and interest rates should rise in order to compress domestic demand, which in turn would equalize the current account deficit to net inflows in capital and financial accounts. Finally, the spread of EM local bonds (the yield for GBI-EM global diversified index) over duration-matched (5-year) U.S. Treasury yields has not risen much (Chart I-4). Heightened risks in EM currencies warrant higher local bond yield spreads over U.S. Treasurys. Bottom Line: Absolute return investors should stay away from EM local currency bonds. U.S. Bond Yields And The Dollar: More Upside We expect U.S./DM bond yields to keep rising as re-pricing in global fixed income markets continues. The decline in DM bond yields in recent years until the latest selloff was enormous, and some sort of mean reversion should not come as a surprise. Our bias is that this selloff will likely continue until sometime in January, when U.S. President-elect Donald Trump takes office. This riot in the bond market could, in retrospect, resemble a typical "sell the rumor, buy the news" pattern. In other words, by the time President-elect Trump takes office, a lot of bad news will already be priced into the U.S. bond markets, creating a buying opportunity. In our July 13 Weekly Report,2 we argued that: "In the U.S., the combination of a healthy labor market and a heavily overbought fixed-income market have created the backdrop for a material rise in U.S. interest rate expectations/bond yields. As U.S. rate expectations climb, the U.S. dollar should gain support. This in turn will create headwinds for EM currencies and other EM risk assets." Then, we reiterated this view in our July 27 Weekly Report: "Nowadays, there is little talk in the investment community about a bond bubble and the potential for much higher bond yields. Indeed, "lower for longer" has begun to dominate the investor lexicon. This is a sign that many G7 bond bears have likely capitulated. Investor consensus on bonds has become quite bullish, and many investors are long duration. When many bears capitulate, the odds of a market selloff inevitably rise. "Importantly, the increase in G7 bond yields might not be gradual as many expect because of the following: with yields at such low levels, bonds' duration is high and price changes become very sensitive to changes in yield... Such (large) price changes (drops) would amount to large losses for bond investors, and forced selling could intensify. As a result, the unwinding of long positions could be abrupt and volatile." For now, odds are that U.S. bond yields will rise further. Given global bond funds have seen massive inflows in recent years, the latest drop in prices of various bonds has been substantial and will likely trigger withdrawals and redemptions from bond funds, prompting forced selling. This is true for all types of bond portfolios, including DM government and corporates, EM credit (U.S. dollar bonds) and EM local currency bonds. U.S. bond yields are still low, even from the perspective of the past several years, and the market-implied terminal fed funds rate is still 80 basis points below the median projection of the Federal Open Market Committee's longer-run rate (Chart I-5). Given that U.S. interest rate expectations are not high at all, they will rise further (Chart I-6) as the uptrend in U.S. wages persists - driven by an already reasonably tight labor market (Chart I-7). Chart I-5U.S. Interest Rate Expectations Are Still Low Chart I-6U.S. Wage Growth Is Accelerating Chart I-7More Upside In U.S. Treasurys Yields Finally, the U.S. dollar will continue to be buoyed by rising U.S. interest rate expectations. Our composite momentum indicator for the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar has bounced off the zero line (Chart I-8). This constitutes a strong technical confirmation of the durable bullish market trend in the dollar. Bottom Line: Odds are that the rise in U.S. bond yields is not over. As U.S. bond yields rise further, EM currencies and bonds will sell off. Long-Term EM Currency Trends We have several observations on the long-term performance of EM currencies and financial markets: In the long run, there is no guarantee that the majority of EM currencies will appreciate in real terms (adjusted for inflation differentials). In fact, even countries such as Korea and Taiwan - which have been very successful in their economic development and have tremendously grown their income per capita - have seen their real (inflation-adjusted) exchange rates depreciate over the past several decades (Chart I-9). The case for long-term appreciation in real terms is even weaker for exchange rates in countries that exhibit chronically high inflation rates and/or current account deficits. This has been true for many non-Asian EM currencies (Chart I-10). Chart I-8The U.S. Dollar Is ##br##In A Genuine Bull Market Chart I-9Long-Term Currency ##br##Downtrends In Korea And Taiwan Chart I-10EM Currency Trends: ##br##A Long-Term Perspective Importantly, most losses to foreign investors in EM financial markets often occur via currency depreciation. This is even truer in the current bear market downtrend. The JPM ELMI+ currency total return index (including cost of carry) seems to be about to break down (Chart I-11). In EM ex-China, the real effective exchange rate is still elevated (Chart I-12). Given their poor productivity growth outlook, the real effective exchange rates will be inclined to depreciate. Chart I-11EM Currency Return With Cost ##br##Of Carry Versus U.S. Dollar Chart I-12Weak Productivity Means ##br##Further Currency Depreciation To limit the upside in domestic interest rates - both in bond yields and interbank rates - many developing nations' central banks will inject more local currency liquidity into their respective systems.3 This might help cap local interest rates, but is bearish for their currencies. The Turkish central bank has been among the most aggressive in this disguised money printing, and not surprisingly the value of its currency has collapsed (Chart I-13). There is no long-term history for EM currencies, as before 1998 most developing nations' exchange rates were pegged. Yet when one examines EM equities' relative performance against the S&P 500, it emerges that there is no single EM bourse that has outperformed U.S. stocks on a consistent basis in the very long run. Chart I-14A and Chart I-14B demonstrate that among 11 EM equity markets that have a long-term history, none have outperformed the S&P 500 over the past 30-35 years. Chart I-13Turkey's Central Bank Has Been ##br##Pumping Local Currency Into The System Chart I-14AEM Equities Versus The S&P 500: ##br##A Long-Term Perspective Chart I-14BEM Equities Versus The S&P 500: ##br##A Long-Term Perspective This goes to reveal that the starting point of underdevelopment and the mark "emerging" does not guarantee consistent outperformance even in the long run. In fact, EM's relative performance against the U.S. has followed multi-year cycles, and we believe the current bear market and underperformance is not yet over. While EM underperformance is long in duration, economic and financial adjustments remain incomplete. DM QE programs and China's still-growing credit bubble have delayed the adjustment. As a rule, the longer a financial or economic imbalance/excess lingers, the more protracted the adjustment will be. Bottom Line: EM exchange rates will continue depreciating. We recommend short positions in the following basket of EM currencies versus the U.S. dollar: KRW, MYR, IDR, TRY, ZAR, BRL, COP and CLP. For a complete list of our open currency and fixed-income trades please refer to page 18. Country Allocation For EM Local Bond Portfolios Chart I-15 demonstrates the relationship between developing countries' foreign funding requirements and their real (inflation-adjusted) local bond yields. The foreign funding requirement is calculated as the sum of the current account deficit and foreign debt service obligations over the next 12 months. We use inflation-linked (real) bond yields for markets where they are available. In other cases, we subtract the headline inflation rate from nominal bond yields to derive the real one. Chart I-15Real Bond Yields And Foreign Funding Requirements: A Cross Country Comparison The higher the foreign funding requirement, the higher the real yield must be to attract foreign capital, all else equal. On this diagram, the value pockets are Brazil (its real yield of 6.3% offers the best value by far), Indonesia, Russia and India. Domestic real yields in these countries are relatively high compared to their foreign funding requirements, which is a proxy for exchange rate risk. In contrast, Turkey, Chile, Colombia, Hungary and Malaysia have low real yields relative to their large foreign funding requirements. However, there are other factors that are shaping local yields. For example, Brazilian real yields look very attractive on this matrix because the latter does not account for public debt dynamics. The fiscal dynamics in Brazil are dreadful.4 On the contrary, Chilean local bonds appear expensive, but the country's fiscal outlook is very healthy. After considering all factors that affect local bond yields as well as incorporating the currency outlook, we recommend the following allocations: Overweight Korea, Thailand, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Russia and Mexico (Chart I-16). For investors who can invest in Chinese, Taiwanese and Indian local bonds, we also recommend overweighting these markets within an EM domestic bond portfolio. Underweight Turkish, South African, Malaysian and Indonesian local currency bonds (Chart I-17). We will publish our analysis on Indonesia soon. Stay neutral on domestic bonds' total return in U.S. dollar terms in Brazil (with a negative bias because of the considerable currency risk), Chile and Colombia (Chart I-18). Chart I-16Our Recommended ##br##Overweights In Local Bonds Chart I-17Our Recommended ##br##Underweights In Local Bonds Chart I-18Local Bonds ##br##Warranting A Neutral Allocation A Word On China's Commodities Frenzy Speculative fever is running high in Chinese commodities exchanges. Frenetic commodities trading in China has seen prices skyrocket of late (Chart I-19). Prices often rise a limit during a day. We have the following observations: This stampede into commodities is a reflection of rotating bubbles in China. Mania forces rotated from property to stocks, then to corporate bonds, and then back to housing, again. It seems to be shifting into commodities now. While the mainland's industrial sector and real demand for commodities have registered gradual improvement in recent months, the sharp spike in commodities prices largely reflects speculative activity much more than real demand. In fact, net imports of base metals have been flat for the past six years (zero growth in six years), and all swings have most likely been related to inventory cycles (Chart I-20). Chart I-19The Spike In Commodities ##br##Prices Trading In China Chart I-20China: Net Import Of Base Metals Like any speculative frenzy, this is momentum-driven and will one day crash. Timing the reversal is impossible. A lot depends on policymakers' willingness to confront this speculative bubble and investor psychology. Notably, onshore corporate bond yields and swap rates have recently begun rising. As in DM bonds, the rise in yields from very low levels is causing large price drops. As and if yields rise further, losses in corporate bonds will become considerable and investors (especially ones managing retail investors' money) will head for the exits, triggering liquidation. This, along with the eventual unraveling of commodities speculation poses substantial potential risk to global, or at least EM, financial markets. Bottom Line: The latest exponential rise in commodities prices on Chinese exchanges is an unsustainable speculative frenzy that will end badly. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy & Frontier Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 The JPMorgan Government Bond Index-Emerging Markets (GBI-EM) indices are emerging market debt benchmarks that track local currency bonds issued by Emerging Market governments. 2 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Risks To Our Negative EM View," dated July 13, 2016. 3 Please see "EM: Is The Liquidity Upturn Genuine And Sustainable?" Parts I & II, dated November 25, 2015 and December 2, 2015, respectively. 4 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Brazil: The Honeymoon Is Over," dated August 3, 2016. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Duration: The odds of further bond bearish catalysts emerging during the next 6-12 months are still quite elevated. Maintain below benchmark duration. Global Bond Strategy: The most likely candidates for another bond bearish catalyst would be an announcement of substantial fiscal stimulus from Japan and/or a hawkish policy shift from the Fed. Investors should remain overweight core Europe, underweight U.S. Treasuries and neutral on JGBs. U.S. High-Yield: Given current spread levels and our default loss expectations, valuation in the U.S. high-yield market sends neither a strong buy nor sell signal. Feature In a U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report1 published in August we observed that, since the financial crisis, material increases in global bond yields have all been associated with a policy catalyst (Chart 1). We identified three such catalysts: the Fed's 2010 announcement of QE2, the Fed signaling its willingness to slow the pace of asset purchases in 2013, and the European Central Bank's (ECB) announcement of its own QE program in 2015. Now we can add the election of Donald Trump as a fourth catalyst that has spurred a tantrum in global bond markets. Chart 1The Four Post-Crisis Bond Tantrums The common factor that links all of these catalysts is that each causes the market to quickly re-assess its expectations about the future pace of monetary tightening. Interestingly, this re-assessment can be caused by either the announcement of a program that is perceived to be extremely stimulative or the announcement that monetary stimulus will be scaled back. Examples of the former include both the Fed's and ECB's QE announcements as well as the recent U.S. election. An example of the latter would be the 2013 taper tantrum. As in August, the goal of this report is to perform a quick survey of the major global economies in order to assess the likelihood that another bond-bearish catalyst emerges during the next 6-12 months. While we find it difficult to see a catalyst of the same scale as those shown in Chart 1, we assign high odds to the possibility that the announcement of fiscal easing in Japan will add to the bearish pressure on global bonds. We also assign high odds to the possibility that upside inflation surprises in the U.S. cause the Fed to adopt a more hawkish forward guidance, further increasing the bearish pressure on global bonds. We assign low odds to the possibility that ECB policy will contribute to the global bond selloff. U.S. Chart 2Fed Wants Breakevens To Head Higher The recent "Trump Tantrum" has sent yields sharply higher, and expectations priced into the U.S. bond market are now not far from the Fed's median rate hike expectations, especially at the short-end of the curve (Chart 2). In the U.S., the next most likely catalyst for sharply higher global bond yields would be the Fed signaling that it will adopt a quicker pace of rate hikes. Specifically, the Fed would need to cease revising its funds rate forecasts lower - which has been the pattern for the last few years - and start revising them higher. While the market was quick to price-in the likelihood of greater fiscal stimulus and rising deficits under the incoming government, the Fed will take a more cautious approach. In fact, with inflation still below target (Chart 2, bottom panel) and market-based measures of inflation compensation still depressed, the Fed will be in no rush to signal a more hawkish policy stance. We expect the Fed will follow through with an expected rate increase in December, but that the median expectation will continue to call for only two more hikes in 2017. The Fed is only likely to shift toward a more hawkish policy stance once inflation expectations are more firmly anchored around levels consistent with the Fed's inflation target. This corresponds to a range of 2.4% to 2.5% on the 5-year, 5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate (Chart 2, second panel). Assuming that U.S. economic growth continues to accelerate into next year, as we expect, then the 5y5y TIPS breakeven rate could reach this target sometime in the middle of 2017. At that point, a more hawkish Fed policy becomes more likely. In the meantime, while the "Trump Tantrum" is likely to take a pause in the near-term (next 1-2 months), it may not have run its course just yet. If U.S. growth is strong in 2017 and the Trump administration appears to be making progress implementing its more stimulative policies, then the Treasury curve will likely resume its bear-steepening trend in the first half of next year.2 Euro Area Chart 3Strong Growth, But Plenty Of Slack According to the OECD and others, including the European Commission and ECB, trend GDP growth in the Eurozone is below 1%. In fact, most estimates center around 0.7%. This means that as long as GDP growth is maintained above these levels we should expect the labor market to continue to tighten. At least for now, the data suggest that growth is likely to remain well above trend. Led by gains in both the services and manufacturing indexes, the euro area's composite PMI jumped from 53.3 to 54.1 in November. The composite PMI has a good track record of leading European GDP growth (Chart 3), and the current reading is consistent with GDP growth of 2%. Despite strong growth, the ECB's policy stance is likely to remain accommodative for quite some time and is unlikely to spur a global bond tantrum within our 6-12 month investment horizon. The fact that core inflation remains below 1% (Chart 3, panel 3) tells us that the output gap in the euro area is still very wide. It will take a prolonged period of strong growth for the output gap to close and for inflationary pressures to mount. In prior cycles inflation has not begun to accelerate until the unemployment rate was below 9% (shaded regions in Chart 3). An announcement from the ECB that it will cease its asset purchase program because the economy has made adequate progress toward its economic and inflation goals would likely spur a large rise in global bond yields. However, this is unlikely to occur until the unemployment rate is below 9% and inflation is in an uptrend. As we argued in a recent Global Fixed Income Strategy report,3 the ECB will be able to alter the rules regarding the quantity of bonds available for purchase as is necessary to keep the program in place. Japan The Bank of Japan (BoJ) recently switched to a policy framework that involves targeting a level of yields as opposed to a quantity of purchases. In our view, this sends a pretty strong signal that monetary policy is close to being exhausted and that fiscal policy must take up the baton of Abenomics. While the timing and amount of any additional fiscal spending is not clear, it is probably necessary if policymakers are serious about reaching their 2% inflation goal. Chart 4Policy Action Required In Japan At present, the Japanese Diet is currently deliberating the third revision to the second supplementary budget and government officials have signaled that there will be more coordination between monetary and fiscal policy in the future. The government is also debating ways to boost household income, including raising government wages, lifting the minimum wage and providing tax incentives for the private sector to be more generous on the wage front. While any fiscal measures would not spur an increase in nominal JGB yields (because the BoJ will retain the cap), they would spur an increase in inflation expectations and a decline in real yields (Chart 4). We also think that the reflationary impulse would be felt by bond markets in the rest of the world, and that large enough fiscal stimulus from Japan would pressure global bond yields higher even though JGBs remain capped. Admittedly, the cap on nominal JGB yields would limit the contagion from Japanese fiscal stimulus to the rest of the global bond market. As would the impact of a depreciating yen relative to the euro and U.S. dollar. However, we also suspect that the shift toward greater fiscal stimulus in both the U.S. and Japan would cause investors to revise their global growth expectations higher, and that this impact would dominate in terms of the impact on global bond yields. Investment Conclusions The odds of further bond bearish catalysts emerging during the next 6-12 months remain quite elevated. The most likely candidates would be an announcement of substantial fiscal stimulus in Japan and/or a hawkish policy shift from the Fed. The ECB is unlikely to contribute to the bearish pressure on global bonds during the next 6-12 months. As such, we continue to recommend a below benchmark duration stance on a 6-12 month horizon. In global bond portfolios, investors should remain overweight core Europe, underweight U.S. Treasuries and neutral JGBs. Valuation & Expected Returns In U.S. High-Yield A commonly used tool for assessing value in the high-yield bond market is a default-adjusted spread. That is, we formulate an expectation for default losses during our investment horizon and compare it to the spread that is currently on offer. If the current spread is elevated compared to our expectation for default losses then the default-adjusted spread is high and we would see good value in high-yield bonds relative to equivalent-duration Treasuries. This week we examine two different formulations of a default-adjusted spread for the U.S. high-yield market and test how well each corresponds to excess junk returns. The first measure we look at is a true ex-ante measure. It relies only on data that are available in real time, and can therefore be used as part of a trading strategy. Specifically, our ex-ante default-adjusted spread is calculated as the average option-adjusted spread from the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. High-Yield index less an expectation of default losses for the subsequent 12 month period. Expected default losses are calculated by taking the Moody's baseline forecast for the U.S. speculative grade default rate during the next 12 months and multiplying it by 1 minus our forecast of the recovery rate for this same period. We forecast the recovery rate based on its historical relationship with the default rate. The second measure we examine is an ex-post default-adjusted spread. In this case we look at the average spread of the index less actual default losses that are realized during the subsequent 12 months. As such, this measure can only be calculated after the fact. Comparing the ex-ante and ex-post measures, we see that both tend to reside within a range of 200 to 300 basis points. However, the ex-post measure periodically shows a negative value while the ex-ante measure is more often above 300 bps (Chart 5). This tells us that when forecasting default losses it is more common to underestimate default losses, rather than overestimate them. Chart 5Distribution of Default-Adjusted Spreads Over Time The next thing we look at is how closely each measure aligns with high-yield excess returns (Charts 6 & 7). Our ex-ante measure explains 34% of the variation in high-yield excess returns since 2002 (when our sample begins). Predictably, the ex-post measure, which removes the error surrounding the default loss forecast, explains a greater proportion of the variation in excess junk returns (53%). Our sample period is also longer for the ex-post measure, beginning in 1995. Chart 612-Month Excess High-Yield Returns Vs.##br## Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread (2002 - Present) Chart 712-Month Excess High-Yield Returns Vs. ##br##Ex-Post Default-Adjusted Spread (1995 - Present) The current average option-adjusted spread for the High-Yield index is 459 bps. If we incorporate the Moody's baseline forecast for the default rate during the next 12 months (4.1%) and our forecast for the recovery rate (39%), then we calculate an ex-ante default-adjusted spread of 210 bps. Using the relationship in Chart 6, this translates into an expected 12-month excess return of -26 bps. If we assume there is no error in our forecast then we can use the relationship in Chart 7. In that case, our expected 12-month excess return would be +55 bps. Of course, that exercise imposes a linear relationship between excess returns and the default-adjusted spread and doesn't consider that there is considerable variation in actual excess returns around this trendline. For that reason, in Charts 8 & 9 we split both our default-adjusted spread measures into intervals of 50 basis points. For each interval we display the average 12-month excess return along with a 90% confidence interval for where those returns are likely to fall. Chart 812-Month High-Yield Excess Returns & 90% Confidence Intervals: ##br##Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread Chart 912-Month High-Yield Excess Returns & 90% Confidence Intervals:##br## Ex-Post Default-Adjusted Spread Specifically, the blue dots in Charts 8 & 9 show the 12-month excess return that is earned on average when the default-adjusted spread falls into a particular interval. The top and bottom edges of the vertical lines correspond to the upper and lower limits of the 90% confidence interval. More statistics related to the 12-month excess returns that have been observed when the default-adjusted spread falls into a specific interval can be found in the Appendix to this report. The main message from these charts is that a default-adjusted spread below 100 bps is a powerful sell signal, while a default-adjusted spread above 350 bps is a powerful buy signal. Between those two thresholds the signal is less clear. Bottom Line: Given current spread levels and our default loss expectations, valuation in the U.S. high-yield market sends neither a strong buy nor sell signal, but is consistent with small positive excess returns. Our inclination is to remain cautious on U.S. high-yield for the time being, but to look for opportunities to upgrade from more attractive valuations. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "The Tantrum Theory Of Global Bond Yields", dated August 16, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Toward A Cyclical Sweet Spot?", dated November 22, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The ECB's Next Move: Extend & Pretend", dated October 25, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com Appendix Table 112-Month High-Yield Excess Returns & Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread Table 212-Month High-Yield Excess Returns & Ex-Ante Default-Adjusted Spread Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The rise in Treasury yields is approaching a threshold that has often caused equity market indigestion. Stay focused on current monetary conditions rather than fiscal unknowns. The bear market in lodging stocks has played itself out: take profits on an underweight position. The sell-off in home improvement retail shares is overdone, and a contrarian long position should pay off despite the backup in mortgage rates. Recent Changes S&P Hotels Index - Take profits of 3% and raise to neutral. Table 1Sector Performance Returns (%) Feature Momentum may carry the market higher in the short run, but from current valuation levels, stocks, the dollar and bond yields can only climb sustainably in tandem if a non-inflationary economic boom is taking hold. In that sense, equities appear to be taking their cue solely from the anticipated U.S. political shift while ignoring the tightening in monetary conditions and hints of emerging market financial strains. The equity market outlook hinges on a judgement call as to whether the action in the currency and Treasury yields is reflective or restrictive? There are no easy answers, but below we discuss some of the variables that influence this decision. Chart 1 shows that the 10-year Treasury yield has climbed above fair value. Equity bulls may rejoice because yields have sauntered much deeper into undervalued territory before stocks have run into trouble. The big difference this time is that the greenback is also climbing. Parallel powerful rises in both the currency and yields are rare, and typically culminate in steep market pullbacks. Importantly, most of the recent yield rise reflects an increase in inflation expectations. The real component, i.e. economic growth expectations, has been far more muted (Chart 2). Chart 1Stocks, Yields, And The Dollar##br## Can't Climb Together For Long Chart 2Inflation Expectations ##br##Are Driving Up Yields Equities shrugged off the surge in yields during the 2013 taper tantrum. However, yields never rose above fair value then, and the increase was almost entirely due to the real component rather than a rise in inflation expectations, i.e. it was more reflective than restrictive (Chart 2). Meanwhile, equities had just been through a difficult stretch in 2012 on fears the euro was going to break apart, and sovereign yields in the periphery were in the early stages of a long descent (Chart 3). In other words, there was a structural tailwind for equities. In addition, the U.S. dollar was range-bound during that period, overall profit growth was strong, business lending was picking up and corporate bond spreads stayed tight (Chart 3). The outlook today is much different. Euro area periphery yields are up sharply, EM bond spreads are flaring out, profit growth is much weaker and the U.S. is importing deflation through U.S. dollar strength (Chart 3), particularly against China and other developing market currencies. Thus, we are uncomfortable making comparisons between today and 2013 broad market resilience. The speed of upward adjustment in Treasury yields also influences equity prices. At the moment, yields are rising faster than profit growth. The overall market has typically become more volatile and often corrects when the growth in yields outpaces profit growth (Chart 4). Chart 3The 2013 Taper Tantrum##br## Is Not A Good Guide Chart 4Too Far,##br## Too Fast? The most painful equity corrections have occurred when this gauge drops below -10%, as the latter suggests that inflation expectations are increasing rapidly, warning of valuation and monetary tightening ahead. This threshold is in danger of being breached on any further rise in yields. However, if the currency continues climbing, yields are unlikely to rise much further, if at all, underscoring that the next big tactical sub-surface market move may be a recovery in yield-dependent sectors as investors begin to fret about the deflationary and profit-sapping impact of a strong dollar. Against this backdrop, we caution against getting too comfortable extrapolating market momentum, because recent gains could be erased just as quickly as they accrued if monetary conditions keep tightening. On a sub-surface basis, value is being created in interest rate-sensitive sectors and destroyed in cyclical sectors, primarily industrials, as discussed last week. Meanwhile, we maintain a domestic vs. global focus, and recommend buying into the pullback in housing stocks. Buy Home Improvement Retailers Like many other interest rate-sensitive groups, home improvement retailers (HIR) have lagged recently, fueled by the surge in bond yields, and hence, mortgage rates. We doubt this is sustainable. U.S. currency strength will refocus attention on the lack of top-line growth in global-oriented industries, which will reverse recent countertrend intra-sector capital flows, and ensure that bond yields are capped. The housing market slowed this year by most metrics (housing starts, permits, sales growth), which undermined remodeling activity. In response, building supply store sales cooled (Chart 5, bottom panel). Recent earnings reports from housing-geared industries such as appliances and furniture vendors have also disappointed. Analysts have been quick to slash both sales and earnings growth estimates (Chart 5). However, as often happens, an overreaction appears to be occurring. There is little indication of a return to punitively deflationary industry conditions. In fact, the producer price index for appliance and furniture makers has shot up in recent months, heralding stronger HIR pricing power (Chart 6, second panel). Lumber prices are also up sharply, despite U.S. dollar strength, which will boost the top-line and profit margins (Chart 6). At a fixed spread over lumber prices, the higher the latter go, the more profit earned at a constant volume sold. We continue to be encouraged by the long-term outlook. Household formation is accelerating now that the unemployment rate is below 5%. Building permits are below average levels, even excluding the housing bubble period (Chart 7). Chart 5Housing Slowdown Already Reflected Chart 6No Sign Of Deflationary Stress Chart 7Still Early In The Mortgage Cycle Consumers have only recently become comfortable taking on mortgage debt, and first time buyers represent a rising share of total home sales. Banks are ready and willing to extend mortgage credit (Chart 7, bottom panel), unlike most other credit. Ergo, housing activity still has legs. While the backup in Treasury yields will no doubt make housing somewhat less affordable, Chart 8 shows that even a 100 basis point rise would not push affordability back to average levels. Mortgage payments would still be well below the long-term average as a share of income, and effective mortgage rates are still extremely low. Therefore, we would not be surprised to see stable housing metrics in the coming months, despite the yield back up. Existing house prices are flirting with new highs (Chart 7), despite the early stage of mortgage re-leveraging, which bodes well for future house price increases. If homeowners are confident that house prices will stay solid, they will be more inclined to make home improvement investments. These factors are represented in our HIR model. The model is climbing steadily, exhibiting a rare positive divergence from relative share prices (Chart 9). Our inclination is to side with the objective message from the model. The valuation case for the group has improved markedly. The forward P/E is well below the average of the last decade and the dividend yield is now on a par with that of the broad market. Typically, a positive yield differential has been a bullish relative performance signal (Chart 10). Chart 8Higher Yields Are Not A Game Changer Chart 9Our Model Remains Firm Chart 10Discounting A Weak Housing Market Most importantly, the industry continues to generate sky-high return on equity, and free cash flow is booming. The implication is that shareholder-friendly stock buybacks and dividend increases should continue apace, especially compared with the overall corporate sector. At current valuation levels, there is room for a playable recovery in relative performance, especially if Treasury yields level off on the back of relentless U.S. dollar strength. Bottom Line: Home improvement retail (BLBG: S5HOMI - HD, LOW) stock price weakness is a buying opportunity. We recommend an above-benchmark allocation. End Of The Bear Market In Hotel Stocks The S&P hotels index has been in a relative performance bear market since late last year when we reduced it to underweight, but downside risks have diminished even though a number of players have lowered 2017 guidance and revenue per room (REVPAR) expectations. Relative value has been created by the past year of underperformance. A variety of valuation metrics show that the price ratio is plumbing recessionary-type levels (Chart 11). Most notably, the relative price/sales ratio is almost on a par with the lows during the Great Recession, when a steep contraction was anticipated for the foreseeable future. Such a dire forecast is not in the cards, even if economic growth disappoints an increasingly optimistic consensus. The plunge in net earnings revisions has not been confirmed by a downturn in hours worked. Typically, these two series move hand-in-hand (Chart 12). Instead, hours worked continue to trend higher suggesting that reduced profit guidance is bringing analyst expectations to more attainable levels rather than signaling impending doom. After all, persistent hotel construction growth means that demand needs to run hot in order to keep deflationary pressures at bay. This has been a tall order in the past year, as tight business budgets and lackluster discretionary consumer spending have kept REVPAR under wraps (Chart 13). Occupancy rates remain below previous expansionary run rates, leaving revenue per room more exposed than normal to demand soft spots. Chart 11End Of Bear Market Chart 12An Undershoot In Estimates Chart 13Slow, But Steady, Growth REVPAR could be supported by decent consumer spending. Wage growth, and thus aggregate income, are perking up, job security has risen and income expectations are on the upswing. Consumers are behaving as if income gains will be permanent, given the increase in consumer loan demand. Low fuel prices and the surge in vehicle miles driven are consistent with solid lodging outlays. The latter have recently reaccelerated, and are supporting better than market hotel pricing power (Chart 13). Importantly, hotel profit margins are no longer under extreme duress. Decent pricing power gains and an easing in the industry's total wage bill inflation have combined to support an increase in our profit margin proxy (Chart 14). All of this implies that profit conditions are stabilizing, just as valuations have been squeezed, warranting an upgrade to neutral. Why not a full shift to overweight? There are a number of factors to consider. The lodging industry is battling secular crosscurrents. On the positive side, the lodging industry has consistently managed to increase its share of total consumer spending, in real terms (Chart 15), with periodic underperformance phases, typically during recessions. This likely reflects well-timed capacity investments and strong brands. As a result, hotel pricing power has also been in a structural uptrend (Chart 15). This cycle, pricing power has lagged, consistent with subdued REVPAR gains, but hotels have still managed to aggressively grow earnings per share. While buybacks have undoubtedly played a role in this advance, EPS is following a typical pattern. In the last four decades, hotels have suffered four major recession-related earnings contractions. After each contraction, profits ultimately surpassed their previous peak by more than 75%, on average. The duration of the upcycle averaged five years. This cycle the recovery has already lasted more than six years, but hotel profits have only increased 30% from the 2007 peak. That implies substantial profit upside ahead just to reach the average, albeit pricing power will need to kick in as it has in past cycles. On the downside, consumers are still showing a penchant for spending more on essentials compared with non-essentials. The ratio of retail sales at cyclical stores to non-discretionary stores has been highly correlated with relative performance (Chart 16, top panel). Chart 14The Margin Squeeze Is Over Chart 15Structural Tailwinds... Chart 16... And Headwinds That raises some question about the latest burst of strength in lodging outlays, especially in view of the pruning in business travel budgets, as confirmed by anecdotes from recent earnings reports. BCA's capital spending model is not forecasting any improvement (Chart 16, bottom panel). Lingering in the background has been the relentless increase in lodging construction. Capacity growth represents a long-term threat to pricing power (Chart 16), over and above the threat from new entrants such as AirBnB. Expansion explains why real hotel consumer prices have not come close to hitting new highs even though real hotel spending has. Hotel capacity expansion heralds intensifying deflationary pressure. Meanwhile, hotels have sizeable global operations, exposing profitability to risks of incremental U.S. dollar strength. Consequently, we would prefer to await signs of an impending improvement in capital spending, and thus, business travel, and/or a sharp downturn in hotel construction spending, before lifting positions all the way to overweight. Bottom Line: Lift the S&P hotels index (BLBG: S5HOTL - MAR, CCL, RCL, WYN) to neutral, locking in an 3% relative performance profit since our initial underweight call nearly a year ago. A further upgrade is tempting, but awaits relief from pricing power constraints. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and growth over value.

The Tactical Asset Allocation model can provide investment recommendations which diverge from those outlined in our regular weekly publications. The model has a much shorter investment horizon - namely, one month - and thus attempts to capture very tactical opportunities. Meanwhile, our regular recommendations have a longer expected life, anywhere from 3-months to a year (or longer). This difference explains why the recommendations between the two publications can deviate from each other from time to time. Highlights In November, the model underperformed global equities and the S&P in USD and in local-currency terms. For December, the model reduced its allocation to cash and stocks and boosted its weighting in bonds (Chart 1). Within the equity portfolio, most of the decrease in allocation came at the expense of EM, Sweden, Netherlands, U.S., and New Zealand. The model increased its weighting in Swedish, French, U.K., and Canadian bonds. The risk index for stocks deteriorated in November, while the bond risk index improved significantly. Chart 1Model Weights Feature Performance In November, the recommended balanced portfolio lost 1.5% in local-currency terms and was down 3.4% in U.S. dollar terms (Chart 2). This compares with a gain of 1.3% for the global equity benchmark, and a 3.7% gain for the S&P 500 index. Given that the underlying model is structured in local-currency terms, we generally recommend that investors hedge their positions, though we do provide recommendations from time to time. The sharp bond selloff and weakness in EM equity markets both took a toll on the model's performance in November. Weights The model cut its allocation to stocks from 66% to 53%, and increased its bond weighting from 26% to 47%. The allocation to cash was brought down to zero from 8%, while commodities remain excluded from the portfolio (Table 1). The model trimmed its allocation to Latin American equities by 4 points, Sweden by 3 points, and the Netherlands by 3 points. Also, weightings were reduced in U.S., New Zealand, Spanish, and Emerging Asian stocks. In the fixed-income space, the allocation to Swedish paper was boosted by 12 points, France by 7 points, Canada by 5 points, the U.K. by 3 points, and Italy by 1 point. Allocation to New Zealand bonds was decreased by 6 points and U.S. Treasurys by 1 point. Chart 2Portfolio Total Returns Table 1Model Weights (As Of November 24, 2016) Currency Allocation Local currency-based indicators drive the construction of our model. As such, the performance of the model's portfolio should be compared with the local-currency global equity benchmark. The decision to hedge currency exposure should be made at the client's discretion, though from time to time, we do provide our recommendations. The dollar appreciated significantly in November following the U.S. presidential election. Our Dollar Capitulation Index spiked and is currently at levels that suggest the rally in the broad trade-weighted dollar could pause (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* And Capitulation Capital Market Indicators The momentum indicator for commodities has moved further into overbought territory, pushing up the overall risk index. This asset class remains excluded from the portfolio (Chart 4). The deterioration in the liquidity and momentum indicators has lifted the risk index for global equities to the highest level in over 2 years. Our model cut its weighting in equities for the fourth month in a row (Chart 5). Chart 4Commodity Index And Risk Chart 5Global Stock Market And Risk The risk index for U.S. stocks increased sharply in November. With stocks reaching new highs, the model trimmed its allocation to this bourse. The markets took note of the growth-positive aspects of Trump's policies, but seem complacent about the stronger dollar, higher interest rates, and the potential for trade protectionist policies (Chart 6). The risk index for euro area equities has ticked up slightly in November. However, unlike its U.S. peers, it remains in the low-risk zone. Above-trend growth could provide support for euro area equities. (Chart 7). Chart 6U.S. Stock Market And Risk Chart 7Euro Area Stock Market And Risk The risk index for Dutch equities ticked up slightly and the model has downgraded this asset. That said, the weighting in Dutch equities remains the highest among its euro area counterparts (Chart 8). Improvements in the value and momentum measures for Latin American stocks have been largely offset by a deteriorating liquidity reading. As a result, the risk index did not decline much after the selloff. The model decreased its allocation to this asset (Chart 9). Chart 8Dutch Stock Market And Risk Chart 9Latin American Stock Market And Risk Over the course of only a few months, the risk index for bonds has swung from an extremely high risk level to the low-risk zone. Momentum has been the primary driving force behind this move and currently suggests that yields could pull back in the near term (Chart 10). The risk index for U.S. Treasurys declined significantly in November. While the model used the latest selloff to boost its allocation to bonds, it preferred to add allocation to bond markets outside of Treasurys. (Chart 11). Chart 10Global Bond Yields And Risk Chart 11U.S. Bond Yields And Risk After the rise in yields, Canadian bonds are massively oversold based on our momentum measure. The extremely low-risk reading has prompted the model to allocate to this asset (Chart 12). German bonds are oversold, but the reading on the cyclical measure has become considerably more bund-unfriendly. The model opted not to include bunds in the overall boost to its bond allocation. (Chart 13). Chart 12Canadian Bond Yields And Risk Chart 13German Bond Yields And Risk The risk reading in French bonds is more favorable than for bunds. Apart from oversold momentum, the value reading has also improved. The model increased its allocation to French bonds (Chart 14). The cyclical component of the risk index for Swedish bonds keeps moving in a bond-bearish direction. But that is completely overshadowed by extremely oversold conditions. In fact, the overall risk index for Swedish bonds is the lowest within our bond universe. Much of the increase in overall bond allocation ended up in Swedish paper (Chart 15). Chart 14French Bond Yields And Risk Chart 15Swedish Bond Yields And Risk Following sharp gains, the 13-week momentum measure for the U.S. dollar has reached levels at which some consolidation may take place. But the recovery in the 40-week rate of change measure indicates that it would probably be a pause in the dollar bull market rather than a trend change. With the December rate hike baked in, the Fed's communication about the policy next year holds the key to the path of the dollar - in addition to the fiscal policy of the next administration (Chart 16). The Japanese yen has been a major victim of the dollar rally. The 13-week momentum measure is approaching levels that halted the yen weakening trend in 2013 and 2015. However, this time around, it is not coupled with the same signal from the 40-week rate of change measure. The BoJ is sticking to its easy monetary policy, and some additional support on the fiscal front could drag the yen lower, notwithstanding a possible hiatus in the short term. Short term the yen could benefit from an EM pullback (Chart 17). After the latest bout of depreciation, the euro seems poised for another attempt to break below 1.05. The 13-week and 40-week momentum measures do not preclude this from happening. However, it would probably take the ECB to reaffirm its dovish message to push EUR/USD technical indicators into more oversold territory (Chart 18). Chart 16U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* Chart 17Yen Chart 18Euro Miroslav Aradski, Senior Analyst miroslava@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Investors are betting that Trump's expansionary agenda will not be torpedoed by his less market-friendly policies such as trade protectionism. We have some sympathy for this view, but believe that investors should remain cautious on risk assets until we receive more clarity on the sequencing of Trump's wish list and how aggressively he will pursue fiscal expansionism relative to trade and immigration reform. We doubt that Trump's fiscal and regulatory plan will place the U.S. economy on a permanently higher growth plane. Many of the growth headwinds that existed in the U.S. before the election remain in place. We expect that Trump will find most common ground with Congress on the fiscal side. It will be difficult, politically, for Republicans in the Senate and House to stand in Trump's way given that he has just been elected on a populist platform. We expect a meaningful fiscal stimulus package to be passed in the U.S. that will boost growth temporarily. We cannot rule out a trade war that more than offsets the fiscal impulse. Nonetheless, Trump's desire for growth means that he may tread carefully on protectionism. A window may open next year that will favor risk assets for a period of time. A temporary U.S. growth acceleration in late-2017/early 2018 would lift the equity and corporate bond boats. Our bias is to upgrade risk assets to overweight, but poor value means that the risk/reward tradeoff is underwhelming until we get more visibility on the new Administration's policy intentions. In the meantime, remain at benchmark in equities, overweight the dollar and below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios. The bond selloff is likely to pause until there is more concrete evidence that Congress will accept tax cuts and infrastructure spending, but global yields eventually have more upside potential. Value and relative monetary policies favor the Japanese and European stock markets versus the U.S., at least in local currencies. We are less bearish on high-yield bonds in relative terms, although we are still slightly below-benchmark. Feature Initial fears that a Trump victory would be apocalyptic for the economy and financial markets quickly morphed into an equity celebration on hopes that the Republican sweep would usher in policies that will shift American growth into high gear. Major U.S. stock indexes have broken above recent trading ranges, despite the surge in the dollar and the devastation in bond markets. Investors are betting that Trump's expansionary policies will not be torpedoed by his less market-friendly policies such as trade protectionism. We have some sympathy for this view, but believe that investors should remain cautious on risk assets until we receive more clarity on the sequencing of Trump's wish list and how aggressively he will pursue fiscal expansionism relative to trade and immigration reform. In the meantime, investors should remain long the dollar and short duration within bond portfolios, although a near-term correction of recent market action appears likely. Our geopolitical strategists argued through the entire campaign that Trump had a better chance of winning than the consensus believed because he was riding a voter preference wave that is moving left. Trump campaigned as an unorthodox Republican, appealing to white, blue collar voters by blaming globalization for their job losses and low wages, and by refusing to accept Republican (GOP) orthodoxy on fiscal austerity or entitlement spending. Chart I-1Big Government Is Only ##br##A Problem For The Opposition The polarization of U.S. voters and comparisons with the U.K. Brexit vote are well trodden themes that we won't rehash here. The important point is that the GOP now holds both the White House and Congress. The investment implications hinge critically on how friendly Congress is to Trump's policy prescriptions. Many pundits argue that House and Senate Republican's will block Trump's ambitious tax cut and infrastructure spending plan because it would blow out the budget deficit. The reality is more complex. It will be difficult politically for Republicans in the Senate and House to stand in Trump's way given that he has just been elected on a populist platform; it would be seen as thwarting the will of the people. Our post-election Special Report pointed out that, over the past 28 years, each new president has generally succeeded in passing their signature items.1 Moreover, the GOP is less fiscally conservative than is widely believed. Fiscal trends under the Bush and Reagan administrations highlighted that Republicans do not always keep spending in check (Chart I-1). The key pillars of Trump's campaign were renegotiating trade deals, immigration reform, increased infrastructure and defense spending, tax cuts, protecting entitlements, repealing Obamacare and reducing regulations. However, there is a big difference between election promises and what can actually be delivered. It is early going, but our first Special Report, beginning on page 19, presents a Q&A from our geopolitical team on what we know in terms of political constraints and possible outcomes in the coming year. Common Ground On Fiscal Policy We expect that Trump will find most common ground with Congress on the fiscal side. Infrastructure spending has bipartisan support, as highlighted by last year's highway funding bill. Democratic senators and House Republicans have promised to work with the new President on infrastructure spending. Trump is likely to offer tax reform in exchange for his infrastructure plan. Trump wants to cut the top marginal corporate tax rate (from 39.6% to 33%), repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax, and slash the corporate tax rate (from 35% to 15%). His plan also includes increased standard deduction limits and a full expensing of business capital spending. The Tax Policy Center estimates that Trump's tax plan alone would increase federal debt by $6.2 trillion over the next ten years (excluding additional interest).2 An extra $1 trillion in infrastructure outlays over the next decade, together with a growing defense budget, could add another $100-$200 billion to total federal spending per year. The problem, of course, is that few sources of new revenue have been suggested to cover the costs of these policy changes. The Tax Policy Center's scoring of the Trump plan implies a jump in the U.S. debt/GDP ratio from 77% today to 106% in 2026. Other studies claim that the budget damage will be far less than this because government revenues will boom along with the economy. We doubt that will be the case. The outlook for U.S. trade policy is even more nebulous. Trump has threatened to kill the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and potentially place tariffs of 35% and 45%, respectively, on imports from Mexico and China (among other protectionist measures). He has even threatened to take the U.S. out of the WTO.3 These threats are no more than posturing ahead of negotiations, but Trump needs to show his base of support that he is working to "make America great again". Protectionism will probably generate more pushback from Republicans in the House and Senate than Trump's fiscal measures. The Economic Implications Of Trumponomics Table I-1Ranges For U.S. Fiscal Multipliers In terms of the overall economic impact, there are many moving parts and it is unclear how much the Trump Administration will push fiscal stimulus versus trade protectionism. As discussed in the Special Report, it is possible that the tax cuts will be implemented as quickly as the second quarter of 2017, while infrastructure spending could begin ramping up in the second half of the year. However, we cannot rule out a lengthy bargaining process that would delay the economic stimulus into 2018. We doubt that Trump will get everything on his wish list. Moreover, the multiplier effects of tax cuts, which will benefit the upper-income classes the most, are smaller than for direct government spending (Table I-1). Nevertheless, even if he gets one quarter of what he is seeking, it could be enough to boost aggregate demand growth by up to 1% per year over a two year period. In terms of trade, Trump will undoubtedly kill the TPP immediately following his inauguration to show he means business. The President also has the power to implement tariffs without Congressional consent. It is unclear whether he can also cancel NAFTA unilaterally, but at a minimum he can impose higher tariffs and trade restrictions on Canada and Mexico. Nonetheless, comments from his advisors suggest that president-elect Trump wants stronger growth above all else. This means that he may tread carefully to avoid the negative growth effects of a trade war. Some high-profile studies of the impact of the Trump economic plan paint a grim picture. The Peterson Institute points out that "withdrawal from the WTO would lead to the unraveling of all tariff negotiations and the reversion of rates to the MFN level of a preexisting agreement, conceivably all the way back to the Smoot-Hawley rates that were in effect in 1934." Another Peterson study reported the results of a simulation of the impact of returning to the Smoot-Hawley tariff levels, using a large general equilibrium global model.4 They find that U.S. real GDP would contract by about 7½%, or roughly $1 trillion. Thus, a "doomsday trade scenario" is possible, but it seems inconceivable that Trump would withdraw from the WTO given his desire for growth. More likely, he will settle for higher tariffs placed on Mexico and China. Such tariffs would undermine U.S. growth on their own, but we believe that some recent studies discussed in the press overstate the negative impact of these tariffs. Back-of-the-envelope estimates suggest that the tariff increases would reduce U.S. real GDP by roughly 1.2%, including retaliation by Mexico and China in the form of higher tariffs on U.S. exports (see Box I-1 for more details). The negative shock would likely be stretched over a couple of years.5 Box 1 Importantly, not all of any tariff increase would be "passed-through" to U.S. businesses and households. Studies show that, historically, the pass-through of tariff increases into U.S. prices was actually quite low, at about 0.5. A large portion of previous tariff hikes have been absorbed by foreign producers as they endeavored to protect market share. This means that a 35% tariff on Mexican imports would result in a roughly 17½% rise in import prices from Mexico. A 45% tariff on Chinese goods would result in a 22½% rise in import prices from China. Moreover, the import price elasticity of U.S. demand, or the sensitivity of U.S. demand to a change in the price of imported goods, is estimated to be about 1. That is, a 22½% rise in import prices from China leads to a 22½% drop in import volumes from that country. Roughly one-half of the drop in imports is replaced by purchases from other countries and one-half from U.S. sources. This so-called "expenditure switching" effect actually boosts U.S. real GDP on its own. Of course, this lift is more than offset by the fact that households and businesses suffer a loss of purchasing power due to higher import prices. Chinese and Mexican imports represent 2.7% and 1.7%, respectively, of U.S. GDP. With these figures and the elasticities discussed above, we can calculate a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the impact of the Trump tariffs. The expenditure switching effect would boost U.S. real GDP by about 0.4%. This is offset by the purchasing power effect of -0.7% (including a multiplier of 1.5), leaving a net loss of only 0.3%. Of course, China and Mexico will retaliate by imposing higher tariffs on U.S. exports. This has a larger negative impact on the U.S. because American export volumes decline and there is no offsetting expenditure-switching effect. We estimate that retaliation with equal tariffs on U.S. exports would reduce U.S. GDP by about 1% using reasonable elasticities. Adding it all up, the proposed Trump tariffs on China and Mexico would result in a roughly 1.2% hit to U.S. real GDP. This could overstate the negative shock to the extent that the tariff revenues are spent by the U.S. government.6 Moreover, some studies of the Trump agenda assume that business spending would wither under a stronger dollar, waning business confidence and higher interest rates. We are not so pessimistic. The threat of punitive measures is likely to dissuade some U.S. companies from moving production abroad. Ford announced that it had abandoned plans to shift production of its luxury Lincoln SUV from Kentucky to Mexico. On the flipside, the fear of losing access to the U.S. market might persuade some foreign companies to relocate production to the United States. Such worries were a key reason why Japanese automobile companies began to invest in new U.S. production capacity starting in the 1980s. Moreover, U.S. corporate capital spending has been lackluster since the Great Recession due to "offshoring". Higher tariffs would promote "onshoring", helping to lift capital spending within the U.S. economy. We are not arguing that trade protectionism will be good for the U.S. economy. We are merely pointing out that there are positive offsets to the negative aspects of protectionism, and that many studies are overly pessimistic on the impact on growth. That said, all bets are off if Trump does the unthinkable and cancels NAFTA outright and/or takes the U.S. out of the WTO. The Fed's Reaction The economic and financial market dynamics over the next couple of years depend importantly on how the Fed responds to the Trump policy mix. We are not worried about central bank independence or Janet Yellen's future. Donald Trump has, at various times, both praised and attacked the Fed Chair and current monetary policy settings. A review of the Fed may happen at some point, but we assert that an investigation will not be a priority early in Trump's mandate. Some have raised concerns that Trump could stack the FOMC with hawks when he fills the openings next year. More likely, he will opt for doves because he will not want a hawkish Fed prematurely shutting down the expansion. The studies that warn of a major U.S. recession under Trump's policies assume that the Fed tightens aggressively as fiscal stimulus lifts the economy's growth rate. For example, the Moodys' report assumes that the fed funds rate rises to 6½% by 2018!7 No wonder Moodys' foresees a downturn that is longer than the Great Recession. No doubt, it would have been better if fiscal stimulus arrived years ago when there was a substantial amount of economic slack. With the economy close to full employment today, aggressive government pump-priming could set the U.S. up for a typical end to the business cycle; overheating followed by a Fed-induced recession. Indeed, many investors are wondering if the U.S. is overdue for a recession anyway. The current expansion phase is indeed looking long-in-the-tooth by historical standards. However, the old adage is apt: "expansions don't die of old age, they are murdered by the Fed". In Charts I-2A, Chart I-2B and Chart I-2C, we split the U.S. post-1950 economic cycles into three sets based on the length of the expansion phase: short (about 2 years), medium (4-6 years) and long (8-10 years). What distinguishes short from the medium and long expansions is the speed by which the most cyclical parts of the economy accelerate, and the time it takes for the unemployment rate to reach a full employment level. Long expansion phases were characterized by a drawn-out rise in the cyclical parts of the economy and a slow return to full employment in the labor market, similar to what has occurred since the Great Recession (Chart I-2C). Chart I-2ALong Chart I-2BMedium Expansions Chart I-2CA Short Expansion Of course, the Fed did not begin to tighten policy immediately upon reaching full employment in the past. The Fed began hiking rates an average of 13 months after reaching full employment in the short cycles, 30 months for medium cycles, and more than 60 months in the "slow burn" expansions (Table I-2). Even if we exclude the 1960s expansion, when the Fed delayed for too long and fell behind the inflation curve, the Fed has waited an average of 45 months before lifting rates in the other long expansions (beginning in 1982 and 1991). The longer delay compared to the shorter expansions reflected the slow pace at which inflationary pressures accumulated. During these periods, inflation-adjusted earnings-per-share (EPS) expanded by an average of 25% and the real value of the S&P 500 index increased by 28%. Table I-1U.S. Expansions Can Last Long After Full Employment Is Reached The lesson is that risk assets can still perform well for a long time after the economy reaches full employment. Admittedly, however, equity valuation is more stretched today than was the case at similar points in past long cycles. Before the U.S. election, the current expansion appeared to be heading for a similar long, drawn-out conclusion. Inflationary pressures are beginning to emerge, but only slowly, and from a low starting point. Moreover, evidence suggests that the Phillips curve8 is quite flat at low levels of inflation. This implies that the Fed has plenty of time to normalize interest rates because inflation is unlikely to surge. However, a sea change in trade and fiscal policy could change the calculus. To the extent that fiscal stimulus is front-loaded relative to trade protection, and that any trade restrictions add to inflation, Trump's policy agenda could force the Fed to normalize rates more quickly. The FOMC Will Wait And See Chart I-3Inflation Expectations Moving To Target Yellen's congressional testimony in November revealed that the Fed is not yet preparing for a more aggressive tightening cycle. There was nothing to suggest that the Fed is revising its economic forecasts following the election. Similarly, the Fed is not making any upward revisions to its estimate of the long-run neutral rate, which remains "quite low by historical standards." The implication is that the Fed will raise rates in December, but it will keep its "dot" forecast unchanged. The FOMC is prudently awaiting the details of the fiscal package before changing its economic and interest rate projections. We doubt that the Fed will be aggressive in offsetting the fiscal stimulus. We have argued in the past that the consensus on the FOMC would not follow the Bank of Japan and officially target a temporary overshoot of the 2% inflation target. Nonetheless, most Fed officials would not be upset if, with hindsight, they tighten too slowly and inflation overshoots modestly. The inflation target is supposed to be symmetric, which means that 2% is not meant to be a hard ceiling. Moreover, the Fed will be extremely cautious about tightening monetary policy until TIPS breakevens are more firmly anchored around pre-crisis levels. Market-based measures of inflation compensation have surged in the past few weeks, but remain below levels that are consistent with the Fed hitting its 2% PCE inflation target (Chart I-3).9 Investors should continue to hold inflation protection in the bond market. A window may open sometime in 2017 in which improving economic growth is met with a cautious Fed. In this environment, we would expect the Treasury curve to bear-steepen and risk assets to outperform. The window will likely close once inflation moves up and inflation expectations converge at a level consistent with the 2% target. Bond Strategy The implications of Trump's policy agenda are clearly bond bearish, although yields have shifted a long way in a short time. The gap between market rate expectations and the Fed's median expected path has narrowed considerably, both at the long-end and short-end of the curve (Chart I-4). The 5-year/5-year forward overnight index swap rate is now 2.1%, only 82 bps below the Fed's median estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate. The U.S. 10-year yield has already converged with two measures of fair value, although yields remain well below fair value in the other major countries according to estimates of nominal potential output growth (Charts I-5 and I-6). The fact that the gap between the Fed's dots and market expectations has almost closed, means that a lot of bond-bearish news has been discounted in the U.S. We would not be surprised to see a partial retracement of the recent bond selloff. Investors will want to see concrete plans for substantial fiscal stimulus before the next leg of the bond bear market takes place. Speculators may wish to take profits on short bond plays, but investors with a 6-12 month horizon should remain short of duration benchmarks. Chart I-4Market Expectations Converging With Dots Chart I-5Bond Fair Value Method (I) Chart I-6Bond Fair Value Method (II) On a long-term horizon, the Trump agenda reinforces our view that the secular bull market in bonds is over. Larry Summers' Secular Stagnation thesis will be challenged and investors will come to question the need for ultra-low real interest rates in the U.S. well into the next decade. A blowout in the U.S. budget deficit will temper the excess global savings story to some extent. Tax cuts, infrastructure spending, full expensing of capital goods and reduced regulation may also boost the long-run potential growth rate in the U.S. All of this suggests that equilibrium interest rates and bond yields will shift higher. Nonetheless, poor demographic trends and other impediments to both the supply- and demand-sides of the U.S. and global economies have not disappeared. The ECB is likely to extend its bond purchase program beyond next March, while the Bank of Japan has capped the 10-year JGB yield at close to zero, both of which should limit the amount by which yields in the other developed markets can rise. We could even see global yields fall back to near previous lows if the Fed winds up tightening too aggressively and sparks the next recession. Is Trump Bullish For Stocks? Chart I-7Equity Market Breakouts Developed country stock markets cheered the U.S. election outcome, presumably betting that the positives will outweigh the negatives. The main indexes in the U.S. and Japan have broken out of their trading ranges (Chart I-7). Bourses in Europe have also moved higher, but have not yet broken out. On the plus side, deregulation and stronger growth are bullish for U.S. corporate profits. Trump's proposal for a major corporate tax cut is another positive for equities, although the effective corporate tax rate in the U.S. is already at multi-decade lows. Cutting the marginal rate will thus not affect the effective rate much for large corporations. Any lowering of the marginal rate will benefit small and medium enterprises, as well as domestically-oriented S&P 500 corporations. On the negative side, dollar strength will be a headwind given that about a third of S&P 500 earnings are sourced from abroad. This raises the question of which factor will dominate profit growth over the next year; better economic growth or dollar strength? Table I-3 presents a matrix of different scenarios for the dollar and economic growth applied to our U.S. EPS model. Our base-case assumptions, implemented before the election, generated 5-6% earnings growth in 2017. We assumed that real and nominal GDP growth would be on par with the conservative IMF forecast. The bullish case assumes that real GDP growth is about a percentage point stronger, with modestly higher inflation. The opposite is assumed in the bear case. These three cases are combined with various scenarios for the dollar. The key point of Table I-3 is that the growth assumptions dominate the dollar effects. If growth is significantly stronger than the base case, then it would require a massive dollar adjustment to offset the positive impact on earnings. For example, our EPS estimate rises from 5-6% in the base case to almost 13% in the strong growth scenario, even if the dollar appreciates by 5%.10 The elephant in the room is the prospect of a trade war. Anti-globalization polices are negative for equities generally, although the boost for domestically-oriented firms provides some offset. As we argued above, higher tariffs on Mexico and China alone would not fully counteract a major fiscal push next year, especially if the trade impediments are implemented with a lag. Nonetheless, a broader anti-trade initiative that draws retaliation from many of America's trading partners cannot be ruled out. This is the main reason why we remain tactically cautious on equities. Table I-3U.S. Earnings Scenarios Country Equity Allocation In common currency terms, the U.S. equity market has a lot going for it relative to Japan and Europe. There will be spillovers from stronger U.S. growth to other countries, but the U.S. will benefit the most from Trump's fiscal stimulus plan. Continuing policy divergence will prop up the dollar, boosting returns in common-currency terms. The dollar has appreciated by about 4% in trade-weighted terms since we first predicted a 10% rise, suggesting that there is another 6% to go. Chart I-8Eurozone Still Has Lots Of Slack However, it is a tougher call in local currency terms. Monetary policy will remain highly accommodative in both Japan and Europe. As we highlighted in last month's Overview, we still expect Japan to implement a major fiscal stimulus plan. In the context of the Bank of Japan's fixing of the 10-year yield, government spending will amount to a helicopter drop policy that could generate a substantial yen depreciation. The central bank will continue to hold the yield curve down even when growth picks up, to drive real yields lower via rising inflation expectations. In the Eurozone, the ECB is likely to extend its asset purchase program beyond next March because it cannot credibly argue that inflation is on track to meet the target on any reasonable timetable. While the Eurozone economy has been growing well above trend this year, the fact that wage growth is languishing highlights that significant labor market slack persists (Chart I-8). Easy-money policies in Europe and Japan will be bullish for stocks in both markets in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. Stocks are also cheaper in Japan and the Eurozone. Earlier this year, we presented a methodology for valuing Eurozone stocks relative to the U.S. from a top-down perspective. The methodology accounted for different sector weightings and the fact that European stocks generally trade at a discount to the U.S. This month's second Special Report, beginning on page 27, applies the same methodology to Japanese/U.S. relative valuation. Combining seven relative valuation measures into a single composite metric, we find that both the Eurozone and Japanese equity markets are about one standard deviation cheap relative to the U.S. (Chart I-9). History shows that investors would have made substantial (currency hedged) excess returns if they had favored Eurozone and Japanese stocks to the U.S. on a six-month or longer investment horizon whenever our composite valuation index reached one standard deviation on the cheap side. Our recommended (hedged) overweight in Europe and Japan has not worked out yet, as tepid global growth has instead flattered the lower-beta U.S. market. That tide should turn, however, if the rise in global bond yields reflects a credibly reflationary growth pulse in the U.S. A stronger dollar would redistribute some of that growth to other countries. Chart I-10 shows that higher beta markets like Europe and Japan can outperform the U.S. when bond yields rise. The financial sectors in both Europe and Japan, so punished relative to the broad market as a result of deleveraging and negative interest rates, would then be poised to outperform as well. Chart I-9Equity Valuation Chart I-10U.S. Equities ##br##Underperform When Yields Rise Investment Conclusions: Hopes are running high that fiscal stimulus and a more business-friendly regulatory framework will stir animal spirits, rekindle business investment and lift the U.S. economy out of its growth funk. The violent reaction in financial markets to the election has probably gone too far in discounting a transformative policy change. We doubt that Trump's fiscal and regulatory agenda will place the U.S. economy on a permanently higher growth plane. Many of the growth headwinds that existed in the U.S. before the election remain in place, such as: the end of the Debt Supercycle; deteriorating demographics; elevated corporate leverage; and nose-bleed levels of government debt. A lot of good (policy) news is already discounted in equity prices, implying that the market is vulnerable to policy or economic disappointments. That said, a window may open next year that would favor risk assets for a period of time. A temporary growth acceleration in late-2017/early 2018 would lift the equity and corporate bond boats. Markets will front-run the growth pulse (some of it is admittedly already discounted). Our bias is therefore to upgrade these asset classes, but poor value means that the risk/reward tradeoff is underwhelming until we get more visibility on the new administration's policy intentions. Until there is more clarity, remain at benchmark in equities, overweight the dollar and below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios. EM assets appear to us like a lose-lose proposition. A trade war would obviously be disastrous for this asset class. But EM also loses if U.S. protectionism takes a back seat to growth initiatives to the extent that this results in a stronger dollar. EM risk assets have never escaped periods of dollar strength unscathed. The possibility of RMB depreciation versus the U.S. dollar adds to EM vulnerability. Our other investment recommendations include the following: avoid peripheral European government bonds within European bond portfolios due to Italian referendum risk; avoid U.S. municipal bonds, as tax cuts would devalue the tax advantage of muni debt; remain overweight inflation-linked bonds versus conventional issues within government bond portfolios, as inflation expectations have more upside potential; we are marginally less bearish on high-yield bonds since better growth will temper defaults. We also see less near-term risk of a Fed-driven volatility event. Nonetheless, concerns about corporate health still justify a slight underweight relative to Treasurys in the U.S. Overweight investment-grade corporates in Europe versus European governments due to ongoing ECB support; overweight European and Japanese equities versus the U.S. in currency-hedged terms. within the U.S. equity market, remain overweight small caps since Trump's corporate tax reform will benefit small firms disproportionately. Dollar strength also favors small versus large caps. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst November 24, 2016 Next Report: December 20, 2016 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "U.S. Election: Outcomes and Investment Implications," November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Jim Nunns, Len Burman, Ben Page, Jeff Rohaly, and Joe Rosenberg, "An Analysis Of Donald Trump's Revised Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center, October 18, 2016. 3 World Trade Organization. 4 Scott Bradford, Paul Grieco and Gary Clyde Hufbauer, "The Payoff to America from Global Integration," Peterson Institute for International Economics. 5 These calculations capture the demand-side effects of the tariffs. There will also be supply-side effects, in terms of reduced productivity, but this will be relatively small and affect the economy largely over the medium term. 6 The elasticities and methodology for these calculations are based on the report; "Trump's Tariffs: A Dissent," J.W. Mason, November 2016. 7 "The Macroeconomic Consequences of Mr.Trump's Economic Policies," Moody's Analytics, June 2016. 8 The short-term tradeoff between unemployment and inflation. 9 Inflation breakeven rates have historically exceeded 2% because of the presence of risk premia. 10 The impact of dollar appreciation on profits shown in Table 3 may seem too low to some readers given that S&P 500 companies derive a third of their earnings from abroad. However, some of these earnings are hedged, while dollar strength will benefit the earnings of domestically-oriented U.S. companies. II. A Q&A On Political Dynamics In Washington In this Special Report, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service answers some key questions posed by clients surrounding the incoming Trump administration. The situation could evolve quickly in the coming months, but these answers convey our preliminary thoughts. What support will President-elect Trump's infrastructure plans have from Republicans in Congress? The support for infrastructure spending can be gauged by popular opinion and the bipartisan highway funding bill passed by Congress late last year. The $305 billion bill to fund roads, bridges and rail lines received support from both parties (83-16 vote in the Senate and 359-65 vote in the House). The dissenting votes included fiscal conservatives and Tea Party/Freedom Caucus members. And yet many of their voters supported Trump, whose victory shows the political winds shifting against "austerity." Moreover, new presidents normally receive support from their party on major initiatives early in their term. Democratic Senators and House Representatives have suggested they may work with Trump on infrastructure spending, most notably Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer and even Nancy Pelosi. This could mark an instance of bipartisanship in the context of still-growing polarization. The 2018 mid-term elections will be difficult for the Democrats, with 10 Democratic senators facing elections in states which Donald Trump won, including key "Rust Belt" swing states where the infrastructure argument is appealing (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio). Thus, there are political incentives for Democrats to cooperate with the White House on infrastructure. Trump owes his victory to swing voters who favor infrastructure. As we discuss below, he may give the GOP Congress some concessions (for instance, on tax reform) in exchange for cooperation on infrastructure spending. How many votes would he need to get an infrastructure bill passed in Congress? Trump will likely get the votes. He needs 218 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate, assuming his infrastructure plan is not so partisan (or so entwined with partisan measures like his tax cuts) as to draw a Senate filibuster. The GOP has 239 seats in the House and at least 51 in the Senate (Louisiana could make it 52). One way of overcoming any Democratic filibuster in the Senate is by "Reconciliation," a process for speeding up bills affecting revenues and expenditures. Under this process, which requires the prior passage of a budget resolution, a simple majority in the Senate is enough to allow a reconciliation bill to pass. The process can be used for passing tax cuts as well, after procedural changes in 2011 and 2015. If passed, what is the earliest we could expect more spending? Congress passed President Obama's $763 billion stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), in February 2009, the month after he was sworn in. About 20% of the investment outlays went out the door by the end of fiscal 2009 and 40% by the end of fiscal 2010.1 Today, infrastructure outlays are less urgent, as the country is not in the mouth of a financial crisis, but the roll-out could be expedited by the administration. Trump's plan calls for building infrastructure through public-private partnerships, which could involve longer negotiation periods but also faster completion once started. Trump's team claims they can accelerate the spending process by cutting red tape. What is a 'best guess' on the final amount of deficit-financed infrastructure spending? Trump is currently committed to $550 billion in new infrastructure investment, down from initial suggestions of $1 trillion over a decade. A detailed plan has not been released, however. Trump's campaign promised to induce infrastructure spending via public-private partnerships, with tax credits for private investors. The plan was said to be "deficit neutral" based on assumptions about revenue recuperated from taxing the labor that works on the projects and the profits of companies involved, taxed at Trump's proposed 15% corporate tax rate.2 The government tax credit would have amounted to 13.7% of the total investment. Earlier proposals can easily be revised or scrapped. Already, Trump has reversed his earlier opposition to Hillary Clinton's proposal of setting up an infrastructure bank, potentially financed by repatriated earnings of U.S. corporations. His potential Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, raised the possibility on November 16. Who are key players in this process and what are their backgrounds? The aforementioned leading Democrats could become key players, if they prove willing to work with Trump on infrastructure. Comments by Paul Ryan and the Congressional GOP should be monitored, as infrastructure spending was not a major part of their policy platform, called "A Better Way," released in June of this year.3 The only infrastructure that Ryan mentioned in the GOP policy paper was energy infrastructure. Not the "roads, bridges, railways, tunnels, sea ports, and airports" that President-elect Trump has promised repeatedly, in addition to energy. Asked during the Washington Ideas Forum in September whether he supports infrastructure spending, Ryan said it is not part of the GOP's proposal. Other notable personalities to watch: Wilbur Ross, an American investor and potential Commerce Secretary pick, was one of the authors of Trump's original, public-private infrastructure plan. Peter Navarro, UC-Irvine business professor and another economic advisor, co-authored that proposal. Also watch: Steven Mnuchin, Finance Chairman of the Trump campaign and former Goldman Sachs partner, and potential Treasury Secretary pick. Stephen Moore, a member of Trump's economic advisory team and the chief economist for the Heritage Foundation. John Paulson, President of Paulson & Co. Also watch fiscal hawks such as House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California, who has recently softened on infrastructure spending, saying it could be "a priority" and "a bipartisan issue." Representative David Brat of Virginia, another ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus member, who has softened on infrastructure. House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, and Representative Bill Flores, Chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, could also send signals. Chairman of the House Committee on ways and Means, Kevin Brady, has already admitted that some tax receipts from repatriated corporate earnings may go to infrastructure. Would deficit spending on infrastructure revive problems with the debt ceiling? The debt ceiling legislation is technically separate from the budget process. It is the statuary threshold on the level of government debt. It currently stands at $20.1 trillion. Congress voted last fall to "suspend" the debt ceiling until March of 2017. This means it will come due right around the time that negotiations over the fiscal 2018 budget resolution take place. But debt ceiling negotiating tactics are unlikely to recur in Trump's first year with his own party in control of Congress. Trump and the GOP could vote to "suspend" the debt ceiling indefinitely. Or, the GOP could set the debt ceiling limit so high that it no longer matters in the near term. Where do the GOP and Trump disagree on tax reform? Tax reform is a major GOP demand in recent years; it was also a focus, albeit less central, in Trump's campaign. Both want to flatten the personal income tax structure from 7 brackets to 3 brackets, with 12%, 25%, and 33% tax rates. Trump revised his initial tax plan, which called for 10%, 20%, and 25% rates, late in his campaign to be more compatible with the GOP. In terms of corporate taxes, President-elect Trump proposes a 15% rate for all businesses, with partnerships eligible to pay the 15% rate instead of being taxed under a higher personal income tax rate. By contrast, the GOP has called for a 20% corporate tax rate and a 25% rate for partnerships. How difficult is it to simplify the tax code? It is certainly not easy, but it can be done in 2017 given that the GOP controls both the White House and Congress. GOP leaders claim that a proposal will go public early in the year and a vote will occur within 2017. GOP leaders want a comprehensive law, including income and corporate tax reform, but there are rumors of splitting the two. Income tax reform may take longer to pass because it is more complex. There has not been comprehensive tax reform in the U.S. since Ronald Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The Republicans obtained lower tax rates in exchange for a broadening of the base that the Democrats favored. It would be difficult to strike a similar deal next year, given that Republicans seek to slash taxes on corporations and top earners, and Democrats are staunchly opposed. There is likely to be some horse trading between Trump and the GOP. The GOP may use tax reform as the price of their support for Trump's infrastructure investment. Alternatively, Trump could hold out his Supreme Court appointments in exchange for GOP acquiescence on taxes and infrastructure. He could, for example, threaten to appoint centrist justices if the GOP does not play ball on other matters. What are the obstacles and timeline to a repatriation tax on overseas corporate earnings? An estimated $2.5-$3 trillion in corporate earnings are currently held "offshore," which means that taxes on this income is deferred until it is repatriated to the U.S. There is growing bipartisan support for a deemed repatriation tax. This means a one-off tax imposed on all overseas income not previously taxed. Obama, Hillary Clinton, Trump, and GOP representatives have all presented proposals to tap this source of tax revenue. For that reason there are various avenues through which it could be legislated. Trump put forth a plan to tax un-repatriated earnings at a 10% rate for cash (4% for non-cash earnings), with the liability payable over a 10-year period. As mentioned, this could be combined with his infrastructure plan as a way to finance an infrastructure bank or encourage the same corporations to invest in infrastructure development via tax breaks. According to the Tax Policy Center, Trump's repatriation plan would raise $147.8 billion in revenue over 2016-2026. Overall, this is a paltry sum of $14 billion per year. In a similar vein, President Obama's plan called for a 14% rate on repatriated earnings and was projected to raise $240 billion. The GOP offers a different plan from Trump. The party supports a repatriation tax at an 8.75% rate, payable over eight years. The GOP's plan would raise an estimated $138.3 billion during the same period. The GOP proposes to overhaul the entire U.S. corporate taxation system, while Trump does not. The GOP would change it from the worldwide system (i.e. the same corporate tax rate for U.S. corporations on profits everywhere), to a more typical destination-based system, in which U.S. corporations would be exempt from U.S. taxes on profits earned overseas. The latter would reduce the incentive for offshoring and tax inversions, that is, moving head offices outside of the U.S. to take advantage of lower tax rates. The 2004 tax holiday was a disappointment. Findings from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, NBER, Congressional Research Service, and others, indicate that the repatriated earnings did not significantly improve long-term fiscal deficits, boost employment, or increase domestic investment. Will Trump accuse China of "currency manipulation" on his first day in office as promised? It seems likely that Trump will follow through with his pledge of naming China a "currency manipulator." The question is whether he does so through the existing, formal Treasury Department review process or whether he would bypass that system and take independent action as the executive. Adhering to the formal process would show that Trump wants to keep tensions contained even as he draws a tougher line on economic relations with China. The "currency manipulation" charge is a mostly symbolic act that does not automatically initiate punitive measures. The move will not be unprecedented, as the U.S. labeled China a manipulator from 1992-1994. The label requires bilateral negotiations and could lead to Treasury recommending that Congress, or Trump, take punitive measures. The 2015 update to the law specifies what trade remedies Treasury might suggest, but the remedies are not particularly frightful. The options might prevent the U.S. government from supporting some private investment in China, cut China out of U.S. government procurement contracts, or cut China out of trade deals. The latter point, however, will be overshadowed by Trump's withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a net gain for China since that strategic trade initiative had excluded China from the beginning. The real risk - higher than ever before, but still low probability - is that Trump could act unilaterally to impose tariffs or import quotas under a host of existing trade laws (1917, 1962, 1974, 1977) which give him extensive leeway. Some of these would be temporary, but others allow him to do virtually whatever he wants, especially if he declares a state of emergency or invokes wartime necessity (his lawyers could use any existing overseas conflict for this purpose).4 Presidents have been unscrupulous about such rationalizations in the past. Congress and the courts would not be able to stop Trump for the first year or two if he proceeded independently by executive decree. WTO rulings would take 18 months. China would not wait to retaliate, leading to a trade conflict of some sort. Would Congressional Republicans support punitive measures against China? How would China respond? There are two possibilities. First, Trump is free to set his own executive timeline if his administration makes a special case and he acts through executive directives. Second, Trump could proceed under the Treasury Department's existing timeline. An investigation would be launched in the April Treasury report, leading to negotiations with China. If there is no satisfactory outcome of the negotiations, then the October Treasury Report could label China as a currency manipulator. Under the 2015 law, there would be a necessary one-year waiting period before punitive measures are implemented. But again, Trump could override that. China would cause a diplomatic uproar; it would level similar accusations at the U.S. of distortionary trade policies. China would likely respond unilaterally as well as go to the WTO to claim that the U.S. has abrogated the purpose of the agreement, giving it an additional path to retaliate within international law. China's unilateral sanctions could target U.S. high-quality imports, services, or production chains. Or China could sell U.S. government debt in an attempt to retaliate, though it is not clear what the net effect of that would be. However, China would suffer worse in an all-out trade war. Xi Jinping has been very pragmatic about maintaining stability, like previous Chinese presidents since Deng. He is tougher than usual, but as long as Trump proposes credible negotiations, rather than staging a full frontal assault, Xi would likely attempt to strike a deal, perhaps cutting pro-export policies while promising faster structural rebalancing, to avoid a full-blown confrontation. We have seen with Russia that authoritarian leaders can use external threats and economic sanctions as a way to rally the population "around the flag." Trump's campaign threats, combined with other macro-economic trends, pose the risk that over the next four years China could face intensified American economic pressure and internal economic instability simultaneously. That would be a volatile mix for U.S.-China relations and global stability. But, once in office, it remains to be seen how Trump will conduct relations with China. Most likely, the currency manipulation accusation will cause a period of harsh words and gestures that dies down relatively quickly. The two powers will proceed to negotiations over a "new" economic relationship, highlighting the time-tried ability of the U.S. and China to remain engaged and "manage" their differences. Nevertheless, any shot across the bow will point to Sino-American distrust that is already growing over the long run. That distrust is signaled by Trump's success in key swing states by pitching protectionism, specifically against China. Will Trump's border enforcement policies add to fiscal stimulus? Yes, it would add marginally to the fiscal thrust that we expect from other infrastructure and defense spending. How will Trump approach the deportation of illegal immigrants? Trump will probably maintain Obama's stance on illegal immigration and deportation. Obama has deported around 2.5 million illegals between 2009 and 2015, the most of any president. These are mostly deportable illegals and non-citizens with criminal convictions. Trump stated in an interview on 60 Minutes that he plans to deport 2 to 3 million undocumented immigrants. The execution of this order will be swift as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has already exhibited this capacity under Obama. It is difficult to gage the economic impact of deportation. A study done by the University of Southern California found that undocumented immigrants are paid 10% lower than natives with similar skills in California.5 About half of farm workers and a quarter of construction workers are undocumented immigrants. If this source of cheap labor is removed, the cost for business in these sectors will increase. Are there other policy areas where you see a significant divergence between Congressional Republicans and Trump? Trump and the GOP establishment obviously have an awkward relationship that is only beginning to heal. Both sides are making progress in bridging the gap, but on trade protectionism, infrastructure, immigration, entitlement spending, and foreign policy Trump will continue to sit uneasily with Republican orthodoxy. This will give rise to a range of disagreements, separate from those listed above, of which we note only two here that have caught our attention during the post-election transition. How to deal with Putin: Trump has received renewed criticism from Sen. John McCain over a possible thaw in relations with Russia. This could affect the sanctions on Russia imposed by the U.S. and EU after the intervention in Ukraine in 2014, as well as broader Russia-NATO relations. H1B Visa: Trump is in favor of expanding H1B1 visas and allowing the "best" immigrants to stay in the U.S. once they complete their university education. But his White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has vilified the GOP for doing this. Thus there could be disagreement between the GOP and Trump's team on the issue of highly skilled immigrants. The BCA Geopolitical Team 1 Please see the White House, "The Economic Impact Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act Five Years Later," in the "2014 Economic Report of the President," available at www.whitehouse.gov. 2 Please see "Trump Versus Clinton On Infrastructure," October 27, 2016, available at peternavarro.com. 3 Please see Paul Ryan, "A Better Way For Tax Reform," available at abetterway.speaker.gov. 4 Please see Marcus Noland et al, "Assessing Trade Agendas In The US Presidential Campaign," Peterson Institute for International Economics, PIIE Briefing 16-6, dated September 2016, available at piie.com. 5 Please see Manuel Pastor et al, "The Economic Benefits Of Immigrant Authorization In California," Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, dated January 2010, available at dornsife.usc.edu. III. Japanese Equities: Good Value Or Value Trap? Japanese stocks have experienced a long stretch of underperformance versus the U.S. since the early 90's. The deflationary macro backdrop and poor corporate profitability are the main underlying factors, although there are many others. More recently, some corporate fundamentals have shifted in favor of Japanese stocks relative to the U.S., but investors remain skeptical, sending Japanese valuations to near all time lows in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. In this Special Report, we take a top-down approach to determine whether Japanese stocks are cheap versus the U.S. after adjusting for persistent differences in underlying profit fundamentals. Our mechanical and fundamental valuation indicators provide an impressive historical track record of "buy" and "sell" signals when the metrics reach extreme levels. The story is corroborated at the sector level. The implication is that there is plenty of "kindling" to drive a reversal in Japanese stock relative performance, but it needs a spark. We believe the catalyst could be a major fiscal push that would be like a "helicopter drop" under the current monetary regime. Unfortunately, the timing is uncertain. A major fiscal package may not occur until the spring. Japanese equities have been a perennial underperformer versus the U.S. for almost three decades, in both local- and common-currency terms (Chart III-1). There was a ray of light in the early years of Abenomics, when the aggressive three-arrow approach appeared to be finally lifting the Japanese economy out of Secular Stagnation. Yen weakness contributed to a surge in earnings-per-share (EPS) in absolute terms and relative to both the U.S. and world. Equity multiples also rose between 2012 and 2015. Unfortunately, Abe's honeymoon with equity markets has since faded. Yen strength, collapsing inflation expectations and weakening business confidence have caused investors to question the upside potential for Japanese corporate top-line growth (Chart III-2). EPS have fallen by 11% percent this year in absolute local currency terms, and are down by 10.7% versus the U.S. In turn, Japanese equities have dropped from the mid-2015 peak (Chart III-3). The decline in Japanese multiples this year is in marked contrast to a rise in the U.S. Chart III-1Japanese Equities ##br##Have Underperformed Chart III-2A Challenging ##br##Macro Backdrop Chart III-3Japanese EPS Growth ##br##Has Been Strong Until 2016 Japanese equities currently appear very cheap to the U.S. market based on standard valuation measures (Chart III-4). However, these ratios are always lower in Japan, except for price-to-forward earnings. Japanese companies generally have a much higher interest coverage ratio compared to Corporate America. Nonetheless, they tend come up short in terms of profitability. Operating margins in the U.S. have typically been double that of Japan (Chart III-5A). Japan's return-on-equity (RoE) has been dismal because of low levels of corporate leverage and loads of low-yielding cash sitting on balance sheets (Chart III-6). Table III-1 shows that Japan has a much larger sector weighting in consumer discretionary and a much lower weighting intechnology. Still, the story does not change much when we adjust financial ratios for differences in sector weights between the two markets (Chart III-5B). Chart III-4Japan Is Always Cheaper Chart III-5A...Adjusted For Common Sector Weights Chart III-5BJapanese Vs. U.S. Fundamentals... Chart III-6RoE Is Consistently Lower In Japan Table III-1Japanese Vs. U.S. Sector Weights The lower level of RoE by itself justifies a price discount on Japanese equities. But by how much? Are Japanese stocks still cheap once they are adjusted for structurally depressed profitability relative to the U.S.? This report assesses relative valuation, employing the same methodology used in our previous work on Eurozone equity valuation.1 While many cultural nuances make direct comparison of the Japanese market difficult, investment decisions are made within the scope of the available set of alternatives. With Japanese equity valuations at the lowest levels in recent history, the key question is whether this represents an opportunity to load up, or an example of a "value trap". We conclude that valuation justifies an overweight in Japanese equities (currency hedged), although the fiscal stimulus required to unlock the value may not arrive until February. Mechanical Approach We excluded the financial sector from our market valuation work since analysts use different fundamental statistics to judge profitability and value compared to non-financial companies. We also recalculated all of the Japanese aggregates using U.S. weights in order to avoid the problem that differing sector weights could bias measures of relative value for the overall market. The mechanical approach adjusts the valuation measures by subtracting the 5-year moving average (m.a.) from both markets. For example, the calculation for the price-to-sales ratio (P/S) is: VG = (US P/S - 5-year m.a.) - (EMU P/S - 5-year m.a.) Then we divided the Valuation Gap (VG) by the 5-year moving standard deviation of the VG. This provides a valuation indicator that is mean-reverting and fluctuates roughly between -2 and +2 standard deviations: Valuation Indicator = VG/(5-year moving standard deviation of VG) The same methodology is applied to the other valuation measures shown in Charts III-7A, 7B, 7C, 7D and III-8A, 8B, 8C. This approach suggests that the U.S. market is trading expensive to Japan in all seven cases except for the Shiller P/E. Japan is around 1-sigma cheap on most of the other valuation measures, with forward P/E the highest at almost 2 standard deviations. Chart III-7AMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-7BMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-7CMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-7DMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) Chart III-8AMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) Chart III-8BMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) Chart III-8CMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) The underlying logic is that using a longer-term moving average should remove the structurally lower bias in Japanese valuations. Standardizing relative valuations in such a way should provide extreme valuation signals that can be used to gauge major trading opportunities. One potential pitfall of using a 5-year moving average to discount the structurally lower valuation of Japanese equities versus U.S. is that it fails to capture an extended period of either over- or under-valuation. For example, the U.S. may enter a bubble phase that does not occur in Japan. The 5-year moving average would move higher over time, eventually giving the false signal that the U.S. is back to fair value if the bubble persists. This is a fair criticism, although the track record of these valuation metrics shows that extended bubbles have not been a large source of false signals. Valuation By Sector We applied the same methodology at the sector level. Due to space constraints, we cannot present the 70 charts covering the seven relative valuation metrics across the 10 sectors. However, we present the latest reading for the 70 indicators in Table III-2, which reveals whether the U.S. is expensive (e) or cheap (c) versus Europe. A blank entry means that relative valuation is in the range of fair value. Table III-2Story Holds At The Sector Level The sector valuation indicators corroborate the message from the aggregate valuation analysis; over 60% of valuation metrics suggest that the U.S. is at least modestly expensive versus Japanese stocks. The U.S. is cheap in only 13% of the cases, with 26% at fair value. Value measures that most consistently place U.S. sectors in expensive territory are P/CF, P/B and EV/EBITDA. The U.S. sectors that are most consistently identified as expensive are financials, consumer discretionary, industrials, utilities, tech and basic materials. U.S. healthcare received a fairly consistent "cheap" rating while U.S. telecoms were consistently "cheap" or "fair" across all valuation measures. Predictive Value? Having a standardized tool of relative valuation is well and good but multiple divergence between regions is only useful if it translates into excess returns. Valuation is generally a poor timing tool but proves to be useful in predicting returns over a longer investment horizon. Theoretically, forward relative returns between Japanese and U.S. equities should be positively correlated with the size of the gap in their relative valuation metrics. In order to test the efficacy of the mechanical valuation indicator we calculated forward relative returns at points of extreme valuation divergences (in local currency). The trading rule is set such that, when the mechanical indicator reaches positive one or two standard deviations, we short the more expensive U.S. market and go long Japanese equities. Conversely, the opposite investment stance is taken for value readings of negative one and two standard deviations. Forward returns are calculated on 3, 6, 12, and 24 month horizons. Overall, the indicators performed well when the valuation gap between U.S. and Japanese multiples reached (+/-) 1 and 2 standard deviations from the long-term mean. Valuation measures exhibiting the highest returns were P/CF and forward P/E. For brevity, we present only these two measures in Table III-3. At two standard deviation extremes, the mechanical indicator produced a two-year forward return of 84% and 44% for P/CF and forward P/E, respectively. Table III-3 also presents the indicator's batting average. That is, the number of positive excess returns generated by the trading rule as a percent of the total number of signals. For P/CF, the batting average is between 50-60% for a 1 standard deviation valuation reading and mostly 100% for 2 standard deviations. The batting average for the forward P/E ranges from 53-92% for 1 standard deviation, and 83-100% for 2 standard deviations. Table III-3Select Mechanical Indictor Returns And Batting Averages Presently, all of the indicators are at or above the zero line signaling that the U.S. market is overvalued versus Japan. The valuation metric sending the strongest signal of U.S. overvaluation has interestingly been one of the better predictors of positive excess returns; the forward P/E mechanical indicator has just recently touched the +2 standard deviation level. Given the information provided by our back tested results above, investors are poised to enjoy strong positive returns by overweighting Japanese equities versus their U.S. peers. Fundamental Approach Chart III-9Japan Has A Lower Cost Of Debt Japanese companies trade at a discount relative to their U.S. peers due to more volatile Japanese profit fundamentals and a structurally depressed RoE. To compensate for structural differences in fundamentals we regressed U.S./Japanese value gaps on spreads in underlying financial statistics such as earnings-per-share growth, the interest coverage ratio, free-cash-flow growth, operating margins, and forward earnings-per-share growth. A dummy variable was used to exclude the "tech bubble" years in the late 90's to early 00's since the surge in tech stocks had an outsized effect on overall relative valuations, distorting the true underlying trend. The fundamental approach used in our previous Special Report comparing the U.S. and Eurozone did not work as well as hoped and we had an inkling that an analysis of Japan versus the U.S. might yield similar results. Once again we were underwhelmed by the results, although some valuation measures did produce decent outcomes. These included P/S, P/B, and P/CF. Unfortunately, fundamental models for EV/EBITDA, P/E and forward P/E either had low explanatory power or had coefficients with the wrong sign. The financial variable that appears most frequently as being significant in our fundamental models is the interest coverage ratio. Japanese firms have experienced a massive reduction in net debt post-GFC, while those in the U.S. have been taking advantage of lower rates to issue debt and perform share buybacks. Weak aggregate demand has dissuaded Japanese corporations from performing any sort of intensive capital expenditure programs and they have therefore been using free cash flow to build up cash reserves on their balance sheet and pay down debt. Not to mention, the more dramatic decrease in borrowing rates for Japanese firms has reduced their interest burden vis-à-vis U.S. corporates (Chart III-9). Chart III-10 presents the modeled fair values along with the corresponding valuation indicator. The U.S. market is expensive compared to Japan for all three models, with the most extreme cases being P/S and P/CF. Chart III-10AFundamental Valuation Indicators Chart III-10BFundamental Valuation Indicators Chart III-10CFundamental Valuation Indicators While the fundamental approach gave results that are less than spectacular, they still corroborate the message given by the mechanical approach. Japanese equities are undervalued compared to their U.S. peers and are reaching extreme levels, even after adjusting for structural trends in the underlying financials. Chart III-11Combined Fundamental Indicator Returns The next step is to verify the predictive power of our fundamental models. We analyzed forward returns implementing the same methodology used for the mechanical indicators. A (+/-) 1 standard deviation threshold was used as an investment signal to either overweight Japanese equities versus the U.S., if positive, or take the opposite stance if negative. Chart III-11 shows the returns categorized by time horizon and the number of valuation measures flashing a positive investment signal. The results were mixed; strong positive returns occurred when only one or two measures displayed valuation extremes, but excess returns were less than spectacular during periods when all three metrics provided the same signal. This is counter-intuitive, but when analyzing Chart III-10 it becomes apparent that the periods where all three indicators simultaneously entered extreme territory are concentrated in the last two years of history when U.S. market returns have trounced Japan. For periods during which our indicator flashed one or two positive signals, mostly before the past two years, returns were in line with those achieved by the mechanical indicators. Table III-4 shows the probability of success for the combined fundamental approach. Overall it has a batting average lower than that of the mechanical approach, with 60-89% for one signal and 70-86% for two signals. The batting average was generally poor when there were three signals for the reason discussed above.2 Since the beginning of 2015, all three indicators have been signaling that Japanese stocks are extremely cheap versus the U.S. Indeed, relative valuation continues to stretch as U.S. equity prices rise versus Japan, bucking the recent relative shifts in balance sheet fundamentals that favor the Japanese market. Table III-4Combined Fundamental Indicator Batting Averages Conclusion We are pleased with the results of the mechanical approach. The majority of valuation measures show that investors will make positive returns by overweighting and underweighting Japanese equities versus the U.S. when relative valuation reaches extreme levels. The consistency of these excess returns highlights that the indicators add value to global equity investors. We had hoped that a fundamentals based approach to valuation would have worked better. Conceptually, it would be more intellectually gratifying for company financials to better explain excess returns compared to technical measures. In a liquidity-driven world, this may be too much to ask. Although our fundamental models did not pan out perfectly, they still provided support for our underlying thesis that Japanese equities offer excellent value relative to the U.S. market. These models highlight that Japanese balance sheet and income statement trends favor this equity market versus the U.S. at the moment. Investors have been ignoring the fundamentals, frowning on Japanese equities in absolute terms and, especially, relative to the U.S. The sour view on Japan likely reflects disappointment in Abenomics. This includes not only fears that Abenomics is failing to lift the economy out of the liquidity trap, but also fading hopes for changes in corporate governance that would force firms to make better use of their cash hoards to the benefit of shareholders. All the valuation metrics presented above say that it is a good time to overweight Japan versus the U.S. in local currency terms. Of course, so much depends on policy these days. Our valuation metrics highlight that there is plenty of "kindling" in place for a reversal in relative performance given the right spark. As discussed in the Overview section, the catalyst could be a major fiscal stimulus package. When combined with a yield curve that is fixed by the Bank of Japan, it would amount to a "helicopter drop". Such a policy would drive up inflation expectations, push down real borrowing rates and dampen the yen. This self-reinforcing virtuous circle would be quite positive for growth in real and nominal terms, lifting the outlook for corporate profit growth and sparking a substantial re-rating of Japanese stocks. The timing is admittedly uncertain. A smaller fiscal package could be implemented as part of a third supplementary budget before year-end. A major fiscal push is most likely to occur only in February, when the next full budget is announced. Still, rock-bottom valuations make Japan an attractive market for longer-term investors, although the currency risk must be hedged. Michael Commisso Research Analyst 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Are Eurozone Stocks Really Cheap?" July 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Except for the 24-month column, which shows a 100% batting average. However, this can be ignored. There was only a single episode of three positive signals that occurred more than 24 months ago, allowing a 24-month return calculation.