Geopolitics

Highlights Oil markets could get even tighter, depending on fundamental "known unknowns." Chart of the WeekEM Import Volumes Continue Expanding,##BR##Reflecting Rising Incomes And Oil Demand The largest of these unknowns are the evolution of Iranian and Venezuelan oil output. With the May 12 deadline for U.S. President Donald Trump to waive trade sanctions against Iran fast approaching, and Venezuela's output in free fall, supply could contract dramatically. On the demand side, our short-term trade model is signaling EM imports continue to grow, which indicates continued income growth (Chart of the Week). EM growth drives oil demand growth. DM growth also will support commodity demand this year and next. The likelihood oil prices push toward - or exceed - $80/bbl this year is high. An extension of OPEC 2.0's production cuts into next year all but assures such excursions in 2019.1 Our forecast for 2018 remains at $74 and $70/bbl for Brent and WTI; we are leaving our 2019 forecasts at $67 and $64/bbl, respectively, but anticipate raising them as OPEC 2.0 forward guidance evolves. Energy: Overweight. Oil trade recommendations closed in 1Q18 were up an average 82%. The trades were initiated between Sep/17 and Jan/18. Base Metals: Neutral. LME aluminum's backwardation extends to end-2021, reflecting tighter physical markets. This supports our long S&P GSCI call, which is up 11.4% since Dec 7/17, when we recommended it. Precious Metals: Neutral. We are getting tactically long spot silver at tonight's close. Back-to-back physical deficits in 2016 and 2017, global income growth, and near-record speculative short positioning in COMEX silver - 79.8k futures contracts - are bullish. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Importers of U.S. sorghum into China now are required to post a 179% deposit with Chinese customs, according to Xinhuanet. The state-run news agency reported Ministry of Commerce findings of a surge in U.S. imports - from 317k MT in 2013 to 4.80mm MT in 2017 - which drove down local prices 31%, and "hurt local industries." Feature Our updated balances modeling indicates oil markets remain tight, and will continue to tighten this year, given our fundamental assumptions for supply and demand (Chart 2). We now estimate slightly lower crude oil production this year - 99.73mm b/d vs. our March estimate of 100.20mm b/d - with OPEC output at 32.12mm b/d, vs. 32.50mm b/d last month (Table 1). This is offset by non-OPEC supply growth, which continues to be led by rising U.S. shale-oil output (Chart 3). We expect production in the "Big 4" basins - Bakken, Permian, Eagle Ford and Niobrara - to average just over 6.44mm b/d this year, up 1.21mm b/d y/y, and 7.78mm b/d next year, up just over 1.34mm b/d. Chart 2Oil Markets Will Tighten Further Chart 3Lower OPEC Production Offset By U.S. Shales Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (mm b/d) We are leaving our consumption growth estimate for this year unchanged at 1.70mm b/d, bringing demand to 100.32mm b/d in 2018 on average, and raising our expectation for 2019 to 1.70mm b/d growth, which will take it to 102.00mm b/d on average (Chart 4). Global inventories will continue to drain on the back of these bullish fundamentals, falling somewhat more than we expected last month (Chart 5). We would note the trajectory of inventory growth likely will be altered once we have definitive 2019 production guidance from OPEC 2.0 - i.e., we expect some production cuts to be maintained next year, keeping inventories closer to end-2018 levels. These fundamentals leave our price forecasts unchanged at $74 and $70/bbl for Brent and WTI this year, and $67 and $64/bbl, respectively, next year (Chart 6). Again, we caution clients we fully expect to raise our 2019 forecast as OPEC 2.0 forward guidance evolves. Ministers of the coalition met this month in New Delhi and Riyadh, presumably to discuss institutionalizing their confederation.2 Chart 4Oil Demand##BR##Remains Stout Chart 5Bullish Fundamentals##BR##Drain Inventories Chart 6Price Forecast Unchanged,##BR##But Upside Risks Are Rising Once Again With "Known Unknowns"3 Supply-Side "Known Unknowns" A critical juncture in the evolution of the oil markets is fast approaching: The May 12 deadline for U.S. President Donald Trump to waive trade sanctions against Iran, and a determination on whether the U.S. will impose sanctions directly against Venezuela's oil industry. We have no advance knowledge of what the administration will do, but the signaling from the Trump White House has us inclined to believe the Iran sanctions will not be waived this time around. Action against Venezuela also is difficult to predict, but, of late, markets are sourcing alternative crude streams against a growing likelihood such sanctions will be imposed.4 Approaching the deadline for waiving Iranian sanctions, we have Iranian crude production at ~ 3.85mm b/d in 2H18, and a little over 3.90mm b/d next year. Prior to sanctions being lifted in January 2016, Iran was producing 2.80mm b/d. It is difficult to determine what will happen if sanctions are not waived by the U.S. - critically, whether U.S. allies will support such a move - so it is difficult to determine how deeply Iranian production and exports will be affected, if at all. S&P Global's Platts service noted a former Obama administration official estimated as much as 500k b/d of Iranian exports could be lost to the market, should the sanctions be restored. Other estimates range as high as 1mm b/d.5 We are carrying Venezuelan crude production at 1.52mm b/d for March, and have it declining to just over 1.40mm b/d by December. Last year, production averaged just over 1.90mm b/d. The government of Nicolas Maduro has run the economy and the state oil company, PDVSA, into the ground. Inflation came in at 454% in 1Q18, leaving prices up 8,900% in the year ended in March, according to Reuters.6 Presently, oil workers are fleeing PDVSA in a "stampede," according to Reuters, leaving the company woefully short of experienced personnel.7 The company lacks the wherewithal to pay for basic additives (diluents) to make its crude oil marketable. It is possible some of the company's creditors in Russia or China will step in to take over operations, but so far nothing has been announced. Demand-Side "Known Unknowns" Our demand estimates are premised on continued global growth this year and next, consistent with the IMF's latest global economic assessment.8 The Fund expects global GDP growth of 3.9% this year and next, which we incorporate into our modeling. Aside from the usual litany of long-term economic ills plaguing DM and EM economies - high debt levels, aging populations, falling labor-force participation rates, low productivity growth, and the need for diversification among commodity-exporting EM economies - trade tensions have become a more prominent risk. The Fund notes increasing trade tensions - set off by the U.S. imposition of tariffs on aluminum and steel imports - have the potential to "undermine confidence and derail global growth prematurely." These tensions have been stoked by tit-for-tat tariff announcements by the U.S. and China over the past month or so. Our own research supports this concern, which we believe is particularly acute for EM economies, where income growth, trade and commodity demand are inextricably entwined. Continued EM trade growth is essential for commodity demand growth, particularly for oil: A 1% increase in EM import volumes has translated into roughly a 1% increase in Brent and WTI prices since 2000. These variables all are linked: EM economic growth correlates with higher incomes, higher commodity demand and higher import volumes.9 EM growth accounts for slightly more than three-quarters of the overall oil-demand growth we expect this year and next - ~ 1.30mm b/d of the 1.70mm b/d of growth we are forecasting. While the odds of a full-blown trade war remain low, in our estimation, we could begin to see the erosion of confidence and the potential for growth to be derailed affecting investment, trade volumes and EM growth generally, which would be bearish for oil demand growth. That said, we share the view articulated by our colleagues in BCA's Global Investment Strategy last week: "Just as investors were overly complacent about protectionism a few months ago, they have become overly alarmist now." "Both the U.S. and China have a strong incentive to reach a mutually-satisfying agreement over trade. President Trump has been able to shrug off the decline in equities because his approval rating has actually risen during the selloff ... . However, if the problems on Wall Street begin to show up on Main Street - as is likely to happen if stocks continue to fall - Trump will change his tune."10 A Note On Permian Basis Differentials WTI - Midland differentials recently weakened considerably, as take away capacity out of the basin became strained (Chart 7). Weakness in the Light Houston Sweet differentials, which measure the spread between the producing and consuming markets for WTI produced in the Permian, traded as wide as -$9.00/bbl. This market has experienced similar such widening of the basis, which can be seen in the WTI-Midland vs. WTI - Cushing differentials, which widened considerably when Permian production increased (Chart 8).11 These basis blowouts typically incentivize additional pipeline capacity. Indeed, earlier this year, some 2.4mm b/d of new takeaway capacity had been proposed by pipeline operators.12 Once this capacity is online, we expect to see WTI exports from the Gulf increasing. Chart 7Growing Pains In The Permian:##BR##Takeaway Capacity Constraints Chart 8Permian Crude Oil Production##BR##Exceeded Takeaway In The Past Bottom Line: We are maintaining our $74 and $70/bbl prices forecasts for Brent and WTI in 2018, and expect to revise our 2019 forecasts of $67 and $64/bbl, respectively, once we get definitive forward guidance from OPEC 2.0. We continue to monitor supply-side risk - chiefly re Venezuela and Iran - and trade-war threats to the demand side, for any information that could cause us to substantially revise our forecasts. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Research Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com 1 OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the OPEC/non-OPEC producer coalition lead by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia. Member states pledged to remove 1.80mm b/d of production from the market, of which some 1.2mm b/d is believed to be actual production cuts, while the remainder is comprised of involuntary losses from Venezuela and other producers unable to offset decline curve losses. 2 Please see S&P Platts OPEC Guide of April 16, 2018, entitled "OPEC MAR CRUDE OIL PRODUCTION TUMBLES TO 32.14 MIL B/D, DOWN 250,000 B/D FROM FEB: PLATTS SURVEY," which reports on the OPEC 2.0 ministerial meetings this month in New Delhi and Riyadh. 3 "Known Unknowns" is a phrase popularized by Donald Rumsfeld, a former U.S. Secretary of Defence in the administration of George W. Bush, at a press conference. Please see the U.S. Department of Defence "News Transcript" of February 12, 2002, at http://archive.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=2636 4 Please see "A U.S. Ban On Crude Imports," published by vessel tracker KPLER April 13, 2018. 5 Please see "US foreign policy turn could take 1.4 million b/d off global oil market: analysts," published by S&P Global Platts March 20, 2018. 6 Please see "Venezuela inflation 454 percent in first quarter: National Assembly," published by reuters.com on April 11, 2018. 7 Please see "Under military rule, Venezuela oil workers quit in a stampede," published by uk.reuters.com on April 17, 2018. 8 Please see "Global Economy: Good News for Now but Trade tensions a Threat," published on the Fund's blog April 17, 2018. 9 Please see "Trade Tensions Cloud Oil Outlook," in the March 8, 2018, issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see "Is China Heading For A Minsky Moment?" in the April 13, 2018, issue of BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy. It is available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 11 LHS data is limited, as it only recently emerged as a benchmark for the Houston refining market. 12 Please see "Operators Race to Build Pipelines As Permian Nears Takeaway Capacity," in the March 2018 issue of Pipeline & Gas Journal. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2018 Summary of Trades Closed in 2017

Highlights Midterm election is yet another geopolitical headwind to the markets this summer; A "lame duck" Trump could seek relevance abroad, with aggressive foreign and trade policy; Investors would be right to fret about a hard turn to the left by the Democratic Party; Democrats have 60% probability of taking the House and 45% probability of taking the Senate; On a cyclical horizon, midterm election will not undermine pro-business policies of the Trump administration, but may signal a paradigm shift over a more structural time horizon. Feature Geopolitical winds have turned from tailwinds to headwinds. This is as we expected last April, when we correctly forecast that geopolitical risks were overstated in 2017 but understated for 2018.1 This January we focused on several key risks for 2018: trade protectionism, Iran-U.S. geopolitical tensions, and a potential black swan risk in Taiwan.2 In our 2018 Strategic Outlook, we also pointed out that if Donald Trump becomes an early "lame duck" president, he will seek relevance abroad.3 It is therefore time to turn to the question of the upcoming midterm election, set to take place on November 6. For most of our clients, the midterm election is another volatile political event to add to an already long list (Table 1). True, the midterm election could produce a gridlocked Congress - which we recently showed quantitatively is marginally negative for the markets - and a potential push to impeach President Trump.4 However, this is not the worst of it. As November approaches, through a tumultuous summer full of headline risks, President Trump may double-down on his doctrine of "maximum pressure" - which objectively succeeded in the case of North Korea. This could produce more aggressive rhetoric and policy in the ongoing trade skirmish with China, further sanctions against Iran, and tensions with Russia. Table 1Protectionism: Upcoming Dates To Watch President Trump would not be the first U.S. president to seek relevance abroad, although he may be the earliest, and potentially the lamest, lame duck president in recent U.S. history.5 As such, the real risk is not the Democrats taking over the House, but rather how the Trump administration reacts to a sudden loss of legislative initiative. While a Democratic House would dramatically increase domestic political constraints on President Trump, there are few constitutional constraints on U.S. presidents when it comes to foreign policy. As such, the midterm election is market relevant, but not because Democratic Party control will be able to impact domestic policy. Investors should remember why markets cheered President Trump in the first place: Chart 1Trump: A Boon For Main Street And Wall Street Chart 2Easy Fiscal + Tight Money = Buy SPX Deregulation: Business confidence soared even before Donald Trump was inaugurated as president, especially among small businesses, while regulatory worries melted away (Chart 1).6 The executive branch controls the regulatory process, which means that the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives, or even the Senate, will have little impact. Tax cuts: Fears that the Democrats will be able to reverse the tax cuts are overstated. Without a veto-proof majority in both chambers of Congress - two-thirds of the seats - the Democrats cannot regain legislative initiative or reverse President Trump's accomplishments. Table 2ADXY Returns During Periods Of Loose##br## Fiscal And Tight Monetary Policy Table 2BSPX Returns During Periods Of Loose##br## Fiscal And Tight Monetary Policy Fiscal policy: Markets are currently pricing in a rare mix of tightening monetary policy and stimulative fiscal policy, a bullish combination (Chart 2) that tends to boost both equities and the dollar (Table 2). While there is no need for fiscal profligacy at the current point in the cycle (Chart 3), we would think that investors would recoil at any sign of fiscal conservativism. But looking for austerity within the current Democratic Party - whose official party platform calls for universal health coverage, for example - is a mistake. Chart 3An Odd Time For Fiscal Profligacy As such, the Democratic Party's control of the House - or even the Senate, given that a filibuster-proof majority is out of reach in 2018 - is unlikely to reverse the policy and regulatory backdrop that has been so beneficial for equities over the past 18 months. Instead, the risks are twofold. First, that President Trump reacts to the coming electoral bloodbath well ahead of November with aggressive foreign and trade policy that plays to his base. Second, that markets begin pricing in impeachment risk. Although we do not think that impeachment would have a major or direct impact on earnings and the real economy, it could add to volatility and could imply higher odds of a Democratic win in 2020 (think Gerald Ford). This would present a scenario in which the Democrats would be more likely to reverse Trump's policies in 2020, thus increasing uncertainty. As such impeachment could start being priced in well ahead of the November election. We would therefore expect midterm-related volatility to rise before the election. The election itself could likely be a time to buy risk assets, provided that fundamentals, the macro backdrop, and geopolitical risks all combine into a bullish signal, as long as President Trump makes an effort to move to the middle and work with either a split Congress, or even a potentially Democratic-led legislature. These are all sources of uncertainty and therefore provide plenty of reasons for the markets to fret ahead of the election. Who Will Win The Midterm Election? It is too early to have a high conviction view on the midterm election, which is still over six months away. Betting markets give Democrats roughly 70% probability of winning the House and just 40% of winning the Senate (Chart 4). We roughly agree with those odds, but would give the Democrats a lower chance of winning the House and a slightly higher chance of winning the Senate. There are broadly five reasons why the Democratic Party has a very good chance of winning the House of Representatives in November: Chart 4GOP Odds Have Fallen, But Stabilized Chart 5GOP Trails In Polls, But Still Close Polling: The generic congressional ballot (Chart 5) has the Democrats up 6.7% on the Republicans. The generic ballot has a decent predictive track record. Basically, the party that is up tends to perform well in the election. Meanwhile, Trump's approval rating, despite its recent recovery in support, remains at the lower end of presidential approval ratings ahead of midterm elections, predicting a 35-seat loss for Republicans in the House (Chart 6). On the whole, the Democrats' polling advantage is modest-to-strong. True, it could unravel over the summer. But at current levels, it is still a respectable advantage. Chart 6Republican Presidents And Midterm Results Retirements: Republicans in the House and the Senate are retiring at an alarming pace, one never seen in the modern political context (Chart 7). We cannot overstate how important this is, especially given that there has been a 20% swing against non-incumbent Republicans in deeply conservative districts that have held special elections thus far (Table 3). Most worrying for the GOP is that, of the 42 Republicans who have announced retirement, 18 sit in seats that are not "solidly" held by the GOP.7 These are seats that only elected the Republican candidate by an average of at most 5% more than the overall Republican vote in the 2012 and 2016 election. Chart 7GOP Retirements Are Unprecedented Table 32017 Special Elections Are Ominous For The GOP History: Of the 18 midterm elections since World War II, the sitting president's party only retained congressional control four times (Chart 8). The only president to win congressional control during the midterm election was Bush Jr., an election that was held a year after the September 11 terrorist attack (i.e., an exception). Americans like checks and balances and abhor hubris. Redistricting: Gerrymandering - politically motivated redrawing of district electoral maps - has mainly favored Republicans over the past decade.8 It has also significantly reduced the number of competitive districts available to electoral swings (Chart 9). Recently, however, the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court invoked the state constitution and struck down the congressional map that favored the GOP. The Supreme Court of the U.S. then refused an emergency request from Pennsylvania Republicans to block the new, non-partisan map drawn by the state court. This decision followed several decisions in 2016-17 that saw congressional maps in North Carolina, Virginia, Texas, Wisconsin, and Alabama either thrown out or questioned. The changes will help the Democrats at the margin, potentially making the difference between a majority and a minority position in the House. Chart 8Trump Is ##br##Fighting History Chart 9Gerrymandering Reduces##br## Competitive House Seats Momentum: Shouldn't a strong economy and sub-4% unemployment rate help the Republicans in November? The simple answer is not much. Just as a strong economy and a 4.7% unemployment rate did not help the incumbent party and its candidate Secretary Hillary Clinton fend off the inexperienced challenger, Donald Trump, in 2016. Simply put, economics is relative and partisan. While Republican voters suddenly became very happy about the economy after Trump's election - having been miserable merely days before- it is now the Democrats who believe that the economy is in a downward spiral (Chart 10). It is therefore difficult to see how the current economic performance makes enough of a difference to swing voters away from the trends we describe above. Further supporting this view is the fact that economic issues, broadly defined, are declining in terms of relevance in the upcoming election (Chart 11).9 Chart 10Politics Trumps Data! Chart 11It's Not Necessarily The Economy The trend is clear: Republicans are in trouble when it comes to the House of Representatives (Chart 12). Democrats need to win only 25 seats in November and there are now 29 Republicans representing seats that The Cook Political Report, the expert political analysis shop when it comes to predicting individual House races, classifies as "toss-up or worse." Our call, at this point, is that the Democrats have a 60% probability of winning the House of Representatives. We hesitate to set our odds at the higher end, near where the betting markets are pricing it, as there is still a long time until the election. In addition, the Democrats' lead in the generic congressional ballot has halved from 13% since December. What about the Senate? We modeled the individual Senate races by combining the state and national economic and political variables with the latest available opinion polling.10 We only focused on the races that we believe are currently competitive and we may change the mix as new information becomes available. Our model is a work in progress and we will update our clients as it develops. The results of our "beta" model, expressed as a margin of victory by the GOP candidate (GOP total vote minus Democrat total vote), show that the Democrats have a surprisingly decent chance of picking up the Senate (Chart 13).11 This is astonishing given that the Democrats are defending nine seats in "red states," whereas Republicans are only defending one seat in a "blue state" (Nevada). Basically, our model predicts that Republicans would lose Nevada and Tennessee. Meanwhile, of the five Senate races that are ranked as "toss ups" and that are currently held by Democrats, our model predicts that Republicans will only win Indiana. Given that current polling is highly unreliable, we would take all predictions of our model with a healthy dose of skepticism. Nonetheless, the results are surprisingly bullish for the Democrats. Chart 12The Number Of "At-Risk" GOP Seats Has Doubled Chart 13BCA Senate Model Says: Election Is Too Close To Call Our call, at this point, is that the Democrats have a 45% probability of winning the Senate; essentially the election is too close to call. This is higher than where the betting markets are pricing the election and an astonishing turnaround from 12 months ago, when most forecasts ignored Democrat chances in the Senate given how unfavorable the math was for their odds of winning. What does it all mean for the markets? Chart 14Midterm Elections Are A Boon For The S&P 500... Chart 15...But Really, It's All About The Fed Generally speaking, the market has performed very well following midterm elections during a Republican presidency (Chart 14). At closer inspection, however, it appears that this may have been because monetary policy has almost always been easy during these periods (Chart 15). As fate would have it, Republican presidents have been generally blessed with easy monetary policy. As such, we do not think that investors should take anything from this data. Table 4Democratic Primaries To Watch Rather than rely on uncertain empirical results, we would simply point out that the run-up to the midterm election, this coming summer, looks packed with geopolitical risks and uncertainty. President Trump is facing a potential defeat in Congress and will want to ensure that his base turns out for the election. This could mean doubling down on those parts of his policy agenda where the constitutional constraints are the weakest: foreign and trade policy. This is a recipe for more volatility. The midterm election is therefore a catalyst, if not the source, of near-term volatility. Furthermore, investors should carefully observe the results of key Democratic primary races (Table 4). Any sign that the Democratic Party is fielding left-wing candidates, as opposed to centrists, would have two implications. On one hand, it would lower our odds of the Democrats winning the House and definitely the Senate. On the other hand, it would increase the odds that the U.S. will have a political paradigm shift over the next electoral cycle. If the Democrats swing hard to the left and win the midterm election, the implications for investors would be hard to overstate. As a point of reference, investors should remember that Republicans swung hard to the right in 2010-14, presaging the rise of Trump. Yet these Republican victories took place in the face of long-term demographic and social headwinds, whereas comparable Democratic victories today would take place in the face of long-term demographic and social tailwinds. American policy can shift harder to the left over the coming decade than it did to the right over the past eight years.12 As Charts 16 and 17 show, the U.S. is at "peak inequality." As the example of France illustrates, income inequality does not necessarily go up. In the early 1960s, France had a larger share of the national income apportioned to the wealthy than the U.S. does today. Since then, it has fallen. In other words, societal decisions on wealth redistribution vary over time. The concern for investors would be if any Democratic party move to the far left is rewarded at the polls in November. If this were to happen, it would be appropriate to begin pricing in a significant decline in the share of national income that goes to corporate profits, if not yet a decline in social unrest. As Chart 17 illustrates, a significant decline in wealth concentration in France occurred right around the late 1960s. The May 1968 revolution was one of the most paradigm-shifting moments in France's post-World War II history. If the markets begin pricing in anything close to this degree of change in the U.S., the S&P 500 could enter a bear market. Chart 16GOP Tax Cuts: Same Old Story Chart 17Beware May 1968 Bottom Line: Our odds of the Democrats winning the House are 60%, below market expectations. Our odds of the Democrats winning the Senate are 45%, above market expectations. While we do not think that Democratic control of Congress, or just the House, will be negative for earnings on a cyclical time horizon, we do understand why investors would price in higher volatility. First, President Trump may respond to a loss of congressional control by seeking relevance abroad through hawkish foreign and trade policy. Second, investors may sense a paradigm shift occurring in the U.S. if left-wing Democrats start winning primary races and then go on to win the House. Is Impeachment A Risk? In a report titled Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment, we argued that investors should fade impeachment-related volatility.13 Equity markets are driven by earnings. As such, there has to be a direct relationship between political volatility and company earnings. Impeachment has rarely produced such a link. Chart 18 looks at market performance during the Teapot Dome Scandal (April 1922 to October 1927), Watergate (February 1973 to August 1974), and President Clinton's Lewinsky Affair (January 1998 to February 1999). Of the three, the Teapot Dome scandal did not result in impeachment proceedings, but only because President Harding died in office in 1923 - and neither his death nor the unfolding scandal prevented the stock market from "roaring" through the mid-1920s.14 Chart 18AVolatility Amid Three U.S. Scandals Chart 18BEquities Amid Three U.S. Scandals The market reaction to the Lewinsky Affair was also highly muted. Like the Teapot Dome incident, it occurred amidst one of the greatest bull markets in U.S. history. Of course, U.S. equities did fall 19% mid-way through the Clinton impeachment process, but this was more due to global risk factors than domestic politics. Watergate appears to have affected both equity markets and volatility. The S&P 500 fell 39% from February 7, 1973 - when the Senate established a select committee to investigate Watergate - until Nixon's resignation on August 9, 1974. That said, the scandal alone did not cause the correction; rather, it was a combination of factors, including the second devaluation of the dollar, rapid increases in price inflation, and a massive insurance fraud scandal. Writing in the summer of 1973, BCA remarked that while a speculative, "Watergate-inspired," attack on the dollar further contributed to some short-term capital outflow, but that the macro-fundamentals of the economy would ultimately persevere. Would today play out more like Teapot and Clinton, or Nixon? It will depend on the fundamentals. In the 1920s and the 1990s, fundamentals were solid and thus politics could not dent the ongoing bull market. In the early 1970s, macro fundamentals were terrible and thus politics accentuated the decline in the bear market. One thing that impeachment would not change, however, is policy. The U.S. is not Brazil. Impeachment will not lead to a 180 degree change in policy outcomes. Vice President Mike Pence is a Republican and is as pro-business as Trump. Given that the aggressive trade policy towards China has both public and establishment support, we would not expect any relief on the protectionism front. However, there would be a lot less tweeting, insults, and erratic foreign policy rhetoric aimed at both allies and rivals. The "maximum pressure" doctrine would likely be replaced by a more traditional policy of carrots and sticks. Most notably, we think this would minimize the risk of a proxy war with Iran in the Middle East. How likely is impeachment once Democrats take over the House? It depends. If President Trump fires Department of Justice Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the Democrats in the House of Representatives may get enough votes to impeach President Trump even without a House takeover! The question is whether impeachment would matter. As we outlined in our special report, impeachment is a political, not a legal, process. As such, the House of Representatives has a low bar for impeachment. It can essentially impeach the U.S. president for anything, including a debatable claim that he obstructed justice. The real question is whether the Senate would convict. To do so, the Senate must hold a trial and vote on whether to remove the president from office by a two-thirds majority (67 votes). Even if Democrats win the Senate, they would need over 15 Republican Senators to join them in removing a sitting U.S. president from office, which has never been done in American history. This could happen, but it would require the American public, particularly Republicans, to lose faith in President Trump. In particular, we have been advising clients to focus on Republican voters' support for Trump. If it dips well below 70%, we suspect that Senators could start switching sides. We are currently nowhere near these levels (Chart 19). What could change these levels of support? The Mueller special investigation is a big risk to President Trump even if one thinks that the charge of collusion with Russia is unfounded. President Bill Clinton was similarly investigated by an independent special investigator, Kenneth Starr. Starr initially focused on the suicide of deputy White House counsel Vince Foster and the Whitewater real estate investments by Bill Clinton. But the trail led elsewhere. Ultimately, the "Starr Report" alleged that Clinton lied under oath regarding his extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky, an issue completely unrelated to the original investigation. In other words, once independent investigators start digging, there is no telling what skeletons they will exhume. We do not intend to "prosecute" claims against President Trump in this or any future report. But we can also envision a scenario where the Mueller investigation reveals enough evidence of malfeasance to shake GOP voter confidence in President Trump, leading to a potential scenario where he is removed from power. Would the market care at this point? We think the answer is yes. While removal of a U.S. president has no impact on earnings, it could have an impact on social stability. Political polarization is at its highest levels in the U.S. (Chart 20), and roughly 40% of both Democrats and Republicans believe that their political competitors pose a "threat to the nation's well-being" (Chart 21). Chart 19Impeachment: Not A Risk (Yet) Chart 20Polarization, As Inequality, Remains At Record Highs Chart 21"A Threat To The Nation's Well-Being?" Really?! We would fade any risk of a widespread, Red State rebellion. Since a change in Republican opinion is required for Senators to convict Trump, most of Trump's supporters will have already lost faith in him by the time he is removed from office. As we outlined in our Strategic Outlook, we doubt that many Trump voters would risk social unrest to defend their champion.15 Many conservative voters simply wanted change and were willing to give an outsider a chance (much as their liberal counterparts did in 2008!). But convincing the markets may take time, and any sign of even minimal right-wing terrorism could create volatility and drawdowns. Bottom Line: Impeachment remains a headline risk to the markets. We continue to believe that impeachment will merely accentuate the impact of fundamentals on risk assets. However, fundamentals themselves are starting to look vulnerable, at least on a tactical horizon. As such, we are entering a six-month period where geopolitical, trade, and domestic political risks could pose headwinds to U.S. risk assets. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Assistant ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com David Boucher, Associate Vice President Quantitative Strategist davidb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017; "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China," dated February 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 President Clinton launched the largest NATO military operation at the time against Yugoslavia amidst impeachment proceedings against him while President George H. W. Bush ordered U.S. troops into Somalia a month after losing the 1992 election. Ironically, President George H. W. Bush intervened in Somalia in order to lock in the supposedly isolationist Bill Clinton, who had defeated him three weeks earlier, into an internationalist foreign policy. Less dramatic, but still notable examples, are President George W. Bush ordering the "surge" of troops into Iraq in 2007 after losing both houses of Congress in 2006, and President Barack Obama negotiating the Iranian nuclear deal after losing the Senate (and hence the entire Congress) to the Republicans in 2014. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism!" dated November 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 We use The Cook Political Report methodology for reporting the characteristic of House seats. Seats are split into "toss-up or worse," "likely/lean," and "solid" based on their Partisan Voter Index (PVI) score. The Cook PVI measures how each district performs at the presidential level compared to the nation as a whole. A district with a D+2 PVI voted an average of two points more Democratic than the nation did as a whole in the last two presidential elections (2012 and 2016 for current PVI rating). The Cook Political Report defines a "swing seat" as one that falls between D+5 and R+5. A "solid Republican" seat would therefore be any seat with a PVI of R+5 or higher. A "solid Democrat" seat would therefore be any seat with a PVI of D+5 or greater. 8 This is not to say that Democrats have not redistricted for partisan reasons. California was famously redistricted in the 1980s. Most recently, former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley admitted, during a court deposition, that he redrew the state's district borders specifically to increase the Democratic congressional majority in the state. Please see Amber Phillips, "Maryland's redistricting case reminds us: Both parties gerrymander. A lot." The Washington Post, dated March 28, 2018, available at washingtonpost.com. 9 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "As Good As It Gets?" dated January 29, 2018, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 10 The state variables include the annual percent change in personal income, the annual change in the Philadelphia Fed Coincidence index, and incumbency. The national variables include presidential approval ratings, a variable indicating whether the last presidential election was close, and the annual percent change in real GDP, CPI, industrial production, and the DXY. We add to this mix of national and state data the latest opinion polling by state race and the generic congressional ballot. 11 The U.S. Vice President, Republican Mike Pence, would cast the deciding vote in case of a 50-50 tie and therefore the Democrats require a pickup of two seats. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 "Teapot Dome" was for decades the largest corruption scandal in U.S. history. It involved President Warren G. Harding, his Secretary of the Interior, other officials, and a number of oil companies that were given extremely favorable leases to drill oil in federal land in Wyoming. Investigations and prosecutions lasted through 1927. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2017 Report Card," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Apart from rising geopolitical tensions, our main macro themes remain a growth slowdown in China and a rise in U.S. core inflation. This combination bodes ill for EM financial markets. Continue underweighting EM stocks, credit and currencies versus their DM peers. Subsiding NAFTA risks argue for overweighting Mexican stocks within an EM equity portfolio. This is in line with our recent upgrade of Mexican local and U.S. dollar sovereign bonds as well as the peso's outlook versus their EM peers. A new trade: Fixed-income trades should bet on yield curve steepening in Mexico by paying 10-year swap rates and receiving 2-year rates. Close overweight Russian markets positions in the wake of escalating U.S. sanctions. Feature Before discussing Mexico and Russia, we offer an update on our thoughts on the overall market outlook. EM: Looking Under The Hood Investor sentiment remains buoyant on global risk assets, and the buy-on-dips mentality remains well entrenched. On the surface, investors are not finding enough reasons to turn negative on global or EM risk markets. Nevertheless, when looking under the EM hood, we see several leading and coincident indicators that are beginning to flash red. Not only do geopolitics and the U.S.-China trade confrontation pose downside risks, there are also several macro developments that are turning from tailwinds to headwinds for EM risk assets. Specifically: EM manufacturing and Asian trade cycles have probably topped out. The relative total return (carry included) of three equally weighted EM1 (ZAR, BRL and CLP) and three DM (AUD, NZD and CAD) commodities currencies versus an equally weighted average of two safe-haven currencies - the Japanese yen and Swiss franc - has relapsed since early this year, coinciding with the rollover in the EM manufacturing PMI index (Chart I-1). This currency ratio is herein referred to as the risk-on/safe-haven currency ratio. Chart I-1Risk On / Safe-Haven Currency Ratio And EM Manufacturing PMI The risk-on/safe-haven currency ratio also correlates with the average of new and backlog orders components of China's manufacturing PMI (Chart I-2). The latter does not herald an upturn in this currency ratio at the moment. Share prices of global machinery, chemicals and mining companies have so far underperformed the overall global equity index in this selloff, as exhibited in Chart I-3. Chart I-2China's Industrial Cycle Has Rolled Over Chart I-3Global Cyclicals Have Underperformed, Though Not Tech Potential trade wars, the setback in technology stocks and a resurgence of volatility in global equity markets have recently dominated news headlines. Yet, the underperformance of China-exposed global sectors and sub-sectors signifies that beneath the surface Chinese growth is weakening. Meanwhile, global tech stocks have not yet underperformed much (Chart I-3, bottom panel), implying the selloff has not been driven by this high-flying sector. The combination of weakening global trade amid still-robust U.S. domestic demand bodes well for the U.S. dollar, at least against EM and commodities currencies. U.S. and EU imports account for only 13% and 11% of global trade, respectively (Chart I-4). Meanwhile, aggregate EM including Chinese imports account for 30% of world imports. Hence, global trade can slow even with U.S. and EU domestic demand remaining robust. We addressed the twin deficit issue in the U.S. in our February 21 report,2 and will add the following: If U.S. fiscal stimulus coincides with abundant global growth, the greenback will weaken. If on the contrary, the U.S. fiscal expansion overlaps with weakening global trade, U.S. growth will be priced at a premium and the U.S. dollar will appreciate especially against the currencies of economies where growth will fall short. The majority of EM exchange rates will likely be in the latter group. The relative performance of EM versus DM stocks correlates with the relative volume of imports between China and the DM (Chart I-5). The rationale is that EM countries and their publically listed companies are much more leveraged to China's business cycle than DM. The opposite is true for DM-listed companies. Our view is that China's industrial recovery and growth outperformance versus DM since early 2016 is about to end. This, if realized, should undermine EM equities and currencies versus their DM counterparts. Last week, we published a Special Report on the Chinese real estate market.3 We documented that despite a drawdown in housing inventories over the past two years, both residential and non-residential inventories remain very elevated. This, along with poor affordability and the implementation housing purchase restrictions for investors, will dampen housing sales, which in turn will lead to a contraction in property development and construction activity. Chart I-4Global Trade Is More Leveraged To EM Not DM Chart I-5EM Underperforms When Chinese Imports Lag DM Ones Combined with a slowdown in infrastructure investment due to tighter controls on local government finances, this poses downside risks to China's demand for commodities, materials and industrial goods. This is the main risk to EM stocks and currencies, and the primary reason we continue to maintain our negative stance on EM risk assets. Last but not least, it is widely believed that Chinese households are not indebted and that there is a lot of pent-up demand for household credit. Chart I-6 reveals that this conjecture is simply not true - the household debt-to-disposable income ratio has surged to 110% of disposable income in China. The same ratio is currently 107% in the U.S. Given borrowing costs in general and mortgage rates in particular are higher in China than in the U.S. (the mortgage rate is 5.2% in China versus 4.4% in the U.S.), interest payments on debt account for a larger share of households' disposable income in China than in America right now. In the U.S., the surprise on the macro front in the coming months will likely be both rising wage growth and core inflation. Chart I-7 highlights that average hourly earnings in manufacturing and construction have been accelerating. This underscores that wages are rising fast in these cyclical sectors. This will spread to other sectors sooner rather than later. Core inflation in America is rising and has already moved above 2% (Chart I-8). The rise is broad-based as all different core consumer price measures are rising and heading toward 2%. Chart I-6Chinese Households Are As Leveraged As Americans Chart I-7U.S. Wages Are Accelerating Chart I-8U.S. Core Inflation Is Above 2% While this does not entail that the U.S. is heading into runaway inflation, rising core inflation and wage growth will likely lead many investors to believe that the Federal Reserve cannot back off too fast from rate hikes, particularly when the U.S. fiscal thrust remains so positive, even if the drawdown in share prices persist. This may especially weigh on EM risk assets, where growth will be subsiding due to their links with Chinese imports. Bottom Line: Our main macro themes remain a slowdown in China and a rise in U.S. core inflation. This combination bodes ill for EM financial markets. Continue underweighting EM stocks, credit and currencies versus their DM peers. Upgrade Mexican Equities To Overweight In our March 29 report,4 we upgraded our stance on the Mexican peso, local currency bonds and U.S. dollar sovereign credit from neutral to overweight. The main rationale was receding odds of NAFTA abrogation and the country's healthy macro fundamentals. In addition, we instituted a new currency trade: long MXN / short BRL and ZAR. Continuing with this theme, we today recommend upgrading Mexican stocks to overweight within an EM equity portfolio: The odds of NAFTA retraction are rapidly subsiding as the U.S. is shifting its focus to China. Hence, chances are that NAFTA negotiations will be completed this summer, and a deal will be signed off before Mexico's presidential elections on July 1st. A more benign outcome together with an early end to NAFTA negotiations will reduce uncertainty and the risk premium priced into Mexican financial markets. This will help the latter outperform their EM peers. A final note on Mexican politics: The leftist presidential candidate Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has high chances of winning the presidential elections in July. Yet Our colleagues at BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service believe political risks are overstated.5 The basis is that Obrador will balance the left-leaning preferences of his electorate with the prudent policies needed to produce robust growth. While political uncertainty in Mexico is subsiding, it is rising in many other EM countries such as Russia, China and Brazil. In brief, geopolitical dynamics favor Mexico versus the rest of EM. We expect dedicated EM managers across various asset classes to rotate into Mexico from other EM countries. We outlined two weeks ago that a stable exchange rate will bring down inflation, opening a door for the central bank to cut interest rates no later than this summer. As local interest rate expectations in Mexico continue to subside both in absolute terms as well as relative to EM, Mexican share prices will outpace their EM peers (Chart I-9). Consistently, tightening Mexican sovereign credit spreads versus EM overall should also foster this nation's equity outperformance (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Relative Equity Performance Tracks Relative ##br##Local Bond Yields Chart I-10Relative Equity Performance Tracks Relative ##br##Sovereign Spreads Domestic demand growth has plunged following monetary and fiscal tightening in the past two years (Chart I-11). As both fiscal and monetary policy begin to ease, domestic demand will recover later this year. Chances are that share prices will sniff this out and begin their advance/outperformance sooner than later. Consumer staples and telecom stocks together account for 50% of the MSCI Mexico market cap, while the same sectors make up only 11% of overall EM market cap. Hence, Mexico's relative equity performance is somewhat hinged on the outlook for these two sectors in general and consumer staples in particular. EM consumer staple stocks have massively underperformed the EM benchmark since early 2016 (Chart I-12, top panel), and odds are this sector will outperform in the next six to 12 months as defensive sectors outperform cyclicals. This in turn heralds Mexico's relative outperformance versus the EM benchmark, which seems to be forming a major bottom (Chart I-12, bottom panel). Chart I-11Mexico: Economic Downturn Is Well Advanced Chart I-12Mexican Bourse Is A Play On Consumer Staples Unlike many EM countries, the Mexican economy is much more leveraged to the U.S. than to China. One of our major themes remains favoring U.S. growth plays versus Chinese ones. Finally, Mexican equity valuations have improved quite a bit both in absolute terms and relative to EM. Chart I-13 shows our in-house CAPE ratios for Mexican stocks in absolute terms and relative to the EM overall benchmark: Mexican equity valuations are not cheap but they are no longer expensive. Consistent with upgrading our economic outlook on Mexico, fixed-income investors should bet on yield curve steepening in local rates. We initiated this strategy on January 31 but hedged the NAFTA risk by complementing it with a yield curve flattening leg in Canada. Now, we are closing that trade and initiating a new one: fixed-income traders should consider paying 10-year swap rates and receiving 2-year swap rates. The yield curve is as flat as it typically gets (Chart I-14, top panel). Moreover, 2-year swap rates are not yet pricing enough rate cuts (Chart I-14, bottom panel) but will soon begin gapping down pricing in a large (potentially close to 200 basis points) rate cut cycle. Chart I-13Mexican Equities Are No Longer Expensive Chart I-14Bet On Yield Curve Steepening In Mexico Bottom Line: In line with our recent upgrade of Mexican local and U.S. dollar bonds as well as the currency outlook versus their EM peers, this week we recommend EM dedicated equity portfolios shift to an overweight position in Mexican stocks. Fixed-income trades should bet on yield curve steepening by paying 10-year swap rates and receiving 2-year rates. Investors who are positive on global risk assets should consider buying Mexican local bonds outright. Russia: Geopolitics Trumps Economics Chart I-15Russian Assets Relative To EM Benchmarks:##br## Various Asset Classes The sudden crash in Russian financial markets this week following the imposition of new U.S. sanctions has reminded us that geopolitics can often eclipse economics. Our overweight recommendation on Russian assets versus their EM peers was based on two pillars: (1) healthy and improving macro fundamentals and an unfolding cyclical economic recovery; and (2) easing tensions between Russia and the West. Clearly, the second part of our assessment is wrong, or at least premature. While BCA's Geopolitical Service team maintains that on a 12-month horizon tensions between Russia and the West will subside, the near-term risks are impossible to assess. For this reason we are closing our overweight allocation in Russian financial markets and recommend downgrading it to neutral. In particular, we are shifting Russia to a neutral allocation within the EM equity, sovereign and corporate credit and local currency bonds portfolios (Chart I-15). Consistently, we are closing the following trades: Long Russian / short Malaysian stocks (27.6% gain); Long Russian energy / short global energy stocks (2.8% gain); Long RUB / short MYR (3.1% loss); Short COP / long basket of USD & RUB (16.2% loss); Long RUBUSD / short crude oil (29.1% loss). Sell Russian 5-year CDS / buy South African 5-year CDS (317 basis points gain); Long Russian and Chilean / short Chinese Corporate Credit (12% gain); Long Russian 5-year bonds / short Brazilian 5-year bonds (flat). Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 We have removed the Russian ruble from the version of this chart shown in March 29, 2018 EMS report to assure that the recent idiosyncratic developments - the selloff triggered by the U.S. sanctions - in Russia's financial markets do not impact the reading of this indicator. 2 Pease see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "EM Local Bonds And U.S. Twin Deficits", dated February 21, 2018, Page 14. 3 Pease see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "China Real Estate: A Never-Bursting Bubble?", dated April 6, 2018, Page 14. 4 Pease see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report "EM: Perched On An Icy Cliff", dated March 29, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 5 Pease see Geopolitcial Strategy Weekly Report "Expect Volatility... Of Volatility", dated April 11, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights There is more downside risk ahead as the geopolitical calendar is packed in May; Protectionism remains in play, but markets could also fall on Iran-U.S. tensions, military intervention in Syria, and Russia-West confrontation; Investors should expect volatility to go up as we approach a turbulent summer; We were wrong on Russia-West tensions peaking and are closing all of our Russian trades for now, but may look for new entry points soon; Go long a basket of NAFTA currencies versus the Euro and expect reflation to remain the "only game in town" in Japan. Feature "I'm not saying there won't be a little pain, but the market has gone up 40 percent, 42 percent so we might lose a little bit of it. But we're going to have a much stronger country when we're finished. So we may take a hit and you know what, ultimately we're going to be much stronger for it." President Donald Trump, April 6, 2018 Chart 1Teflon Trump There are times when conventional wisdom is spectacularly wrong. Last week was such a moment. Since Donald Trump became president, the "smart money" has believed that he was obsessed with the stock market. Therefore, the view went, none of his policies would threaten the bull market. We have pushed back against this assumption because our view is that geopolitical risks - specifically the lack of constraints on the executive branch in foreign and trade policy - would become investment relevant.1 This view has been correct thus far: we called the volatility spike and trade protectionism in 2018. Not only have President Trump's tariff pronouncements produced stock market drawdowns, but his popularity appears to be unaffected. Astonishingly, President Trump's approval rating collapsed as the stock market went up in 2017 and recovered as the stock market went in reverse this year (Chart 1)! It is therefore empirically incorrect that President Trump is constrained by the stock market. His actions over the past month, as well as his approval ratings, suggest that he is quite comfortable with volatility. There are two broad reasons why we never bought into the media hype. First, there is no real correlation, or only a weak one, between equity declines of 10% and presidential approval ratings (Chart 2). Generally, presidential approval rating does decline amidst market drawdowns of 10% or greater, but the effect on the presidency is only permanent if the momentum of the approval rating was already heading lower, otherwise the effect is minimal and temporary. Second, the median American does not really own stocks (Table 1). President Trump considers blue collar white voters his base and they care more about unemployment and wages, not their equity portfolios. At some point, equity market drawdowns will affect hard data and the real economy. This is the point at which President Trump will care about the stock market. Given that the market is already down 10% from the peak, we are not far away from this pain threshold. But in this way, President Trump is no different from any other president. Chart 2AThe Stock Market Mattered For Eisenhower, JFK, Bush Sr., And Obama... Chart 2B...But Not For Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, And Bush Jr. The pessimistic view on trade protectionism risk, that there is more downside to equities ahead, is therefore still in play. Investors should be careful not to overreact to positive developments, such as President Xi's speech at the Boao Forum where he largely reiterated previous Beijing promises to open up individual sectors to foreign investment. In fact, it is the investment community itself that is the target of President Trump's rhetoric. In order to convince Beijing that his threat of protectionism is credible, President Trump has to show that he is willing to incur pain at home, which explains the quote with which we began this report. Table 1Stock Ownership Is Concentrated Amongst The Wealthiest Households This is not dissimilar to President Trump's doctrine of "maximum pressure" which, when applied to North Korea, produced a significant bond rally last summer. The 10-year Treasury yield topped 2.39% on July 7 and then collapsed to a low of 2.05% in September.2 The vast majority of the yield decline, at the time, came from falling real yields as investors flocked into safe-haven assets amidst North Korean tensions and not lower inflation expectations. It is therefore dangerous to rely on conventional wisdom when assessing the limits of volatility or equity drawdowns. Any buoyant market reaction may in fact elicit a more aggressive policy from Washington. As if on cue, President Trump shocked the markets on April 7 by suggesting that he would impose another round of tariffs on a further $100bn worth of Chinese imports, bringing the total under threat to $160 billion. The announcement came after the market closed 0.89% up on April 6. Perhaps President Trump was irked that the market was so dismissive of his trade threats and decided to jolt it back to reality. In addition to trade, there are several other reasons to be bearish on risk assets as we approach May: Chart 3Inflation Will Pick Up In 2018 Chart 4Service Sector Wage Growth Is At A Cyclical Peak Inflation: Unemployment is low, with wage pressures starting to build (Chart 3). Meanwhile, teacher strikes in Red States like Oklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia, and Arizona are signalling that public service sector wage pressures are building in the most fiscally prudent states. Service sector wages cannot be suppressed through automation or outsourcing and are therefore likely to add to inflationary pressures (Chart 4). The Fed remains in tightening mode, despite the mounting geopolitical risks. "Stroke of pen risk:" Another sign that President Trump is comfortable with market drawdowns is his increasingly aggressive rhetoric on Amazon. There is a rising probability that the current administration decides to up the regulatory pressure on the technology and retail giant, as well as a possibility that other technology companies like Facebook and Google face "stroke of pen" risks. Iran: This year's premier geopolitical risk is the potential for renewed U.S.-Iran tensions.3 Ahead of the all-important May 12 deadline - when the White House will decide whether to end the current waiver of economic sanctions against Iran - President Trump has staffed his cabinet with two hawks, new Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and National Security Advisor John Bolton. Meanwhile, tensions in Syria are building with potential for U.S. and Iranian forces to be directly implicated in a skirmish. The U.S. is almost certain to militarily respond to the alleged chemical attack by the Syrian government forces against the rebel-held Damascus suburb of Douma. Throughout it all, investors appear to remain unfazed by the rising probability that Iran's 2 million barrels of oil exports come under renewed sanction risk, mainly because the media is ignoring the risk (Chart 5). Chart 5The Media Is Ignoring Iran As A Risk Russia: As we discuss below, tensions between the West and Russia appear to be building up anew. Particularly concerning is the aforementioned chemical attack in Syria, which Moscow considers a "false flag operation." The Russian government hinted in mid-March that precisely such an attack may occur and that the U.S. would use it as a pretext to attack Syrian government forces and structures.4 Our view that tensions have peaked, elucidated in a recent report, therefore appears to have been spectacularly wrong. Chinese reforms: Now that Xi Jinping has finished setting up his new government, his initiatives are starting to be implemented. While some slight tax cuts are on the docket, and interbank rates have eased significantly, there is no sign of broad policy easing or economic recovery (Chart 6). Rather, both Xi and his economic czar Liu He have continued to stress the "Three Battles" of systemic financial risk, pollution, and poverty - the first two requiring tighter policy. Xi has stated that deleveraging will focus on state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and local governments. SOEs will have debt caps and will not be allowed to lend to local governments. Instead, local governments will have to borrow through formal bond markets, giving the central government greater control. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Housing says property restrictions will remain in place. All in all, the risk of negative surprises in China this year remains significant, with a likely negative impact on global growth.5 There is also a fundamental reason for equity market weakness: the market is likely coming to grips with a calendar 2019 EPS growth of a more reasonable 10% annual rate compared with this year's near 20% peak growth rate. This transition, which our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou of BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy has highlighted in recent research, will be turbulent.6 In addition, Anastasios has pointed out that stocks are reacting to a more bearish mix of soft and hard data (Chart 7), suggesting that not all of the market volatility is due to headline risk. Chart 6China Will Slow Down Further In 2018 Chart 7Trade Is Not The Only Risk To The Market How should investors make sense of these budding risks? Going forward, we would fade any enthusiasm or narratives of "peak pessimism" on trade protectionism. It is in the interest of the Trump administration that investors take his threats seriously. President Trump literally needs stocks to go down in order to show Beijing that he is serious. The summer months could be volatile as market confusion grows amidst the upcoming event risk (Table 2). This may be a good time to be risk-averse, with the old adage "sell in May and go away" appropriate this year. Table 2Protectionism: Upcoming Dates To Watch There are several reasons why protectionism is a much bigger deal than it was in the 1980s when investors last had to price a trade war between two major economies (Japan and the U.S. at the time): Chart 8This Time Is Different... Because Of Supply Chains... Chart 9...Globalization... Supply chains are a much bigger deal today than thirty years ago (Chart 8); The share of global exports as a percent of GDP is much higher today (Chart 9); Interest rates are much lower, leaving little room for policymakers to ease (Chart 10); Stock market valuations are higher, leaving stocks exposed to drawbacks (Chart 11); Unlike 1981-88, when Japan and the U.S. waged a nearly decade-long trade war while remaining allies in the Cold War, China and the U.S. are outright rivals. This increases the probability that Beijing's reprisal, given its constraints in retaliating against U.S. exports (Chart 12), could take a geopolitical turn. Chart 10...Policymaker Ammunition... Chart 11...And Valuations Chart 12China May Run Out Of U.S. Exports To Sanction Investors should therefore prepare for volatility of volatility. Amidst the confusion, there could be some not-so-positive news that the market overreacts to with optimism, and some not-so-negative news that the market reacts to with pessimism. In our six years of publishing geopolitically driven investment strategy, we have not seen a similar period where a confluence of risks and tensions are building up at the same time. May should therefore be a busy month. Mexico: A Silver Lining Amidst Mercantilism Risk? Mexico began the year with clouds over its head due to the Trump team's tough negotiating line on NAFTA. The third round of negotiations, in September 2017, ended on a bad note. The peso tumbled and headline and core inflation soared, portending both tighter monetary policy and weaker domestic demand.7 Today, however, the odds of renewing NAFTA have improved significantly. We have reduced our probability of Trump abrogating the trade deal from 50% to 20%. The administration appears to be focused on China and therefore looking to wrap up the NAFTA negotiations quickly over the summer. This would give time to send the new deal to the Mexican and U.S. congresses prior to the September changeover in Mexico's legislature and January changeover in the U.S. legislature. The U.S. has reportedly compromised on an earlier demand that NAFTA-traded automobiles have a U.S. domestic content of 50%.8 Meanwhile, inflation has peaked and the peso has firmed up (Chart 13), which will help buoy real incomes and boost purchasing power. Economic policy has been prudent, with central bank rate hikes restraining inflation and government spending cuts producing a primary budget surplus (and a much-reduced headline budget deficit of -1% of GDP) (Chart 14).9 Chart 13Mexico: Peso & Inflation Chart 14Mexico: Improved Macro Fundamentals In this more bullish context, the Mexican elections on July 1 are market-neutral. True, it is hard to present a strong pro-market outcome. The public is shifting to the left on the economic spectrum while the outgoing "pro-market" administration of Enrique Pena Nieto has lost credibility. The latest polling suggests that Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) is polling in the lower 30-percentile (around 33%), above his next competitors, Ricardo Anaya (PAN) at 26% and Jose Antonio Meade (PRI) at 14% (Chart 15). However, the latest data point of the admittedly volatile polling gives AMLO a much less commanding lead of 6-7% over Anaya than he had before. AMLO is polling around his performance in the 2006 and 2012 elections (35% and 32%, respectively), has increased his lead over the other candidates, and his National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) and "Together We'll Make History" coalition are also polling with double-digit leads (Chart 16). The general shift to the left is also apparent in the fact that Ricardo Anaya's PAN has been forced to combine with the left-wing PRD in order to garner votes. Chart 15AMLO's Lead Is Not Insurmountable Chart 16Likely No Majority In Congress Nevertheless, political risk is overstated for the following reasons: AMLO is not Hugo Chavez:10 True, he is a leftist, a populist, and has a reputation for egotism. He is Mexico's fitting anti-Trump. Nevertheless, he is also a known quantity, having run for president and engaged with the major parties for over a decade. While he elevates headline political risk, we would fade the risk based on the fact that Mexico is a relatively right-wing country (Chart 17), and his movement will probably not garner a majority in Congress (see next bullet). Notably, AMLO's rhetoric on Trump and NAFTA has been restrained, and his personnel decisions have been competent and orthodox. He has not suggested he will revoke new private Mexican oil concessions, under the outgoing government's privatization scheme, but only halt the auctions. AMLO will be constrained by Congress: The trend in Mexico is towards "pluralization" or fragmentation in Congress (see Chart 18), meaning that ruling parties will have to share power. This is not a negative development. As we recently pointed out, political plurality engenders stability by drawing protest parties into centrist coalitions and by allowing establishment parties to coopt protest narratives without having to actually protest or revolt.11 At this point in time, it is difficult to see how AMLO's MORENA garners enough support to get a majority in Congress. AMLO's closest challenger is right-wing and pro-market: If AMLO loses the election, Ricardo Anaya of PAN will not be scorned by financial markets. In 2006, AMLO looked like he would win the election but then lost to Felipe Calderon (PAN). Of course, a victory by Anaya is not very market positive either, as PAN is in an unstable coalition with the left-wing PRD and would also be constrained in Congress. Still, there would be a lower probability of reversing the outgoing PRI administration's policies than under AMLO. AMLO is unlikely to repeal NAFTA: Mexico's exports to NAFTA partners comprise 30% of GDP, and it would be exceedingly dangerous for a Mexican leader to provoke Trump on the issue. A plurality of the Mexican public (44%) supports the ongoing NAFTA negotiations as they have been handled by the current government (Chart 19), as of late February polling by the Wilson Center. The same polling shows that Mexicans are generally aware of how important NAFTA is for their economy. This is despite the polls showing that a majority of Mexicans have a negative view of the U.S., due largely to Trump's rhetoric (though that majority has fallen considerably since last year to 56%). In other words, anti-American sentiment is not turning the Mexican public against compromising on a new NAFTA deal. Chart 17Mexicans Lean Right Chart 18Mexico's Rising Political Plurality Finally, Mexico is more exposed to U.S. growth (which is charged with fiscal stimulus), and to BCA's robust outlook on oil prices (as opposed to our weaker metals outlook), while it is less exposed to weakening Chinese demand than other EMs (such as South Africa or Brazil).12 The peso looks particularly attractive relative to the latter two currencies (Chart 20). Chart 19Mexicans Want NAFTA To Survive Chart 20A Major Bottom In MXN's Cross? None of the above should suggest that the Mexican election will be a smooth affair. The rise of AMLO will create jitters in the marketplace, particularly as he faces off against Trump, who will continue to try to pressure Mexico over immigration and border security even once NAFTA negotiations are squared away. Nevertheless, the cyclical backdrop has improved while the major headwind of NAFTA abrogation seems to be abating. Bottom Line: Mexico's presidential campaign, election, and aftermath will give rise to plenty of occasion for volatility, particularly as President Trump and a likely President Obrador will not shy from a war of words. Nevertheless, Mexico's economic policy is stable and the NAFTA headwind is abating. We recommend going long Mexican local currency bonds relative to the EM benchmark. We also recommend that clients go long a NAFTA basket of currencies - the peso and the loonie - versus the euro. Our currency strategist - Mathieu Savary - has recently pointed out that the euro has moved ahead of long-term fundamentals and is ripe for a near-term correction.13 Japan: Abe Will Survive Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has come under rising public criticism in recent that is dragging down his approval ratings (Chart 21). Three separate scandals are weighing on his administration: one relating to the government's sale of land at knockdown prices to a nationalist school, Moritomo Gakuen, tied to Abe's wife; another relating to the discovery of "lost" journals of Japan Self-Defense Force activity during the Iraq war; another tied to the mishandling of statistics in promoting the government's new revisions to the labor law. Abe's popularity has tested lower lows in the past, but he is approaching the floor. And while Abe is still polling in line with the popular Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi at this stage in his term (Chart 22), nevertheless he is approaching his 65th month in office when Koizumi stepped down. Chart 21Abe's Approval Testing The Floor Chart 22Abe Holding At Koizumi's Levels Of Support More importantly, the all-important September leadership election is approaching. The challenges arising today are at least partly motivated by factions within the LDP that want to challenge Abe's leadership. Koizumi stepped aside in September 2006 because he could not contend for the LDP's leadership due to party rules that limited the leader to two consecutive three-year terms. Abe is not constrained on this front. He has already revised those rules to three terms, giving him until September 2021 to remain eligible as party leader. He wants to run again and incumbents are heavily favored in party elections. Abe also secured his second two-thirds supermajority in the House of Representatives, in October 2017. This was a remarkable feat and one that will make it difficult for contenders to convince the rank and file in Japan's prefectures that they can lead the party more effectively. While Abe's 38% approval is now slightly below the psychologically important 40% level, and below the LDP's overall approval rating (Chart 23), there is no alternative to the LDP heading into July 2019 elections for the House of Councillors. This is manifest from the October election result. Chart 23Still No Alternative To LDP What happens if Abe's popularity sinks into the 20-percentile range? Financial markets will selloff in anticipation that he will be ousted. He could conceivably survive a scrape with the upper 20% approval range, but markets will assume the worst once he dips beneath 30% in the average polling on a sustainable basis. Markets will also assume that the remarkably reflationary period in Japanese economic policy is coming to an end. Even when Abe's successor forms a government, investors may believe that the best of the reflationary push is over. We think that the market would be wrong to doubt Japan's inflationary push. First, if Abe is ousted, the LDP will remain in power: it has until October 2021 before it faces another general election that could deprive it of government control. (A loss in the upper house election in 2019 can prevent it from passing constitutional changes but not from running the country.) This ensures that policy will be continuous in the transition and that any changes in trajectory will be a matter of degree, not kind. Second, the phenomenon of "Abenomics" is not only Abe's doing but the LDP's answer to its first shocking experience in the political wilderness, from 2009-12. This experience taught the LDP that it needed to adopt bolder policies. The result was dovish monetary policy under Haruhiko Kuroda, who just began his second five-year term on April 9 and whose faction has the majority on the monetary policy board. Looser fiscal policy was another consequence - and ultimately it came to pass.14 It will be hard for a new LDP leader to tighten policy. Factions that are criticizing Abe or Kuroda today will find it harder to phase out stimulus once they are in office. Abe's successor will, like him, have to try policies that boost corporate investment, wages, the fertility rate, immigration, social spending and military spending.15 Without such initiatives, Japan will sink back into a deflationary spiral. As for BoJ policy, over the next 18 months the biggest challenges are meeting the 2% inflation target while the yen is rising due to both China's slowdown and trade war risks.16 Tokyo is also ostensibly required to hike the consumption tax in October 2019. This is more than enough to convince Kuroda to stand pat for the time being.17 In the meantime, Abe's push to revise the constitution is a significant factor in encouraging persistently loose monetary and fiscal policy. The national referendum on the matter could be held along with the early 2019 local elections or the July 2019 upper house election. It will be hard to win 50%+ of the popular vote and nigh impossible if the economy is failing. What should investors look for to determine if Abe's downfall is imminent? In addition to Abe's approval rating we will watch to see if the ongoing scandal probes produce any direct link to Abe, or if top cabinet ministers are forced to resign (like Finance Minister Taro Aso or Defense Minister Itsunori Onodera). It will also be a telling sign if Abe's "work-style" reforms to liberalize the labor market, which have received cabinet approval, wither in the Diet due to lack of party discipline (not our baseline view).18 But even granting Abe's survival, we would expect that China's slowdown and the U.S.-China trade war will keep the yen well bid. We are sticking with our tactical long JPY/EUR trade, which is up 2.6% thus far. Bottom Line: Shinzo Abe is likely to be re-elected as LDP leader in September and to lead his party in the charge toward the 2019 upper house election and constitutional referendum. Should he fall into the 20% of popular approval, the markets should sell off. His leadership and alliances have been remarkably reflationary and the policy tailwind could dwindle. We would fade this risk, but we still think the yen will remain buoyant due to China's internal dynamics and the U.S.-China trade war. We remain long yen/euro until we see signs that Washington and Beijing are able to defuse the immediate trade war. Russia: Tensions With The West Have Not Peaked Our view that tensions between Russia and the West would peak following President Putin's reelection has been spectacularly wrong.19 We still encourage clients to review the report, penned in early March, as it sets out the limits to Russia's aggressive foreign policy. The country is geopolitically a lot more constrained then investors think, and thus there are material limits to how far the Kremlin can take the rivalry with the West. What we did not account for is that such weakness is precisely the reason for the tensions. Specifically, the Trump administration - riding high following the success of its "maximum pressure" doctrine in the Korea imbroglio - smells blood. President Trump is betting that the view of Russian constraints is correct and therefore the time to pressure Putin - and prove his own anti-Kremlin credentials - is now. But has the market gotten ahead of itself? The expanded sanctions target specific individuals and companies - EN+ Group, GAZ Group, and Rusal - and yet the broad equity market in Russia has tumbled.20 Sberbank, which is nowhere mentioned in the sanctions, fell by an extraordinary 16% since the announcement. On one hand, there does appear to be a material step-up in sanctions. Despite being focused on specific companies, the new restrictions are designed to make the entire Russian secondary bond market "not clearable." The targeting of specific companies, therefore, was merely a shot-across-the-bow. The implication for the future - and the reason that Sberbank fell as much as it did - is that U.S. investors could be forbidden - or the compliance costs could rise by so much that they might as well be forbidden - from participating in Russian debt and equity markets in the future. On the other hand, our Russia geopolitical risk index has not priced in the renewed tensions (Chart 24). This means that either our currency-derived measure is wrong or the sell off in equity and debt markets is not translating into bearishness about the overall economy. Given our bullish oil outlook and our view of the limits of Russian aggression investors should expect, the index may actually be signaling that these tensions are an opportunity to buy Russian assets. Chart 24The Russia GPI Says No Risk That said, we have learned our lesson. There is no point in trying to catch a falling knife as the Kremlin and the White House square off over Syria and other geopolitical issues. As such, we are closing all of our Russia trades until we find a better entry point to capitalize on our structural view that there are material limits to geopolitical tensions between the West and Russia. The long Russia equities / short EM equities has been stopped out at 5% loss. Our buy South African / sell Russian 5-year CDS protection is down 20 bps and our long Russian / short Brazilian local currency government bonds is up 1.07 bps. Investment Implications In April 2017, we penned a report titled "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!," turning the old "sell in May and go away" adage on its head.21 At the time, investors were similarly facing a number of geopolitical risks, from the second round of French elections to concerns about President Trump's domestic agenda. However, we had a very high conviction view that these risks were overstated. This time around, we fear that the markets are mispricing constraints on President Trump. Geopolitical risks ahead of us are largely in the realm of foreign policy, where the U.S. Constitution gives the president large leeway. This includes trade policy. As such, it is much more difficult to have a high conviction view on how the Trump administration will act towards China, Iran, and Russia. Furthermore, the success of the "maximum pressure" doctrine has emboldened President Trump to talk tough, worry about consequences later. Investors have to understand that we are the target of President Trump's rhetoric. There is no better way for the White House to show China, Iran, and Russia that it is serious - that its threats are credible - than if it strongly counters the view that it will do nothing to harm domestic equities. We therefore expect further volatility in the markets. We propose that clients hedge the risks this summer with our "geopolitical protector portfolio" - equally-weighted basket of Swiss bonds and gold - which is currently up 1.46%, although adding 10-Year U.S. Treasurys to the mix may make sense as well. We would also recommend that clients expect both a spike in the VIX and a rise in the volatility of the VIX (volatility of volatility). Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com; and Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Have Bond Yields Peaked For The Cycle? No," dated September 12, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "Russia says U.S. plans to strike Damascus, pledges military response," Reuters, dated March 13, 2018, available at reuters.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Bumpier Ride," dated March 26, 2018, available at uses.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see "US drops contentious demand for auto content, clearing path in NAFTA talks," Globe and Mail, March 21, 2018, available at www.theglobeandmail.com. 9 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM: Perched On An Icy Cliff," dated March 29, 2018, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Should Investors Fear Political Plurality?" dated November 29, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Outlook, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "The Euro's Tricky Spot," dated February 2, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Japan: Kuroda Or No Kuroda, Reflation Ahead," dated February 7, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see "Japan: Abe Is Not Yet Dead, Long Live Abenomics," in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report; "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017; and "Japan: Abenomics Will Survive Abe," in Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Is King Dollar Back?" dated October 4, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018; and "Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China," dated February 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see Cory Baird, "BOJ Chief Haruhiko Kuroda Begins New Term By Vowing To Continue Stimulus In Pursuit Of 2% Inflation," Japan Times, April 9, 2018, available at www.japantimes.co.jp. 18 Please see "Work style reform legislation gets Abe Cabinet approval," Jiji Press, April 6, 2018, available at www.the-japan-news.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Vladimir Putin, Act IV," dated March 7, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see Department of the Treasury, "Ukraine Related Sanctions Regulations - 31 C.F.R. Part 589," dated April 7, 2018, available at treasury.gov. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights The U.S. and China have a roughly 60-day period to prevent the current trade "skirmish" from metastasizing into a full-blown trade war; The revised U.S.-Korea trade deal suggests that Trump's trade negotiators are credible and are targeting China, not U.S. allies; The U.S. will demand that China's recent RMB appreciation is backed by a long-term reduction in foreign exchange intervention; Tariff reciprocity is not significant, but market access and investment reciprocity are; China will offer concessions first, and will only go to a trade war if Trump imposes sweeping tariffs anyway; Short Chinese technology stocks; remain short China-exposed S&P500 stocks in expectation of further volatility. Feature The market is coming to terms with the fact that President Trump is willing to put his policies where his campaign rhetoric was, at least on trade policy. U.S. equities are down 5.7% since the White House announced Section 232 tariffs on steel and aluminum and 2.34% since it announced forthcoming Section 301 tariffs against China. Although we have cautioned clients since November 2016 that protectionism is a real risk to global growth and risk assets,1 we believe that the current set of U.S. demands on China justify the moniker of a "trade skirmish," rather than a full-out war.2 That said, the 5.7% drawdown is appropriate, if a bit sanguine. Our "trade skirmish" view is low-conviction. President Trump remains unconstrained on trade policy, giving him leeway to be tougher than the market expects. As such, it is appropriate for the market to price a 20%-30% probability of a full-blown trade war. Given that the market drawdown in such a scenario could be 20% or more, the current market action is appropriately pricing the worst-case scenario. Why would a trade war between the U.S. and China elicit a bear market in U.S. equities if a similar confrontation between Japan and the U.S. did not in the late 1980s? For three reasons. First, the overvaluation of stocks is much greater today. Second, interest rates are much lower, restricting how much policymakers can react to adverse risks. Third, supply chains are much more integrated today, globally and between China and the U.S. Nearly every major S&P 500 multinational corporation is in some way exposed to these supply chains. As such, we think the current drawdown is appropriate. That said, the administration's policy is not haphazard. President Trump and U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer are on the same page, making China - and not NAFTA trade partners or South Korea - the main target of U.S. protectionism (Chart 1). The rapid pace at which the administration pivoted from global tariffs to targeting China gives a clear indication of what is afoot. The U.S. is using the threat of tariffs to cajole its allies into tougher trade enforcement against China (Table 1).3 We think this strategy can work, as outlined last week, but there is plenty of room for mistakes that could derail it. Chart 1China, Not NAFTA, In The Crosshairs Table 1U.S. Gradually Exempting Allies From Tariffs Trump also wants to change U.S. policy on immigration and could use the NAFTA negotiation to gain leverage over Mexico. There is therefore still some probability that Trump triggers Article 2205 to leave NAFTA, but we believe it has declined substantively since we put it at 50% in November, particularly given the U.S.-South Korea negotiations we discuss below.4 This week we take a look at the revised U.S.-Korea trade deal and what it suggests about the Trump administration's trade agenda more broadly. Then we update the status of the U.S.-China trade frictions, which are only temporarily subsiding, if at all. Lessons From The KORUS Talks The just-completed renegotiation of the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement (the "KORUS FTA") offers some clues to the Trump administration's trade tactics that may be relevant for future negotiations with NAFTA partners, China, and others. President Trump has repeatedly criticized the KORUS FTA, as the U.S. trade deficit with South Korea has ballooned since its implementation in March 2012 (Chart 2). Trump used the threat of withdrawing from the deal to pressure South Korean President Moon Jae-in not to ease sanctions on North Korea too rapidly. Chart 2Why Trump Likes Tariffs Now USTR Lighthizer and his South Korean counterpart, Hyun Chong-Kim, have agreed to the outlines of a revised deal.5 The key points are as follows: Steel tariff waiver for Korea: South Korea will receive a country-level exemption from the U.S.'s recently imposed steel tariffs.6 Going forward, Korean steel exports will be subject to quotas equivalent to 70% of the average annual import volume during 2015-17. Greater market access for U.S. autos: Korea will double the number of autos it imports on the basis of U.S. safety standards, from 25,000 to 50,000 per year from each U.S. carmaker. It can import more subject to its own safety standards. It will refrain from any new emissions-standards tests, will accept U.S. safety standards on auto parts, and will ease ecological policies and the customs process of verifying the origin of exports. Delayed market access for Korean trucks: The U.S. will retain the existing 25% tariff on Korean trucks through 2041, instead of 2021 (Chart 2, second panel). Fair treatment of U.S. pharmaceutical imports: Korea promises not to discriminate against U.S. drugs but to grant them fair treatment under KORUS provisions. Ancillary currency agreement: The two sides appended a "gentleman's agreement" on currency policies, which is not a formal part of the deal and not subject to legislative confirmation. South Korea agreed not to devalue the won competitively, or to manipulate it more broadly, and to provide greater transparency regarding its interventions in foreign exchange markets. There are three main takeaways from the above. First, the U.S. is obviously focusing on non-tariff barriers to trade, the main hindrance to trade in a world with already low tariff rates. The grievances with Korea were primarily due to safety standards, environmental policies, and burdensome administration that hindered U.S. exports despite the reduction of tariffs under the KORUS agreement. Second, USTR Robert Lighthizer - the seasoned negotiator of the historic 1980s trade disputes with Japan, and the man in charge of the current NAFTA and China negotiations - deserves his reputation as a competent policymaker. He apparently makes concrete demands and is capable of compromising to conclude deals. This reduces the risk, overstated by the media, that the inexperienced U.S. president is driving the trade negotiations. Third, the U.S. is not deliberately trying to punish its allies in pursuit of some mercantilist fantasy of closing every single trade imbalance. Strategic logic dictated that Washington and Seoul needed to conclude a deal quickly so as to better coordinate on North Korea, and they did so. It is highly unlikely that the concluded deal will end the U.S. trade imbalance with South Korea, but it will likely improve it substantively. Moon Jae-in continues to be a pragmatist in his dealings with Trump and Trump is joining Moon's "Moonshine" policy of engagement with North Korea. Talk of the U.S. abandoning its allies did not materialize. (Japan and Taiwan are likely to get deals soon.) Most importantly, this deal is a strong indication that the U.S. will continue to pressure China on its foreign exchange practices. It would make no sense for the U.S. to require its allies to disavow competitive devaluation and reduce currency interventions while not demanding similar assurances from China. On this front, China's recent appreciation of the yuan will not ultimately satisfy the U.S., as it is arbitrary. The U.S. will need to extract deeper guarantees, with the implicit threat of tariffs to prevent China from backsliding. Otherwise the U.S. would yield Chinese exporters a foreign exchange advantage relative to American trade partners who agree to stop intervening to preserve a favorable exchange rate with the USD. A simple comparison of these countries currency moves over the past eight years reveals how they have allowed less appreciation relative to the U.S. than in trade-weighted terms, and how China would benefit if the others were forced to stop this practice while it was left off the hook (Chart 3). Chart 3The U.S. Will Demand Currency Appreciation This last conclusion fits with our study of previous cases of U.S. trade protectionism, in which the end-game was dollar depreciation relative to key trade partners.7 The KORUS case can be considered alongside Lighthizer's and the Trump administration's handling of the Section 301 investigation into China's forced tech transfer and intellectual property theft. The Trump administration came out swinging with unilateral 25% tariffs on about $60 billion worth of goods, to be listed on April 6 and enacted sometime in June. But it also signaled that it would allow a consultation period, and initiated a case through the World Trade Organization, thus reinforcing (rather than undermining) the global trading system. These developments give some grounds for optimism in the NAFTA negotiations and (less so) in the China negotiations. While China is preempting U.S. demands on its currency policy, it will be averse to providing any permanent guarantees, or to painful structural demands. This is due to its concerns about overall stability and its suspicion that the U.S. is pursuing a broader strategic containment policy against it. We discuss these issues below. Bottom Line: The preliminary conclusions of the KORUS FTA negotiation suggest that the Trump administration's trade leadership is credible, while Trump himself is looking for quick and concrete trade "wins" that can be presented to his domestic voter base. This is a marginally market-positive sign. But its ramifications are limited with regard to China, where strategic tensions and geopolitical competition will make it much harder to strike a similar deal quickly. U.S.-China: Fade The "Mirror Tax," Focus On Market Access And Tech China announced tariffs on roughly $3-$3.5 billion worth of U.S. goods on April 2 - ranging from fruits and nuts to wine and pork - in retaliation for the steel and aluminum tariffs that the U.S. imposed in March under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. China used the exact same tariff rates as the U.S. - 25% and 10% - while selecting the product list so as to produce roughly the same net trade impact in USD terms (Chart 4). The implication is that China will retaliate in kind to deter the U.S., but does not wish to "up the ante." This is largely what we expected, but the implication is significant: the U.S. is about to release a preliminary list on April 6 of $50-$60 billion worth of goods on which it will slap tariffs. This second round of tariffs - which is China-specific - follows from the probe under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974. China's recent decision suggests that if negotiations fail, it will respond with tariffs worth roughly the same amount, which is a much bigger exchange of fire for these two economies. The actual retaliatory action would most likely occur in June, when the U.S.'s list is finalized and implemented, though China may hint at its product list much sooner, adding to trade fears and market volatility.8 The Trump administration claims that its product list will be chosen by an algorithm to maximize the impact on Chinese exporters while minimizing the impact on the American consumer. Consistent with this aim, some reports indicate that the goods will be advanced technological products set to benefit from China's "Made in China 2025" plan, in which China has laid down aggressive domestic content requirements (Chart 5). Chart 4Tit For Tat Chart 5China's High-Tech Protectionism What is the Trump administration's goal? Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin declared at the G20 finance ministers' meeting that he did not want to penalize Chinese imports so much as promote U.S. exports. Is this a credible basis for assessing the administration's policy? Yes and no. We think Mnuchin is telling the truth, but not the whole truth. When it comes to blocking imports or boosting exports, Mnuchin is right: the U.S. goal is not simply to punish Beijing for past unfair trade practices by blocking imports of Chinese goods. True, the Trump administration has focused on a lack of reciprocity in tariff rates. But a "mirror tax" or "mirror tariff" with China, which Trump has referred to, would not make much of a difference to the trade balance: Chart 6AThe U.S. Exports Soybeans And Cars To China Chart 6BChina Exports Phones And Computers To The U.S. Taking a look at the top ten exports of the U.S. and China to each other (Chart 6 A&B), it is quite clear that China imposes higher tariffs on U.S. goods than the U.S. imposes on Chinese goods (Chart 7 A&B). This follows from World Trade Organization rules and the relative level of economic development of the two countries. Chart 7AAmerican Exports To China Face Higher Tariffs... Chart 7B... Than Chinese Exports To America If we equalize these tariffs by raising U.S. tariffs to the same level as their Chinese counterparts for the same good, we wind up with a very small $6.2 billion gain to the U.S. trade balance (Chart 8). If we focus only on the top ten goods that both countries export to each other, and impose a hypothetical mirror tax, we wind up with an even smaller gain for the U.S. of $3.9 billion (Chart 9). This is small fry and cannot be the administration's goal (at least not its main goal). The real goal is to gain greater market access for U.S. exports in China. Here the U.S. may have a case, as China lags both its developed and emerging market peers in sourcing its imports from the U.S. (Chart 10). While China comprises 24% of total EM imports, it comprises only 15% of U.S. exports to EM. Even in commodity exports, where the U.S. has made major inroads in China, Beijing has recently limited the American share (Chart 10, middle panel). Chart 8Equalizing Tariffs Has Little Impact Chart 9Equalizing Tariffs Has Little Impact (2) Chart 10U.S. Grievance Is About Market Access A simple, back-of-the-envelope comparison of the U.S.'s top exports to China and EM ex-China suggests that the U.S. can make a case that its exports are suffering unduly in China: China's share of top U.S. exports is lower than one might expect it to be relative to EM or EM-ex-China (Chart 11 A&B). The U.S.'s market share of China's imports in key goods is lower than it is in EM or EM-ex-China (Chart 12 A&B). The U.S. share of China's top imports is smaller than the DM-ex-U.S. share (Chart 13 A&B). Chart 11AChina Is Not A Large Enough Share Of U.S. Exports (Broad) Chart 11BChina Is Not A Large Enough Share Of U.S. Exports (Detailed) Chart 12AU.S. Is Not A Large Enough Share Of Chinese Imports (Broad) Chart 12BU.S. Is Not A Large Enough Share Of Chinese Imports (Detailed) Chart 13AU.S. Has Less Market Access In China Than Other Exporters Chart 13BU.S. Has Less Market Access In China Than Other Exporters China has granted the legitimacy of U.S. complaints by pledging several times in the last few months to open market access. The latest news from the negotiations suggests that some progress is being made.9 Clearly the above is a very rough measure. Chinese consumers may not want to buy as much stuff from the U.S. as from Europe and Japan. The U.S. doubtless needs to improve its global competitiveness, and even then it may not gain as much market share in China as its DM peers. Nevertheless, Washington sees itself as the power that brought China into the global economy and allowed it to join the WTO. If China wants the U.S. to allow it to play a greater role in running the world, the U.S. is demanding a beneficial economic relationship in return. One way China is offering to deal with the problem is by buying American goods at the expense of U.S. allies' goods. For instance, Beijing has offered to buy more semiconductors from the U.S. and fewer from Taiwan and South Korea. This would alleviate the U.S. trade deficit a little, but at a greater expense to U.S. allies (Table 2). It would open up an opportunity for China to make more strategic acquisitions in those weakened, neighboring industries. It is not clear that the Trump administration will accept such a "concession," unless it is coupled with much greater concessions as compensation for selling out the allies. Table 2China's Trade Concessions To The U.S. Could Impose Costs On U.S. Allies Similarly, China's concessions that have been offered so far - like lowering the 25% tariff on car imports - are tokens in the right direction but not sufficient to satisfy the U.S. at the current juncture. This means that the U.S. will demand structural changes that increase market access, from a stronger RMB to a more consumer-oriented economy, as part of what will be a drawn-out effort to encourage China to rebalance its macroeconomy. Of course, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin was only telling half the truth: the U.S. also wants to prevent China from stealing too much of America's market share too fast. When we look at China's comparative advantage - the goods categories in which China's export growth has been fastest in recent years, weighted by contribution to the total - the U.S. is the country that has the largest global market share in these very goods (Chart 14). For instance, telecoms equipment, car parts, TVs, electrical circuits, etc. The U.S.'s export mix is not as dependent on these goods as that of China's neighbors (Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea), but it is the chief exporter of these goods nevertheless. Because many of China's most competitive goods are still low value-added (toys, plastics, textiles, furniture), China is pursuing tech upgrades, innovation, and intellectual property: it would eat away at the U.S. share of more advanced goods. Chart 14China's Comparative Advantage Threatens U.S. Global Market Share The Trump administration is trying to slow China's advance and put a stop to China's aggressive poaching of foreign tech and IP.10 This will include restrictions on Chinese direct investment and acquisitions to be announced by Mnuchin on May 21. We expect him to intensify an inherently stringent vetting process. The administration has already taken a proactive stance by blocking Canyon Bridge Capital Partners from acquiring Lattice Semiconductor and Singaporean company Broadcom's attempted acquisition of Qualcomm.11 Rumor has it that the administration is now considering invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977, which authorizes the president to take actions "to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat." Trump would be able to cite China's use of state-backed companies, corporate espionage, and cyber-attacks in pursuit of technology and IP (Table 3). Table 3Trump Lacks Legal Constraints On Trade Issues... Especially When National Security Is Involved This is entirely aside from legislation pending in Congress, which the White House appears to support, that would provide the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) with the ability to block investments across entire industries, rather than on a case-by-case basis, and with a broader definition of national security and sensitive property and technologies.12 While American presidents have historically vetoed similar legislation against China, the Trump administration may not, depending on the outcome of talks. The key point is that the U.S. political establishment - across the spectrum - is alarmed about China's economic mercantilism. As Senator Elizabeth Warren recently declared to a group of top policymakers in Beijing: "Now U.S. policymakers are starting to look more aggressively at pushing China to open up the markets without demanding a hostage price of access to U.S. technology."13 Warren, a staunchly liberal senator from the Democratic stronghold of Massachusetts, is entirely on the same page as Trump. The takeaway for investors? China's tit-for-tat response to Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs should not be dismissed out of hand. The market is sensitive to trade fears and there is a clear avenue for them to get worse if the 60-day consultation period lapses without any major Chinese concessions. True, negotiations are ongoing and Trump's trade team has been shown to be both credible and willing to pursue trade disputes through the WTO. Nevertheless there are substantial measures aimed at China coming down the pike and the usual restraints on U.S. policy, centered on the U.S. business establishment lobbying policymakers, are not as effective as in the past. Bottom Line: The U.S.'s primary economic goal in the China negotiations is not to equalize tariffs but to open market access. The strategic goal is much larger. The U.S. wants to see China's rate of technological development slow down. As such, Washington will expect robust guarantees to protect intellectual property and proprietary technology. Investment Conclusions Several clients have asked about the constraints on the different players if trade conflict should escalate over the coming months. On the surface the U.S. is in a stronger position because its outsized deficit with China means that measures constricting bilateral trade are inherently more damaging to China's output (Chart 15). Even some of China's best retaliatory options are difficult to put into practice, including selling U.S. treasuries or imposing sanctions on U.S. commodities (Table 4).14 Chart 15China More Exposed To Trade Than U.S. Table 4China's Retaliation Options Are Limited... Even In Agriculture The U.S. also faces a constraint in imposing measures on China because manufacturing value chains today sprawl across various countries and multinational corporations. Tariffs therefore punish countries, including U.S. allies, that provide inputs to China or American companies that profit from them - think Apple. Moreover, tariffs will not in themselves change the U.S.'s fundamental savings-investment balance, suggesting that demand for foreign goods will simply shift to other producers and the trade deficit will be unaffected. However, supply chain risk is ultimately not prohibitive for the U.S. China has long ranked among the most exposed to supply-chain disruptions, while the U.S. ranks among the least (Chart 16). Moreover, U.S. allies in Europe and ASEAN stand to benefit if supply chains are rerouted from China (Chart 17). While the U.S. and allies would suffer higher initial costs as a result, they would gain the strategic advantage of reducing China's centrality to global supply chains. The latter has given Beijing an advantage in acquiring technology and moving up the value chain. Chart 16China Most Exposed To Supply-Chain Risk Chart 17U.S. Allies Benefit If Supply Chains Move While the Xi Jinping administration is weaning China off export reliance and U.S. reliance, the country still employs 28% of its workers in the manufacturing sector, which leaves it more exposed to disruptions than the U.S. if trade frictions should spiral out of control and weaken overall demand (Chart 18). While American workers are intimately familiar with the boom-and-bust cycle of free labor markets, China has not struggled with significant unemployment since 2003 (Chart 19). Its middle class was much smaller then. Chart 18Employment Is A Constraint On China Chart 19China Unfamiliar With Large-Scale Job Loss In short, China will first attempt to appease the Trump administration through market access (and keeping the RMB strong) to maintain its supply-chain centrality and overall stability. If Trump accepts China's concessions, trade frictions will not spiral out of control - at least not this year. China will only accept a full-fledged trade war if Trump rejects its concessions and imposes punitive measures that threaten its stability. At that juncture, Xi would probably find it useful to demonize Trump and execute long-term changes to make China more self-sufficient, blaming the U.S.-initiated trade war for the painful consequences. This is why it matters if Trump's demands go beyond foreign exchange rates, improved market access, and IP enforcement - for instance, if they extend to capital account liberalization, the holy grail of American trade negotiations with China. Thus far, Trump's team has not raised this demand, but it is a subject we will revisit soon as it is likely to be China's red line, at least within the economic sphere. In light of our expectation for further trade-war related volatility, we would recommend shorting Chinese tech stocks15 and remaining short China-exposed U.S. stocks. The latter trade has been in the black by over 5% in just a week, but is currently up only 0.7%. It is a way to hedge the risk of further tensions between U.S. and China. Risks to this view are: if the U.S. reduces the Section 301 tariffs that it is threatening on or after April 6; if Treasury Secretary Mnuchin's investment restrictions due on May 21 are watered down; or if the U.S. makes no structural demands on China's economy but merely accepts temporary RMB appreciation and some big-ticket import orders. Otherwise the risk that trade tensions spiral out of control will remain elevated at least through the U.S. midterm elections on November 6. By then, Trump will need either to have cut a small-scale deal with China that he can tout for voters or to have taken more aggressive trade action pursuant to the Section 301 findings. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 A 60-day consultation period with both legislatures will follow but the deal will probably remain in more or less the same form. 6 Aluminum was not included, but South Korea is not a major source of aluminum products for the U.S. 7 Please see footnote 2 above. 8 Please see David Lawder, "Trump to unveil China tariff list this week, targeting tech goods," Reuters, April 2, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 9 Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin spoke with Politburo member Liu He, who is Xi Jinping's top economic policymaker, and they reportedly pledged that they are "committed" to a solution on reducing the U.S. trade deficit. The U.S. is asking for a $100 billion reduction to the trade deficit within the year, as well as some progress on intellectual property enforcement. Supposedly the specific demands involve reducing the Chinese tariff on car imports and raising the foreign ownership cap on Chinese financial companies, the latter of which China has previously promised to do. Please see Andrew Mayeda, "U.S. Pushes China On Cars And Finance In Tariff Talks," Bloomberg, March 26, 2018, available at www.bloomberg.com. 10 Please see the U.S. Trade Representative, "Findings of the Investigation into China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974," March 2018, available at ustr.gov. 11 In September 2017, the White House and Department of Treasury intervened in the attempt by a group of investors, including the state-owned China Venture Capital Fund, from acquiring Lattice, on the advice of CFIUS. Lattice makes computer chips that are highly versatile and can be used in military functions; the Chinese SOE was suspected of pursuing China's state-backed efforts to improve its semiconductor industry. Separately, in March 2018, President Trump blocked Singapore-based Broadcom's attempt to acquire Qualcomm, which would have been a hugely consequential tech merger due to the two companies' dominance in making processors. The Treasury Department feared that Chinese state entities might get access to Qualcomm's IP or that the merger might otherwise hinder Qualcomm's "technological leadership." Please see "CFIUS Case 18-036: Broadcom Limited (Singapore)/Qualcomm Incorporated," dated March 5, 2018, available at www.sec.gov. 12 Please see Andrew Mayeda, Saleha Mohsin, and David McLaughlin, "U.S. Weighs Use of Emergency Law to Curb Chinese Takeovers," March 27, 2018, available at www.bloomberg.com. 13 She was speaking with Liu He, seasoned diplomat Yang Jiechi, and Defense Minister Wei Fenghe. Please see Michael Martina, "Senator Warren, in Beijing, says U.S. is waking up to Chinese abuses," April 1, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 14 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Ags Could Get Caught In U.S. Tariff Imbroglio," dated March 15, 2018, and "Oil Price Forecast Steady, But Risks Expand," dated March 22, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "After The Selloff: A View From China," dated February 15, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Special Report

Highlights With North Korean diplomacy on track, Taiwan is the country most exposed to U.S.-China trade and strategic tensions. The Taiwanese public supports the status quo; however, a majority sees itself as exclusively Taiwanese, and the desire for independence may grow over time. Domestic political changes in mainland China and in the United States are also conducive to greater geopolitical tensions affecting Taiwan. Beijing will likely refrain from excessive pressure in the lead-up to Taiwan's November local elections ... but an independence-leaning outcome could change that. Stay overweight Taiwan within Emerging Market portfolios, but be prepared to downgrade if latent geopolitical risks begin to materialize. Feature The decision by the United States to toughen its enforcement of trade rules with China marks a shift that will have lasting ramifications.1 The U.S. is concerned not only about the trade imbalance but also the national security risk posed by China's economic might and increasing technological prowess. Hence President Donald Trump has imposed trade measures on China despite Chinese President Xi Jinping's cooperation on North Korea. Xi has enforced sanctions on the North and thus forced Kim Jong Un to the negotiating table, even getting him to consider denuclearization (Chart 1). Global financial markets may "climb the wall of worry" about the latest tariffs because the Trump administration has moderated its rhetoric in practice, notably by choosing to prosecute China in the World Trade Organization. However, the protectionist shift in U.S. policy is a lasting one. American power is declining relative to China, and the two countries no longer share the same economic interdependency that acted as a deterrent to conflict in the past (Chart 2).2 Chart 1China Gives Kim To Trump Chart 2Structural Increase In U.S.-China Tensions Taiwan is the country that is most exposed to both trade and strategic tensions between the U.S. and China (Chart 3). Indeed, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has held since January 2016 that Taiwan is a potential geopolitical black swan.3 Does this warrant shifting to an underweight stance in EM portfolios? Not yet. But it is a left tail risk that investors should have on their radar. Taiwan Is Filled With Dry Powder There are three reasons to suspect that Taiwan geopolitical risk is understated. First, Chinese President Xi Jinping has consolidated power and made himself into Chairman Mao Zedong's peer in the Communist Party's ideological hierarchy. He is in power indefinitely. Xi has also followed his predecessor Jiang Zemin, in the 1990s, in taking a tough approach to security and defense. Implicitly he wants to make sure that unification occurs by 2049, but some argue that he wants to achieve it within his lifetime, namely by 2035. The Taiwanese public is resolutely opposed to any timetable. The fundamental risk is that economic slowdown could disappoint the aspirations of a big and ambitious middle class, which could force Xi to pursue nationalism and foreign aggression as a way to maintain domestic control (Chart 4). Beijing is still unlikely to attack Taiwan other than as a last resort, due to the American alliance system protecting it: this remains a hard constraint for now. But aggressive economic sanctions and military posturing with the intention to coerce Taiwan are much more likely than investors realize today. Chart 3Taiwan's Economy As Well As Security On The Line Chart 4China's Stability Vulnerable To Growth Slowdown Second, Taiwan's independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has gained control of every level of government on the island - the presidency, the legislature, the municipalities - since the large-scale, anti-mainland "Sunflower" protests of 2014. President Tsai Ing-wen, who replaced the outspokenly pro-China President Ma Ying-jeou, is vocally uncomfortable with the status quo. She has refused to positively affirm the "1992 Consensus," which holds that there is only "One China" but two interpretations. Beijing sees this idea as the basis of smooth cross-strait relations. Tsai has not in practice tried to break the status quo, but she is clearly interested in enhancing Taiwan's autonomy. Moreover, a youthful "Third Force" has emerged in Taiwanese politics, with the backing of former presidents Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian, arguing for independence and the right to hold popular referendums on the question of sovereignty. Any success of this movement will provoke a massive response from China. Third, U.S. President Trump has suggested in several poignant ways that his tougher approach to China will entail a more robust American guarantee of Taiwan's security. While he has promised Xi to uphold the "One China policy," he is actively upgrading diplomatic and possibly naval relations with Taiwan and considering more substantial arms sales to Taiwan.4 His negotiation style suggests that he is not afraid to touch this "third rail" in Sino-American relations. Moreover, in the wake of the 1995-96 Third Taiwan Strait Crisis, and again in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis, a hugely important shift in Taiwanese national identity accelerated. Today the public mostly identifies solely as Taiwanese, as opposed to both Taiwanese and Chinese (Chart 5). This trend has abated somewhat since the DPP rose to full control in 2014-16, but a 55% majority still sees itself as exclusively Taiwanese. Among the youth, that number is 70%. This dynamic raises the possibility that a political independence movement could one day emerge. Beijing, at any rate, is watching with great concern. Of course, this shift in national identity does not imply that Taiwanese want to declare independence for the state of Taiwan anytime soon. Only about 22% want the country to move toward formal independence, and only 5% want to declare independence today. Whereas 69% are comfortable maintaining the status quo for a long time (Chart 6). The Taiwanese want to preserve their de facto independence and continue to prosper. But support for independence has grown faster than support for the status quo since the 1994 consensus. The status quo barely, if at all, holds majority support if one removes from its ranks those who eventually want to see the country declare independence. And younger cohorts have larger majorities than older cohorts in favor of independence. Chart 5Majority Of Taiwanese Are Exclusively Taiwanese ... Chart 6... Yet Majority Support Status Quo For Now The point is that there is a lot of "dry powder" in Taiwanese public opinion that could be ignited against China in the event of a change of circumstances, i.e. another military crisis or economic shock. Essentially, China is worried that someday this national identity could be weaponized. Chart 7China Gains Leverage Over Time How will China respond to the situation? So far it has not overreacted. Xi Jinping has launched more intimidating military drills and has hardened his rhetoric - including in key reports at the 2017 party congress and this year's National People's Congress. His administration has also pursued policies to emphasize its dominance, such as setting up new air traffic routes over the strait that Taiwan claims violate its rights.5 Nevertheless, the cross-strait status quo has not yet changed in any fundamental way that would suggest relations are about to explode. And this is fitting because the status quo is beneficial to the mainland, having created a vast imbalance of economic influence over Taiwan (Chart 7). This imbalance gives China the ability to use economic coercion to dissuade Taiwan's leaders from trying anything too daring. This year, in particular, there is reason to think that Xi Jinping may want to limit any provocations. Taiwan will hold local elections on November 24, an opportunity for the pro-China Kuomintang (KMT) to at least begin to claw back the political stature it has lost (Chart 8). A good showing in 2018 is essential for the KMT if it is to rebuild momentum for the 2020 general election. Tsai's and the DPP's approval ratings have fallen precipitously since her inauguration (Chart 9). Xi may deem that saber-rattling would be counterproductive by giving Tsai and the DPP a foil, when in fact the tide is already working against them. If the KMT's performance is abysmal in the November elections, then Beijing faces a problem. Its strategy of gaining influence over Taiwan through economic integration has not prevented the emergence of an exclusively Taiwanese identity. So far Beijing has not given up on this strategy but that might become a concern if the Xi administration treads softly this year and yet the DPP broadens its control of local offices. Worse still for Beijing would be sweeping gains for outspoken, pro-independence candidates, since China cannot expel them from the legislature as easily as it did their peers in Hong Kong. Chart 8Kuomintang Needs A Win In 2018 Chart 9DPP Only Leads KMT By A Little Now Bottom Line: Political changes in China, Taiwan, and the United States are conducive to souring relations across the strait. Moreover, Taiwanese national identity is dry powder that Beijing fears could be exploited by independence-leaning politicians - potentially with American backing from an aggressive President Trump. This three-way dynamic means that Taiwanese geopolitical risk is understated, despite the fact that these powers are all familiar with the dynamics and Beijing may not want to overly provoke voters ahead of local elections, knowing that heavy-handedness in 1995-96 encouraged Taiwanese uniqueness. Macro Backdrop And Trade Tensions Undermine DPP The problem for President Tsai and the ruling DPP, as local elections approach, is that the Taiwanese economy faces headwinds as Chinese and Asian trade slows down and as the Trump administration converts its protectionist rhetoric into action. Since last year, China has tightened financial conditions and regulation and has cracked down on corruption in the financial sector. The result is a slump in broad money supply that is now pointing to a drop in EM and Taiwanese exports (Chart 10). Indeed, a cyclical slowdown is emerging in Taiwan: The short-term loans impulse is weakening which suggests that Taiwanese export growth will slow further (Chart 11, top panel). The basis for this relationship is that short-term loans are used by Taiwanese businesses to fund their working capital needs as well as purchase inputs to fill their export orders. Further, broad money is also weak (Chart 11, bottom panel). Chart 10China Slowdown Spells Trouble For Taiwan Chart 11Taiwanese Money/Credit Growth Slowing The manufacturing sector is slowing, with the shipments-to-inventories ratio weak and manufacturing PMI dipping sharply (Chart 12). Worryingly, the new orders, export orders, and electronic-sector employment components of the manufacturing PMI are approaching a precarious level. Various prices of semiconductors are also starting to show signs of weakness globally which does not bode well for a market that relies heavily on this trade. The semiconductor shipment-to-inventory ratio has rolled over (Chart 13). Taiwanese exports to ASEAN are also slowing, which signifies that final demand for semiconductors is softening, as ASEAN economies lie at the final stage of the semiconductor supply chain process. Chart 12Manufacturing Indicators Rolling Over Chart 13Softness In Key Semiconductor Exports Further, global trade tensions have the potential to harm global growth and especially heavily trade-exposed economies like Taiwan. Taiwan is not guaranteed to benefit from the U.S.'s more aggressive posture toward China. Theoretically, if the U.S. imposes tariffs on goods from China that can be substituted by Taiwan, then Taiwan will benefit. But in practice, the U.S. is using tariffs as a threat to force China to open its market more to U.S. exports. One way that Beijing may respond is by purchasing American goods instead of goods that come from American allies like Taiwan. Beijing has already attempted this strategy by offering to increase imports of American semiconductors at the expense of Taiwan and South Korea. At the moment there are no details on how much of an increase China is proposing. In Table 1 we show several scenarios to assess the damage that could be inflicted on Taiwan if China substituted away from it. The impact on Taiwan's exports is not negligible. For instance, under the benign scenario, if U.S.'s share of semiconductor exports to China rise from 4%6 to 10%, then Taiwan's share of semiconductor exports to China would drop from 15% to 12%. That would amount to a $4 billion loss for Taiwan, approximately, which represents 1.4% share of its total exports and 4% of its overall semiconductor exports. This analysis assumes that the trade losses resulting from China's shift to its semiconductor import mix would harm Taiwan somewhat more than Korea. The latter holds a competitive advantage on Taiwan as Korea designs and manufactures unique semiconductors that are not as easily substitutable. At any rate, the damage to Taiwan's geopolitical and trade outlook would be more concerning than the loss of revenue. Table 1China's Trade Concessions To U.S. Could Impose Costs On U.S. Allies It is unlikely that the Trump administration is willing to accept such a deal, which is flagrantly designed to appease the U.S. at the expense of its allies. But the exercise illustrates a broader dynamic in which U.S. negotiations with China threaten to disrupt trade relationships and supply chains that have benefited Taiwan in recent decades. The result will be greater uncertainty and a higher potential for negative shocks. Chart 14China Punishes Taiwan For 2016 Election Moreover, the Trump administration has not entirely exempted allies from trade pressure. For instance, Taiwan has appreciated the dollar a bit in response to the threat of punishment for currency manipulation from the U.S. Washington has also just secured assurances from South Korea that it will not competitively depreciate the won. If agreements like these stand, and yet China makes less robust or less permanent agreements regarding its own currency, South Korea and Taiwan could suffer marginal losses of competitiveness. Taiwan is also exposed to coercive economic measures from China. Since Tsai's election, Beijing has made a notable effort to reduce tourist travel to Taiwan, which is reflected in tourism and flight data (Chart 14). Given the context of political tensions, the risk of discrete sanctions will persist and could flare up at any time if an incident occurs that aggravates the distrust between the two governments. How will investors know if Taiwanese geopolitical risk is about to spike upwards? At the moment, geopolitical risk is subdued, according to a proxy based on USD/JPY and USD/KRW exchange rates and relative Taiwanese/American inflation (Chart 15). This indicator tracks well with previous cross-strait crises. It even jumped upon the heightened tensions around the 2016 election of Tsai, and her controversial phone call with Donald Trump after his election. At the moment it suggests that cross-strait tensions have subsided significantly, despite the cutoff in formal diplomatic communication. However, the low point of the measure, and the underlying political factors outlined in the previous section, suggest that it should rise going forward. Chart 15Taiwanese Geopolitical Risk Likely To Rise From Here In the short run, it will be important to watch the Trump administration's handling of diplomatic visits and arms sales to Taiwan. Trump's signing of the Taiwan Travel Act has elevated diplomatic exchanges in a way that is mostly symbolic but could still spark an episode of heightened tension with China that would result in economic sanctions. An unprecedented naval port call could turn into an incident. At the same time, the U.S. guarantees Taiwan's security and in token of that guarantee periodically provides Taiwan with weapons packages. Beijing, for its part, always protests these sales, more or less vigorously depending on the military capabilities in question. The currently slated one is not too big but there is a rumor that it will include F-35 stealth fighter jets; other surprises could occur. Traditionally, the biggest spikes in sales have fallen under Democratic, not Republican, administrations. However, Trump may change that. There is a consensus in Washington that policy toward China should get tougher. The Taiwan Travel Act, upgrading diplomatic ties, passed with unanimous consent in both the House and Senate. Taiwanese governments have a record of increasing military spending when Republican presidents sit in Washington. And the first DPP government, under Chen Shui-bian from 2000-08, marked a clear upturn in Taiwanese military spending growth (Chart 16). If the Trump administration decides to sell Taiwan weapon systems that make a qualitative difference in the military balance, it will raise tensions with Beijing and likely prompt economic sanctions against Taiwan. Chart 16Arms Sales Could Reemerge As An Irritant In the long run, there are three key negotiations taking place in the region that could increase Taiwanese geopolitical risk: U.S.-China trade negotiations: Taiwan has benefited from China's engagement with the U.S., and with the West more broadly, and stands to suffer if they disengage. That would herald rising strategic tensions that would put Taiwan's trade and security in jeopardy. Geopolitical risk would go up. North Korean diplomacy: Kim Jong Un has met with Xi Jinping and formally agreed to hold bilateral summits with Presidents Trump and Moon Jae-in of South Korea. He has also indicated that denuclearization is on the table. If the different parties enter onto a path towards a peace treaty and denuclearization, then Taiwan might worry that the U.S. will eventually remove troops from the peninsula - far-fetched but not out of the question. Taiwan would fear abandonment and could attempt to entangle the U.S. For its part, China could believe that cooperation on North Korea requires the U.S. to give China greater sway over Taiwan. Geopolitical risk would go up. The South China Sea: These sea lanes are vital to Taiwan as well as China, South Korea, and Japan. If the U.S. washes its hands of the matter, ceding China a maritime sphere of influence, Taiwan will face both greater supply risk and greater anxiety about American commitment to its security. Beijing might be emboldened to pressure Taiwan, or Taiwan might act out to try to secure American support. Geopolitical risk would go up. Bottom Line: Taiwan's economy is entering a cyclical slowdown on the back of China's slowdown and rollover in the semiconductor industry. At the same time, trade tensions emanating from the U.S.-China negotiations and political tensions emanating from the other side of the strait suggest that Taiwan's geopolitical risk premium will rise. Over the short term, Taiwan's local elections, the referendum movement, or U.S. diplomacy or arms sales could provide a catalyst for a cross-strait crisis. Over the long term, significant changes in U.S.-China relations, North Korea, or the South China Sea could put Taiwan in a more precarious position. Investment Conclusions While the absolute outlook for Taiwanese stock prices is negative, the potential downside in share prices in U.S. dollar terms is lower than for the EM benchmark. BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy recommends that EM-dedicated investors remain overweight Taiwanese risk assets relative to the EM benchmark. First, the epicenter of China's slowdown is capital spending in general and construction in particular. Various Chinese industrial activity indicators have already begun decelerating. This is negative for industrial commodity prices and countries that produce them. Taiwan is less exposed to China's construction slump than many other EM economies. Second, China's spending on technology will not slow much. As a part of its ongoing reforms, Beijing will encourage more investment in technology as well as upgrading industries across the value-added curve. Hence, China's tech spending will outperform its expenditure on construction and infrastructure. Taiwan is poised to benefit from this relative shift in China's growth priorities. Third, there are no fresh credit excesses in Taiwan like in some other EMs. Taiwan's banking system worked out bad assets extensively following the credit excesses of the 1980s-90s. Hence it is less vulnerable than its peers in the developing world. Finally, Taiwan has an enormous current account surplus of 14% of GDP and, contrary to many other EMs, foreign investors hold few Taiwanese local bonds. When outflows from EM occur, the Taiwanese currency will fall under less pressure and its financial system under much less stress. This will allow Taiwanese stocks to act as a low-beta defensive play. Crucially, despite some appreciation to appease Trump, the Taiwanese dollar is among the cheapest currencies in EM (Chart 17). Chart 17Cheap Taiwanese Dollar Removes Risk As for heightened geopolitical risk, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy would note that while we view Taiwan as a potential "black swan," nevertheless tail risks are not the proper basis for an investment strategy. We will continue to monitor the situation so that we can alert clients when a major, market-relevant deterioration in cross-strait relations appears imminent, based largely on the factors highlighted above. If the DPP remains dominant after the local elections later this year, or if "Third Forces" make notable gains, we would suspect that the Xi administration will shift to using more sticks than carrots. This could include economic sanctions and military saber-rattling. The question then will be whether Beijing (or Washington or Taipei) attempts a material change to the status quo. Ultimately - from a bird's eye point of view - a war is more likely in the wake of Xi Jinping's elimination of term limits, consolidation of power, and the secular slowdown in China's economy and rise of Chinese nationalism. But we see no reason to fear such a catastrophic outcome in the near term. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Ayman Kawtharani, Associate Editor ayman@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan's Election: How Dire Will The Straits Get?" dated January 13, 2016, and "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Trump began, as president-elect, by holding an unprecedented telephone call with the Taiwanese president. His administration has since requested a new $1.4 billion arms package, opened legal space for port calls (including potentially naval port calls) in the 2018 Defense Authorization Act, and for higher-level diplomatic meetings via the Taiwan Travel Act, which became public law on March 16, 2018. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Military drills have involved symbolic shows, like sailing China's only operational aircraft carrier along the mid-line of the Taiwan Strait, as well as more poignant maneuvers, like drilling north and south of Taiwan simultaneously. As for rhetoric, Xi omitted from his 2017 party congress speech any reference to hopes that the Taiwanese "people" would bring about unification; in his speech after the March National People's Congress, he warned of the "punishment of history" for those who would promote secession. 6 Shown as the average of 2015 and 2017.

Dear Client, Yesterday, my colleagues Marko Papic, Matt Gertken, and I had a webcast to discuss the rising threats of trade wars between the U.S. and China. If you have not listened to it yet, I encourage you to listen to it here. Best regards, Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy Highlights A trade war between China and the U.S. is an increasing source of long-term risk for the global economy. While the tensions between China and the U.S. are likely to decline in the short run, their materialization as the global economy is set to hit a soft patch and as the Federal Reserve's policy is becoming tight further validates our view that financial market volatility is rising cyclically. The dollar and the yen should prove to be the main beneficiaries of this phenomenon. The U.K. economy remains soft and investors should not become complacent about British political risk. Moreover, British inflation is set to slow in response to tighter monetary conditions. Sell GBP/USD on a tactical basis. Feature Two weeks ago, we argued that volatility was making a comeback in global financial markets.1 The interim events have only confirmed this thesis. Geopolitical risk is rearing its unwanted head as macroeconomic vulnerabilities are already rising because U.S. policy will soon exit accommodative territory and global growth is experiencing a speed bump. The dollar and the yen should benefit from these circumstances. Trade Wars Are Back Trade wars are once again on the radar screen of investors. The U.S. is the bellicose country, but as we argued three weeks ago, this acrimony is not really generalized to the entire world: it is first and foremost pointed at China.2 The events of the past weeks are confirming this thesis, with U.S. President Donald Trump having announced the levy of a potential 25% tariff on US$60 billion of Chinese shipments to the U.S. Beijing also announced its own tariffs - a retaliation to the U.S.'s steel and aluminum tariffs - of at least 15% on US$3 billion U.S. exports to China. The response from China is a measured one, and BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service argues that President Xi Jinping will likely push Beijing to offer small concessions to the U.S., especially as President Trump is currently trying to rally the EU to his cause.3 However, while China is willing to pacify Trump for now, this recent episode highlights that the relationship between the two global superpowers is becoming increasingly fraught with tensions - a consequence of China's ascent and the U.S.'s relative decline (Chart I-1). Chart I-1The Incumbent Versus The Upstart While fears of a trade war are likely to recede in the short term, the longer-term outlook remains worrisome. China is likely to become more confrontational toward the U.S. as time passes, and vice-versa. This supports one of BCA's important theses: The apex of globalization is behind us. As a result, global trade is unlikely to expand anymore on a secular basis. China and the U.S. are also likely to become increasingly insular, which could hurt their future growth. Table I-1 highlights the G-10 economies most at risk from this phenomenon, at least measured by their combined exports to the two superpowers. Canada and Switzerland stand out as the two countries most exposed to a rise in future trade conflicts, with exports to China and the U.S. representing 20.6% and 9.6% of their respective GDP. Australia, Germany and New Zealand stand as the second group most at risk, with around 6% of their GDP dependent on these economies. Interestingly, Sweden, an economy that has historically fluctuated with EM growth indicators, seems modestly impacted by China and the U.S., with exports to those countries only representing 3.2% of GDP. However, this picture is misleading. While Swedish exports to the euro area represent 12% of GDP, 60% of Swedish overall exports are intermediate and capital goods. As a result, euro area demand for Swedish goods is deeply affected by fluctuations in Chinese and EM final demand. This means that Sweden is in fact on par with Australia regarding its exposure to a trade war between the U.S. and China. Ranked Exposure To The Warring Kingdoms The rising risks of a trade conflict between the U.S. and China has been very impactful on financial market volatility. This is because the world economy is being affected by two other negatives right now: global growth is set to decelerate and the Fed's real fed funds rate is moving close to equilibrium, which normally supports financial market volatility. Regarding the outlook for a growth slowdown this year, we have already highlighted that EM carry trades funded in yen have rolled over, which has historically led to a weakening in global industrial activity (Chart I-2). Not only are EM carry trades very sensitive to the outlook for global growth, they are also a key component of EM liquidity conditions: when carry trades are increasingly profitable, they attract capital which generate funds inflow in EM economies; when they become less profitable, the capital abandons these strategies, generating fund outflows out of the EM space. These dynamics end up affecting global economic conditions. The OECD's global leading economic indicator has also begun corroborating this message. Its diffusion index has collapsed below the 50% line, which normally leads to a deceleration in the LEI itself (Chart I-3, top panel). Meanwhile, Korean exports have clearly rolled over, providing another negative signal for global growth (Chart I-3, bottom panel). None of these charts suggest that growth will fall below trend anytime soon, but they clearly highlight that the sunniest days for global growth are behind us. Chart I-2Global Growth Is Slowing Chart I-3More Indicators Of A Slowdown Despite this backdrop, the U.S. Fed is being forced to tighten policy as the U.S. economy is at full employment and the federal government is expanding stimulus. Interestingly, the next two hikes or so are likely to bring the real fed funds rate above the neutral rate, or R-star. As Chart I-4 highlights, when this happens, volatility increases. The upside to volatility is only made more salient by the current upgrade to long-term geopolitical risks and the imminent soft patch in global growth. In this environment, the clearest winner could remain the yen. The yen enjoys rising volatility. This is first and foremost because when volatility picks up, carry trades are reversed, prompting investors to buy back funding currencies like the yen. AUD/JPY seems especially vulnerable in this context. Not only is this cross directly hurt by rising volatility (Chart I-5), but Australia also stands to lose from tensions between the U.S. and China. The U.S. dollar could also benefit for now if the current environment does lead to higher financial market volatility. Historically, the USD has benefited from periods of rising risk aversion,4 but the recent widening in the LIBOR-OIS spread could also exacerbate these pressures (Chart I-6). The widening in this spread may have been aggravated by technical considerations: as financial intermediaries begin to move away from LIBOR as the key interest rate benchmark for USD loans, liquidity in this market may decline. This in of itself would not represent a systematic decline in USD-liquidity. However, this year's U.S. corporate tax cuts are prompting important repatriations of profits held abroad, to the tune of US$300-400 billion. Because U.S. firms keep their earnings abroad in the form of high-quality U.S. securities, this repatriation is likely to mean there will be less collateral available to secure transactions in the offshore USD market. This increases the cost of dollar funding. Thus, some of the rise in the LIBOR-OIS spread does in fact reflect a real tightening in global liquidity conditions. This is why the widening in this spread could help the USD, albeit temporarily. Chart I-4Policy Is Getting Tighter, ##br##Higher Vol Will Ensue Chart I-5Short AUD/JPY As##br## A Volatility Hedge Chart I-6Money Market Tensions Will Help ##br##The Dollar In Coming Months Bottom Line: Even if the recent spike peters off in the short term, geopolitical tensions between China and the U.S. are on a structural uptrend, reflecting growing competition between the incumbent power and the rising upstart. Trade conflicts between these two nations will only grow as time passes, hurting global trade and global growth in the process. Small open economies like Canada, Australia and Sweden could be the main collateral damage of this process. Today, the pricing of this risk is likely to exacerbate pressure on financial volatility created by a soft patch in growth and a tightening Fed. The yen and the USD should benefit from these dynamics over the coming months. Sterling: Risks Brewing Ahead Early last year, in a report titled "GBP: Dismal Expectations,"5 we argued that investors were too pessimistic on the British economic outlook, and that the cheap pound could surprise to the upside. Since then, GBP/USD has rallied by nearly 20%, back to pre-Brexit levels. Apart from generalized dollar weakness, three main factors have been behind the surge in cable: Fears of a hard Brexit have dissipated. Brexit did not plunge the U.K. economy into immediate recession. The Bank of England and market participants were surprised by higher-than-expected inflation, prompting a rethink of policy. Hard Brexit Chart I-7Monetary Conditions Are No ##br##Longer Accommodative BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team has written extensively against underestimating the probability of a hard Brexit, given that polls have not turned definitively to bremorse.6 Thus, if Labour becomes the ruling party, U.K. politicians will continue to pursue Brexit so long as the polls show support for it. Thus, investors should be careful in quickly removing the Brexit risk premium from the pound, especially as EU-U.K. negotiations remain fraught with risks. The Economy The dire economic forecasts made in the direct wake of the 2016 referendum did not come to fruition because the collapse in the pound and the fall in Gilts yields massively eased British financial conditions (Chart I-7), providing an unexpected boon to the economy. This is no longer the case: both the pound and U.K. yields have come back to pre-Brexit levels. The impact of this tightening in monetary conditions is now being felt. Household real consumption growth has fallen to seven-year lows, creating a drag for businesses, as consumer spending represents 66% of the British economy (Chart I-8). Moreover, various measures of the British credit impulse have collapsed, pointing to a continued slowdown in economic activity (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Weak Demand Is Hurting Businesses Chart I-9Credit Impulse Points To Downside How exactly is Brexit affecting the economy today? Simply put, money is leaving the U.K. Before the referendum, both the basic balance and net FDI stood at 2% of GDP. Today these measures stand at -4% and -3%, respectively. Uncertainty about the exact terms of the Brexit deal and the loss of passporting rights for financial institutions have scared away international capital. The housing market has been especially hit, experiencing its slowest growth rate since 2013, in spite of extremely low mortgage rates (Chart I-10). Foreign capital is a major driver of the U.K.'s real estate market, with academic research suggesting that a 1% increase in foreign residential transactions translates to a 2.1% increase in house prices.7 Hence, as foreign capital continues to flee, the housing market will suffer further. Moreover, the housing market has historically been a key leading indicator of U.K. growth, suggesting that British domestic demand will remain weak (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Low Mortgage Rates Are##br## Not Helping Real Estate Chart I-11The Housing Market Points##br## To A Contraction In Demand Inflation Can inflation dynamics trump the lack of growth and force the BoE to tighten policy anyway, supporting the pound in the process? Two opposing forces could determine the path of inflation: the tight labor market and the appreciating pound. A hot labor market like the U.K.'s (Chart I-12) should put upward pressure on wages, pushing up inflation and consequently, rate expectations. However, this ignores the behavior of British inflation over the past 25 years. U.K. core inflation has mostly been driven by previous movements in the currency (Chart I-13). Meanwhile, the labor market has had very little impact on prices, with core inflation staying below 2% from 1996 to 2008, despite an unemployment rate consistently below NAIRU and a global economy firing on all cylinders. Chart I-12U.K. Has A Tight Labor Market... Chart I-13...But Inflation Is Determined By The Currency This kind of tight relationship between inflation and exchange rate fluctuations tends to be associated with EM countries and small open economies, not large service-based economies like the U.K. In fact, the U.K. has to import a larger percentage of its goods and services than other developed countries. Therefore, despite its large service-oriented economy, British import penetration is much more similar to New Zealand and Norway than to the U.S. or Japan (Chart I-14).8 Consequently, core inflation is relatively insensitive to labor market dynamics. Instead, prices of import-sensitive goods and services are the main contributors to variations in core inflation (Chart I-15). Chart I-14Imports Are A Big Share Of U.K. Demand Chart I-15Import Prices Determine U.K. Core Inflation Because of this interplay, we do not expect that the labor market tightness will be enough to compensate the depressing impact on inflation from the pound's recent large appreciation. The above dynamics will likely limit how high the BoE will be able to lift interest rates. As a result, we do not expect the pound to buck any rally in the USD this year. Moreover, rising volatility will likely increase the cost of financing the already large current account deficit, which further argues for a weaker pound. We are therefore selling GBP/USD this week. Bottom Line: The combined impact of a likely rollover in inflation, continued soft growth and still-elevated political uncertainty will limit the capacity of the BoE to hike rates. Since the pound's discount to fair value has now melted, the outlook for GBP/USD is now more bearish, particularly as U.S. inflation is set to outperform expectations. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Juan Manuel Correa, Research Analyst juanc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "The Return Of Macro Volatility", dated March 16, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Are Tariffs Good Or Bad For The Dollar?", dated March 9, 2018, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, titled "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now", dated March 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "In Search Of A Timing Model", dated July 22, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "GBP: Dismal Expectations", dated January 13, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Bear Hunting And A Brexit Update", dated February 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 7 Sa, Filipa. "The Effect of Foreign Investors on Local Housing Markets: Evidence from the UK". King's College London, 2016. 8 It is worth noting that although imports constitute an even higher share of consumption in euro area economies, a lot of this imports are from other EMU countries, therefore the impact of currency fluctuations on prices is more muted on the continent. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 U.S. data was mixed: Q4 GDP growth was revised up to 2.9%, more than the expectations of 2.7%; Headline PCE came out higher than expected at 1.8%; Core PCE improved to 1.6% from 1.5% but was in line with expectations; Initial jobless claims came in at 215,000, lower than the expected 230,000; The DXY's downward momentum has subsided, and trading has been constrained to a range of around 88.5 to 90.5 for the past two months. Importantly, the DXY is approaching a key downward-sloping trendline which the greenback has not been able to punch above since Q1 2017. As signs are accumulating that global growth may experience a soft patch, the USD may finally be able to punch above this powerful resistance over the coming months. Report Links: Are Tariffs Good Or Bad For The Dollar? - March 9, 2018 The Dollar Deserves Some Real Appreciation - March 2, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 European data has generally been weak: German import prices contracted by 0.6%; Euro area private loans grew by 2.9%, less than the expected 3%; Euro area M3 money supply increased by 4.2%, underperforming expectations of 4.6%; Euro area Business Climate survey fell to 1.34 from 1.48, below the anticipated 1.39; German headline consumer prices came in below expectations of 1.6% annually; German harmonized consumer prices also failed to meet expectations, coming in at 1.5%. Mirroring the DXY, EUR/USD is has lost some of its powerful upward momentum. Net speculative positions are still at all-time highs, but long positions seem to be rolling over. Markets may begin to be concerned about the implications for euro area growth and inflation of a global growth prospects. Investors should be positioned for a short-term correction. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 The Euro's Tricky Spot - February 2, 2018 From Davos To Sydney, With a Pit Stop In Frankfurt - January 26, 2018 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been negative: Both import and export yearly growth underperformed expectations, coming in at 16.5% and 1.8% respectively. Moreover, both the coincident and the leading economic indicators surprised negatively, coming in at 114.9 and 105.6. The Nikkei manufacturing PMI also underperformed expectations, coming in at 53.2 Finally, the National consumer price index also surprised to the downside, coming in at 1.5% Economic data in Japan show that the strength in the currency has started to bite into the Japanese economic outlook. Overall we continue to be bullish on the yen, as this currency doesn't need a strong Japanese economy to rise, instead, it tends to benefit from rising financial market volatility, a rising risk in the current environment. Report Links: The Yen's Mighty Rise Continues... For Now - February 16, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has been mixed: Both core and headline inflation underperformed expectations, coming in at 2.4% and 2.7% respectively. Moreover, mortgage approvals also underperformed expectations, coming in at 64 thousand. However, average hourly earnings yearly growth surprised to the upside, coming in at 2.8%. GBP/USD has fallen by roughly 2.3% this week. Right now there are two opposing forces that could affect inflation. The first is a very tight labor market, which right is pushing up wages. The second is the pass through from an appreciating pound, which is lowering import prices. Out of these two, the effect of the pound will likely win out, given that imports satisfy a large percentage of demand in the U.K., making inflation less sensitive to labor market dynamics. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 The Euro's Tricky Spot - February 2, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Last week's lackluster employment report for Australia continues to weigh down on the Aussie as investors are rightfully reticent to bet on any policy tightening by the RBA. Further hampering the prospects of hikes are the recent developments in the Australian interbank market: Funding costs for Australian banks have increased substantially since the end of last year, with the 3-month Australian bank bill rates gaining 26 bps, and the yield on AUD 3-month implied yield gaining about 50 bps. This is consistent with the increase in the LIBOR-OIS spread. Additionally, this has occurred alongside a flat AUD Swap OIS curve, meaning that no additional rate hikes are being priced in by the market. It will be extremely difficult for the RBA to hike rates alongside these widening spreads, especially when equipped with a slacking economy. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 From Davos To Sydney, With a Pit Stop In Frankfurt - January 26, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Last Thursday the RBNZ kept its policy rate unchanged at 1.75%. The statement was rather dovish, as governor Graham Spencer stated that "monetary policy will remain accommodative for a considerable period". Moreover Governor Spencer also highlighted that the RBNZ expected CPI to weaken further in the near term due to soft tradable inflation. Overall, we expect that the NZD will outperform the AUD, given that the kiwi economy is less sensitive to a global growth slowdown than the Australian economy. However the kiwi will suffer against the USD or the JPY, given that its positive link with commodity prices and inverse relationship with volatility. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 The Xs And The Currency Market - November 24, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Canadian data was disappointing: Raw material prices contracted by 0.3% in February; Industrial product prices grew by less than expected, at 0.1% in monthly terms; Monthly GDP was also lackluster, contracting by 0.1%. However, inflation in February was at 2.2%, which is in line with the Bank's target. The fiscal impulse flow-through from the U.S. to Canada is likely to at the very least uphold this inflation figure. This will allow the BoC to stay in line with hike expectations. However, risks such as low wage growth, high debt levels, and NAFTA negotiations were mentioned in the Bank's 2017 Annual Report and need to be monitored carefully when proceeding with hikes. But on the bright side, recent reports that the U.S. is willing to drop its auto-content proposal from NAFTA talks point toward a positive outcome for NAFTA negotiations. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has been mixed: The trade balance for February outperform expectations, coming in at 3.138 billion. However, the KOF leading indicator underperformed expectations. EUR/CHF has rallied by roughly 1% this past week. Overall, we expect that this cross will continue to appreciate given that inflation in Switzerland is still very weak. Therefore the SNB will intervene in the currency markets to keep the franc from appreciating. Report Links: The SNB Doesn't Want Switzerland To Become Japan - March 23, 2018 Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway has been mixed: The credit indicator underperformed expectations, coming in at 6.1%. Moreover, registered unemployment also surprised negatively, coming in at 2.5%. However it stay flat from last month's reading. USD/NOK has rallied by nearly 2.5% in the past couple days, as the dollar has regained vigor and oil prices have been toppy. Overall, we expect that the Norwegian krone will be one of the best performing commodity currency, as OPEC cuts will help oil outperform other commodities. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 Yen: QQE Is Dead! Long Live YCC! - January 12, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Lackluster data continued to come out of Sweden: Consumer confidence dropped to 101.5, underperforming the expected 105; Producer prices contracted 0.5% on a monthly basis, but grew 2.8% on an annual basis; The monthly trade deficit contracted by SEK 3.4 bn; Retail sales disappointed, coming in at 1.5%, less than the expected 1.7%. EUR/SEK has continued to climb on this news flow. It is likely that the SEK received a hit due to Riksbank Deputy Governor Cecilia Skingsley's comments that if the krona appreciates too much, it would jeopardize their inflation outlook. However, she also brought up Sweden's higher inflation relative to the euro area, which means it is "natural" that the Riksbank eventually can start raising rates "a little bit before" the ECB. This will prove to be bullish for the krona this year. Another factor weighing on the SEK today is the rising acrimony in global trade, a risk to which Sweden is very exposed. Report Links: Who Hikes Again? - February 9, 2018 10 Charts To Digest With The Holiday Trimmings - December 22, 2017 Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert 2: More On EM Carry Trades And Global Growth - December 15, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights The 2018 outlook for both economic growth and corporate profits remains constructive for risk assets, although evidence is gathering that global growth is peaking. Some measures of global activity related to capital spending have softened in recent months. Nonetheless, the G3 aggregate for capital goods orders remains in an uptrend, suggesting that it is too soon to call an end in the mini capital spending boom. Our global leading indicators are not heralding any major economic slowdown. The dip in early 2018 in the Global ZEW index likely reflected uncertainty over protectionist trade action. Economic growth in the major countries outside of the U.S. may have peaked, but will remain robust at least through this year. The potential for a trade war is a key risk facing investors. Sino-American tensions are likely to intensify over the long term as the two nations spar over geopolitical and military supremacy. That said, there are hopeful signs that the latest trade skirmish will not degenerate into a full-blown trade war and thereby cause lasting damage to risk assets. Stay overweight equities and corporate bonds. President Trump will announce on May 19 whether he will terminate the nuclear agreement with Iran. Cancelation could be a game-changer for Iranian internal politics, and the return of hardliners would signal greater instability in the region. Stay long oil and related investments. The profit picture remains bright as global margins continue to make new cyclical highs and earnings revisions are elevated. EPS growth is peaking in Europe and Japan, but has a bit more upside in the U.S. later this year. Cross-country equity allocation is a tough call, but relative monetary policy, our positive view for the dollar, the potential for earnings surprises and better value bias us toward European stocks relative to the U.S. in local currency terms. Rising U.S. corporate leverage is not an issue now, but could intensify the next downturn as ratings are slashed, defaults rise and banks tighten lending standards. The bond bear market remains intact, although the consolidation phase has further to run. By Q1 2019, the Fed could find itself with inflation close to target, above-trend growth driven by a strong fiscal tailwind, and an unemployment rate that is a full percentage point below NAIRU. Policymakers will then try to nudge up the unemployment rate, but the odds of avoiding a recession are very low. Feature Investors are right to be concerned following the March 23 U.S. announcement of tariffs on about $50 billion of Chinese imports. The President is low in the polls and needs a victory of some sort heading into midterm elections. Getting tough on trade plays well with voters, and the President faces few constraints from Congress on this issue. Trump wants a raft of items from China, including opening up to foreign investment and a crackdown on intellectual theft. Sino-American tensions are likely to intensify over the long term as the two nations spar over geopolitical and military supremacy.1 That said, we do not expect the latest trade skirmish to degenerate into a full-blown trade war. First, China has already signaled it wants to avoid significant escalation. Beijing has offered several concessions, and its threat of retaliatory trade action has been measured so far. On the U.S. side, the fact that the Administration has decided to bring its case against China to the World Trade Organization (WTO) shows that the Americans are willing to proceed through the normal trade-dispute channels. The bottom line is that, while we cannot rule out escalating trade action that causes meaningful damage to the equity market, it is more likely that the current round of tensions will be limited to brief flare-ups. Investors should monitor the extent of European involvement. If Europe joins the U.S. effort to force China to change its trade practices via the WTO, then China will have little choice but to give in without a major fight. In terms of other geopolitical risks, North Korea should move to the back burner for a while now that the regime has agreed to negotiations. Of greater near-term significance is May 19, when Trump will announce whether he will terminate the nuclear agreement with Iran. Cancelation could be a game-changer for Iranian internal politics, and the return of hardliners would signal greater instability in the region. Oil prices would benefit if the May deadline for issuing waivers on Iran sanctions passes. Trade penalties against Iran would reduce its oil production and exports. The U.S. is also considering sanctions on Venezuela's oil industry. Moreover, Russia and Saudi Arabia are reportedly considering a deal to greatly extend their alliance to curb oil supply. While there are downside risks as well, our base case outlook sees the price of Brent reaching US$74 before year end. Global Growth: Some Mixed Signs Also facing investors this year is the risk that the recent softening in the economic data morphs into a serious growth scare. The 2018 outlook for both the economy and corporate profits remains constructive in our view, but evidence is gathering that global growth is peaking. Investors may begin to question recent upward revisions to the growth outlook for this year and next. Industrial production has softened and the manufacturing PMI has shifted lower in most of the advanced economies (Chart I-1). Bad weather in North America and Europe in early 2018 may be partly to blame, but Korean exports, a leading indicator for the global business cycle, have also softened. The Chinese economy is decelerating and we believe the growth risks are underappreciated. President Xi has cemented his power base and there has been a shift toward accelerated reform. Chinese leaders recognize that leverage in the system is a problem, and the regime is tightening policy on a multi-pronged basis. Structural reforms are positive for long-term growth, but are negative in the short term. The tightening in financial conditions is already evident in the Chinese PMI and the sharp deceleration in the Li Keqiang index (although the latest reading shows an uptick; not shown). A hard landing is not our base case, but the risks are to the downside because the authorities will err on the side of tight policy and low growth. It is also disconcerting that some of our measures of global activity related to capital spending have softened in recent months, including capital goods imports and industrial production of capital goods (Chart I-2). Nonetheless, the fact that the G3 aggregate for capital goods orders remains in an uptrend suggests that it is too soon to call an end in the mini capital spending boom. Consumer and business confidence continues to firm in the major economies. Chart I-1Some Signs Of A Peak In Global Growth Chart I-2A Soft Spot For Capital Spending Our global leading indicators are not heralding any major economic slowdown (Chart I-3). BCA's Global LEI remains in an uptrend and its diffusion index is above the 50 line. In contrast, the global measure of the ZEW investor sentiment index plunged in March. We attribute the decline to the announcement of steel and aluminum tariffs and the subsequent market swoon, suggesting that the ZEW pullback will prove to be temporary. Turning to the U.S., retail sales disappointed in January and February, especially considering that taxpayers just received a sizable tax cut. Nonetheless, this probably reflects lagged effects and weather distortions. Our U.S. consumer spending indicator continues to strengthen as all of the components remain constructive outside of auto sales. Household balance sheets are the best that they have been since 2007; net worth is soaring and the aggregate debt-to-income ratio is close to the lowest level since the turn of the century (Chart I-4). Given robust employment growth and the tightest labor market in decades, there is little to hold U.S. consumer spending back. We expect that the tax cut effect on retail sales will be revealed in the coming months, helping to sustain the healthy backdrop for corporate profits. Chart I-3Global Leading Indicators Mostly Positive Chart I-4U.S. Consumers In Good Shape Global Margins Still Rising The profit picture remains bright as global margins continue to make new cyclical highs and earnings revisions are elevated (Chart I-5). Earnings-per-share surged in the early months of the year in both the U.S. and Japan, although they languished in the Eurozone according to IBES data (local currencies; not shown). Relative equity returns in local currency tend to follow relative shifts in 12-month forward EPS expectations over long periods, and bottom-up analysts have lifted their U.S. earnings figures in light of the fiscal stimulus (Chart I-6). Chart I-5Global Margins Still Rising Chart I-6EPS And Relative Equity Returns The key question is: can the U.S. market outperform again in 2018 now that the tax cuts have largely been priced in? One can make a compelling case either way. Growth: Global growth will remain robust for at least the next year, and the Eurozone and Japanese markets are more geared to global growth than is the U.S. However, the impressive fiscal stimulus in the pipeline means that economic growth momentum is likely to swing back toward the U.S. this year. GDP growth in Europe and Japan will remain above-trend, but it has probably peaked for the cycle in both economies. Valuation: Our composite measure of valuation suggests that Europe and Japan are on the cheap side relative to the U.S. based on our aggregate valuation indicator, which takes into consideration a wide variety of yardsticks (Chart I-7). That said, one of the reasons why European stocks are on the cheap side at the moment is that export-oriented German exporters are quite exposed to rising international tariffs. Earnings: Previous currency shifts will add to EPS growth in the U.S. in the first half of the year, but will be a drag in Europe and Japan (Chart I-8). However, these effects will wane through the year unless the dollar keeps falling. Indeed, we expect the dollar to firm modestly over the next year, favoring the European equity market at the margin. In contrast, we expect the yen to strengthen in the near term, which will trim Japanese EPS growth. Chart I-7Valuation Ranking Of Nonfinancial ##br##Equity Markets Relative To The U.S. Chart I-8Impact Of Currency Shifts On EPS Growth Chart I-9 updates the forecast from our top-down earnings models. The incorporation of the fiscal stimulus lifted the U.S. EPS growth profile relative to our previous forecast. EPS growth is expected to peak at over 20% later this year (4-quarter moving total basis using S&P 500 data). Growth is expected to decelerate thereafter since we have factored in a modest margin squeeze as U.S. wage growth picks up. Narrowing margins are less of a risk in Europe. U.S. EPS growth should be above that of Europe in 2018, but will then fall to about the same pace in 2019. We expect Japanese profit growth to remain very strong this year and next, given Japan's highly pro-cyclical earnings sensitivity. However, this does not incorporate the risk of further yen strength. Earnings expectations will also matter. Twelve-month bottom-up expectations are higher than our U.S. forecast ('x' in Chart I-9 denotes 12-month forward EPS expectations). In contrast, expectations are roughly in line with our forecast for the European market. It will therefore be more difficult at the margin for U.S. earnings to surprise to the upside. Monetary Policy: The relative shift in monetary policies should favor the European and Japanese markets to the U.S. The FOMC will continue tightening, with risks still to the upside on rates in absolute terms and relative to the other two economies. Sector Performance: Sector skews should work in Europe's favor. Financials are the largest overweight in Euro area bourses, while technology is the largest overweight in the U.S. We are constructive on the financial sector in both markets, but out-performance of the sector will favor the Eurozone broad market. Meanwhile, tech companies are particularly sensitive to changes in discount rates, since they often trade on the assumption that most of their earnings will be realized far into the future. As such, higher long-term real bond yields will adversely affect U.S. tech names, especially in an environment where the dollar is strengthening. The Japanese market has a relatively high weighting in industrials and consumer discretionary. The market will benefit if the global mini capex boom continues, but this could be counteracted by softness in global auto sales and further yen strength. It is a tough call, but relative monetary policy, our positive view for the dollar, the potential for earnings surprises and better value bias us toward European stocks relative to the U.S. in local currency terms. We continue to avoid the Japanese market for the near term because of the potential for additional yen gains. As for the equity sector call, investors should remain oriented toward cyclicals versus defensives. Our key themes of a synchronized global capex mini boom, rising bond yields and firm oil prices favor the industrials, energy and financial sectors. Chart I-10 highlights four indicators that support the cyclicals over defensives theme, the dollar and the business sales-to-inventories ratio. Telecom, consumer discretionary and homebuilders are underweight. Chart I-9Profit Forecast Chart I-10These Indicators Favor Cyclical Stocks We will be watching the indicators in Chart I-10 to time the shift to a more defensive equity sector allocation. Leverage And The Next Recession As the economic expansion enters the late stages, investors are focused on where leverage pressure points may lurk. Last month's Special Report on U.S. corporate vulnerability to higher interest rates and a recession raised some eyebrows. For our sample of 770 companies, we estimated how much interest coverage for the average company would decline under two scenarios: (1) interest rates rise by 100 basis points across the curve; and (2) interest rates rise by 100 basis points and there is a recession in which corporate profits fall by 25% peak to trough. Given all the client inquiries, we decided to delve deeper into the results. We were concerned that our sample of high-yield companies distorted the overall results because it includes many small firms and outliers. We are more comfortable with the results using only the investment-grade firms, shown in Chart I-11. The 'x' marks the interest rate shock and the 'o' marks the combined shock. Nonetheless, the main qualitative message is unchanged. The starting point for interest coverage is low, considering that interest rates are near the lowest levels on record and profits are extremely high relative to GDP. This is the result of an extended period of corporate releveraging on the back of low borrowing rates. Chart I-12 shows that the interest coverage ratio has declined even as profit margins have remained elevated. Normally the two move together through the cycle. Chart I-11Corporate Leverage Will Take A Toll Chart I-12The Consequences Of Rising Leverage The implication is that the next recession will see interest coverage fare worse than in previous recessions. Of course, there are many other financial ratios and statistics that the rating agencies employ, but our results suggest that downgrades will proliferate when the agencies realize that the economy is turning south. Moreover, banks may tighten C&I lending standards earlier and more aggressively because they will also be finely attuned to the first hint of economic trouble given the leverage of the companies in their portfolio. Recovery rates may be particularly low in the next recession because the equity cushion has been squeezed via buybacks, which will intensify widening pressure in corporate spreads. Tighter lending standards would generate more corporate defaults, even wider spreads and a greater overall tightening in financial conditions. Corporate leverage could therefore intensify the pullback in business spending in the next recession. The good news is that we do not see any other major macro-economic imbalances, such as areas of overspending, that could turn a mild recession into a nasty one. As long as growth remains solid, the market and rating agencies will ignore the leverage issue. Indeed, ratings migration has improved markedly following the energy related downgrades in 2014 and 2015. An improving rating migration ratio is usually associated with corporate bond outperformance relative to Treasurys (Chart I-13). We remain overweight U.S. investment-grade and high-yield bonds within fixed-income portfolios for now. The European corporate sector is further behind in the leverage cycle (Chart I-14). Europe does not appear to be nearly as vulnerable to rising interest rates. Nonetheless, our European Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) has deteriorated over the past couple of years due to some erosion in profit margins, debt coverage and the return on capital. Meanwhile, the U.S. CHM has improved in recent quarters because the favorable earnings backdrop has temporarily overwhelmed rising leverage (top panel of Chart I-14). For the short-term, at least, corporate health is moving in favor of the U.S. at the margin. Chart I-13Ratings Migration Is Constructive For Now Chart I-14Corporate Health Trend Favors U.S. The implication is that, while we see trouble ahead for the U.S. corporate sector in the next economic downturn, in the short term we now favor the U.S. over Europe in the credit space. We are watching our Equity Scorecard, bank lending standards, the yield curve and our profit margin proxy in order to time our exit from both corporate bonds and equities (see last month's Overview section). We are also watching for a rise in the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate above 2.3% as a signal that the FOMC will get more aggressive in leaning against above-trend growth and a falling unemployment rate. Powell Doesn't Rock The Boat The Fed took a measured approach when reacting to the fiscal stimulus that is in the pipeline. The FOMC lifted rates in March and marginally raised the 'dot plot' for 2019 and 2020. Policymakers shaved the projection for unemployment to 3.6% by the end of 2019. This still appears too pessimistic, unless one assumes that the labor force participation rate will rise sharply. Table I-1 provides estimates for when the unemployment rate will reach 3½% based on different average monthly payrolls and participation rates. Our base case scenario, with 200k payrolls per month and a flat participation rate, sees the unemployment rate reaching 3½% by March 2019. Table I-1Dates When 3.5% Unemployment Rate Threshold Is Reached The soft-ish February reports for consumer prices and average hourly earnings took some of the heat off the FOMC. Core CPI, for example, rose 'only' 0.2% from the month before. Still, when viewed on a 3-month rate-of-change basis, underlying inflation remains perky; the core CPI inflation rate increased from 2.8% in January to 3% in February (Chart I-15). Inflation in core services excluding medical care and shelter, as well as in core goods, have also surged on a 3-month basis. We expect the latter to continue to pressure overall inflation higher, following the upward trend in import prices. The recent downtrend in shelter inflation should also stabilize due to the falling rental vacancy rate. Chart I-15U.S. Inflation Is Perky Moreover, the NFIB survey of U.S. small businesses shows that the gap between the difficulties of finding qualified labor versus demand problems is close to record highs. The ISM manufacturing survey shows that companies are paying more for their inputs and experiencing delays with suppliers. This describes a late-cycle environment marked with rising inflationary pressures. We expect that core inflation will grind up to the 2% target by early next year. By the first quarter of 2019, the Fed could find itself with inflation close to target, above-trend growth driven by a strong fiscal tailwind, and an unemployment rate that is a full percentage point below its estimate of the non-inflationary limit. Policymakers will then attempt a 'soft landing' in which they tighten policy enough to nudge up the unemployment rate. Unfortunately, the Fed has never been able to generate a soft landing. Once unemployment starts to rise, the next recession soon follows. Our base case is that the next recession begins in 2020. Bond Bear In Hibernation For Now The bond market showed that it can still intimidate in February, but things have since calmed down as the U.S. mini inflation scare ebbed, some economic data disappointed and trade friction created additional macro uncertainty. Bearish sentiment and oversold technical conditions suggest that the consolidation period has longer to run. Nonetheless, unless inflation begins to trend lower, the fact that even the doves on the FOMC believe that the headwinds to growth have moderated places a floor under bond yields. Fair value for the 10-year Treasury is 2.90% based on our short-term model, but we expect it to reach the 3.3-3.5% range before the cycle is over. Both real yields and long-term inflation expectations have room to move higher. Private investors will also have to absorb US$680 billion worth of bonds this year from governments in the U.S., Eurozone, Japan and U.K., the first positive net flow since 2014 (see last month's Overview). Yields may have to fatten a little in order for the private sector to make room in their portfolios for that extra government supply. In the Eurozone, the net supply of government bonds available to the private sector will still be negative this year, even if the ECB tapers to zero in September as we expect. Some investors are concerned about a replay in the European bond markets of the Fed's 'taper tantrum' of 2013, when then-Chair Bernanke surprised markets with a tapering announcement. The ECB has learned from that mistake and has given several speeches recently highlighting that policymakers will be making full use of forward guidance to avoid "...premature expectations of a first rate rise."2 We think they will be successful in avoiding a similar tantrum, but the flow effect of waning bond purchases will still place some upward pressure on the term premium in Eurozone bonds (Chart I-16).3 Chart I-16ECB: End Of QE Will Pressure Term Premium The bottom line is that monetary policy will undermine global bond prices in both the U.S. and Eurozone, but we expect U.S. yields to lead the way higher this year. Japanese bond prices will be constrained by the 10-year yield target. Investors with a horizon of 6-12 months should remain overweight JGBs, at benchmark in Eurozone government bonds and underweight Treasurys within hedged global bond portfolios. We recommend hedging the currency risk because we continue to expect the dollar to rebound this year. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 18, discusses the cyclical factors that will support the dollar: interest rate differentials, a rebound in U.S. productivity growth and a shift in international growth momentum back in favor of the U.S. In terms of the longer-term view, the Special Report makes the case that the U.S. dollar's multi-decade downtrend will persist. This does not mean, however, that long-term investors will make any money by underweighting the greenback. The 30-year U.S./bund yield spread of 190 basis points means that the €/USD would have to rise to more than 2.2 to offset the yield disadvantage of being overweight the euro versus the dollar over the next 30-years. Indeed, once it appears that the U.S. yield curve has discounted the full extent of the Fed tightening cycle (perhaps 12 months from now), it will make sense for long-term investors to go long U.S. Treasurys versus bunds on an unhedged basis. Conclusion Recent data releases suggest that global growth is peaking, especially in the manufacturing sector. Nonetheless, we do not believe that this heralds a slowdown in growth meaningful enough to negatively impact the profit outlook in the major countries. Indeed, the major fiscal tailwind in the U.S. will lift growth and extend the runway for earnings to expand at least through 2019. That said, fiscal stimulus at this stage of the U.S. business cycle will serve to accentuate a boom/bust cycle, where stronger growth in 2018/19 gives way to higher inflation a hard landing in 2020. The Fed is willing to sit back and watch the impact of fiscal stimulus unfold in the near term. But by early 2019, the Fed will find itself behind the curve with rising inflation and an overheating economy. The monetary policy risk for financial markets will then surge, setting up for a classic end to this expansion. The consequences of years of corporate releveraging will come home to roost. This year, trade skirmishes will be a headwind for risk assets and will no doubt generate further bouts of volatility. Nonetheless, recent signals from both the U.S. and China suggest that the situation will not degenerate into a trade war. The bottom line is that, while the economic expansion and equity bull market are both in late innings, investors should stay overweight risk assets and short duration for now. Stay overweight cyclical stocks versus defensives, overweight corporate bonds versus governments, overweight oil-related plays, and modestly long the U.S. dollar against most currencies except the yen. Our checklist of items to time the exit from risk is not yet flashing red. We would change our mind if our checklist goes south, our forward-looking indicators turn sharply lower or U.S. inflation suddenly picks up. We are also watching closely the situation in Iran, the U.S./China trade spat and NAFTA negotiations. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst March 29, 2018 Next Report: April 26, 2018 1 For more information on why we believe that Sino-American conflict will be a defining feature of the 21st century, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated March 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 ECB President Mario Draghi. Speech can be found at http://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2018/html/ecb.sp180314_1.en.html 3 For more information, please see BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report "Bond Markets Are Suffering Withdrawal Symptoms," dated March 20, 2018, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com II. U.S. Twin Deficits: Is The Dollar Doomed? In this Special Report, we review the theory behind exchange rate determination and examine the cyclical and structural forces that will drive the dollar. The long-term structural downtrend in the dollar is intact. This trend reflects both a slower underlying pace of U.S. productivity growth relative to the rest of the world and a persistent external deficit. The U.S. shortfall on its net international investment position, now at about 40% of GDP, is likely to continue growing in the coming decades. Fiscal stimulus means that the U.S. twin deficits are set to worsen, but the situation is not that dire that the U.S. dollar is about to fall off a cliff because of sudden concerns regarding sustainability. The U.S. is not close to the point where investors will begin to seriously question America's ability to service its debt. The U.S. will continue to enjoy a net surplus on its international investments except under a worst-case scenario for relative returns. From an economic perspective, we see little reason why the U.S. will not be able to easily continue financing its domestic saving shortfall in the coming years. There are some parallels today with the Nixon era, but we do not expect the same outcome for the dollar. The Fed is unlikely to make the same mistake as it made in the late 1960s/early 1970s. There are risks of course. Growing international political tensions and a trade war could threaten the U.S. dollar's status as the world's premier reserve currency. We will explore the geopolitical angle in next month's Special Report. While the underlying trend in the dollar is down, cyclical factors are likely to see it appreciate on a 6-12 month investment horizon. Growth momentum, which moved in favor of the major non-U.S. currencies in 2017, should shift in the greenback's favor this year. U.S. fiscal stimulus is bullish the dollar, despite the fact that this will worsen the current account balance. Additional protectionist measures should also support the dollar as long as retaliation is muted. The U.S. dollar just can't seem to get any respect even in the face of a major fiscal expansion that is sure to support U.S. growth. Nonetheless, there are a lot of moving parts to consider besides fiscal stimulus: a tightening Fed, accumulating government debt, geopolitical tension and growing trade protectionism among others. The interplay of all these various forces can easily create confusion about the currency outlook. Textbook economic models show that the currency should appreciate in the face of stimulative fiscal policy and rising tariffs, at least in the short term, not least because U.S. interest rates should rise relative to other countries. However, one could also equate protectionism and a larger fiscally-driven external deficit with a weaker dollar. Which forces will dominate? In this Special Report, we sort out the moving parts. We review the theory behind exchange rate determination and examine the cyclical and structural forces that will drive the dollar in the short- and long-term. Tariffs And The Dollar Let's start with import tariffs. In theory, higher tariffs should be positive for the currency as long as there is no retaliation. The amount spent on imports will fall as consumer spending is re-directed toward domestically-produced goods and services. A lower import bill means the country does not need to export as much to finance its imports, leading to dollar appreciation (partially offsetting the competitive advantage that the tariff provides). Tariffs also boost inflation temporarily, which means that higher U.S. real interest rates should also lift the dollar to the extent that the Fed responds with tighter policy. That said, the tariffs recently announced by the Trump Administration are small potatoes in the grand scheme. The U.S. imported $39 billion of iron and steel in 2017, and $18 billion of aluminum. That's only 2% of total imports and less than 0.3% of GDP. If import prices went up by the full amount of the tariff, this would add less than five basis points to inflation. The positive impact on U.S. growth is also modest as the tariffs benefit only two industries, and higher domestic prices for steel and aluminum undermine U.S. consumers of these two metals. A unilateral tariff increase could be mildly growth-positive if there is no retaliation by trading partners. This was the result of a Bank of Canada study, which found that much of the growth benefits from a higher import tariff are offset by an appreciation of the currency.1 Even a short-term growth boost is not guaranteed. A detailed analysis of the 2002 Bush steel tariff increase found that the import tax killed many more jobs than it created.2 Shortages forced some U.S. steel-consuming firms to source the metal offshore, while others made their steel suppliers absorb the higher costs, leading to job losses. A recent IMF3 study employed a large macro-economic model to simulate the impact of a 10% across-the-board U.S. import tariff without any retaliation. It found that tariffs place upward pressure on domestic interest rates, especially if the economy is already at full employment (Chart II-1). This is because the central bank endeavors to counter the inflationary impact with higher interest rates. However, a stronger currency and higher interest rates eventually cool the economy and the Fed is later forced to ease policy. This puts the whole process into reverse as interest rate differentials fall and the dollar weakens. Chart II-1At Full Employment, Import Tariffs Raise Rates The economic outcome would be much worse if U.S. trading partners were to retaliate and the situation degenerates into a full-fledged trade war involving a growing number of industries. In theory, the dollar would not rise as much if there is retaliation because foreign tariffs on U.S. exports are offsetting in terms of relative prices. But all countries lose in this scenario. China is considering only a small retaliation for the steel and aluminum tariffs as we go to press, but the trade dispute has the potential to really heat up, as we discuss in the Overview section. The bottom line is that the Trump tariffs are more likely to lead to a stronger dollar than a weaker one, although far more would have to be done to see any meaningful impact. Fiscal Stimulus And The Dollar Traditional economic theory suggests that fiscal stimulus is also positive for the currency in the short term. The boost in aggregate demand worsens the current account balance, since some of the extra government spending is satisfied by foreign producers. The U.S. dollar appreciates as interest rates increase relative to the other major countries, attracting capital inflows. The currency appreciation thus facilitates the necessary adjustment (deterioration) in the current account balance. The impact on interest rates is similar to the tariff shock shown in Chart II-1. All of the above market and economic adjustments should be accentuated when the economy is already at full employment. Since the domestic economy is short of spare capacity, a vast majority of the extra spending related to fiscal stimulus must be imported. Moreover, the Fed would have to respond even more aggressively to the extent that inflationary pressures are greater when the economy is running hot. The result would be even more upward pressure on the U.S. dollar. Reality has not supported the theory so far. The U.S. dollar weakened after the tax cuts were passed, and it did not even get a lift following the Senate spending plan that was released in February. The broad trade-weighted dollar has traded roughly sideways since mid-2017. Judging by the market reaction to the fiscal news, it appears that investors are worried about a potential replay of the so-called Nixon shock, when fiscal stimulus exacerbated the 'twin deficits' problem, investors lost confidence in policymakers and the dollar fell. Twin deficits refers to a period when the federal budget deficit and the current account deficit are deteriorating at the same time. Chart II-2 highlights that the late 1960s/early 1970s was the last time that the federal government stimulated the economy at a time when the economy was already at full employment. Seeing the parallels today, some investors are concerned the dollar will decline as it did in the early 1970s. Chart II-2A Replay Of The Nixon Years? Current Account And Budget Balances Often Diverge... The two deficits don't always shift in the same direction. In fact, Chart II-3 highlights that they usually move in opposite directions through the business cycle. This is not surprising because the current account usually improves in a recession as imports contract more than exports, but the budget deficit rises as tax revenues wither. The process reverses when the economy recovers. Chart II-3Twin Deficits And The Dollar The current account balance equals the government financial balance (i.e. budget deficit) plus the private sector financial balance (savings less investment spending). Thus, swings in the latter mean that the current account can move independently of the budget deficit. Even when the two deficits move in the same direction, there has been no clear historical relationship between the sum of the fiscal and current account balances and the value of the trade-weighted dollar (shaded periods in Chart II-3). In the early 1980s, the twin deficits exploded on the back of the Reagan tax cuts and the military buildup, but the dollar strengthened. In contrast, the dollar weakened in the early 2000s, a period when the twin deficits rose in response to the Bush tax cuts, the Iraq War, and a booming housing market. ...But Generally Fiscal Expansion Undermines The Current Account Over long periods, a sustained rise in the fiscal deficit is generally associated with a sustained deterioration in the external balance. Numerous academic studies have found that every 1 percentage-point rise in the budget deficit worsens the current account balance by an average of 0.2-0.3 percentage points over the medium term. One study found that the current account deteriorates by an extra 0.2 percentage points if the fiscal stimulus arrives at a time when the economy is at full employment (i.e. an additional 0.2 percentage points over-and-above the 0.2-0.3 average response, for a total of 0.4 to 0.5).4 Given that the U.S. economy is at full employment today, these estimates imply that the expected two percentage point rise in the budget deficit relative to the baseline over 2018 and 2019 could add almost a full percentage point to the U.S. current account deficit (from around 3% of GDP currently to 4%). It could be even worse over the next couple of years because the private sector is likely to augment the government sector's drain on national savings. The mini capital spending boom currently underway will lift imports and thereby contribute to a further widening in the U.S. external deficit position. Nonetheless, theory supports the view that the dollar will rise in the face of fiscal stimulus, at least in the near term, even if this is accompanied by a rising external deficit. Theory gets fuzzier in terms of the long-term outlook for the currency. However, the traditional approach to the balance of payments suggests that the equilibrium value of the dollar will eventually fall. An ongoing current account deficit will accumulate into a rising stock of foreign-owned debt that must be serviced. The Net International Investment Position (NIIP) is the difference between the stock of foreign assets held by U.S. residents and the stock of U.S. assets held by foreign investors. The NIIP has fallen increasingly into the red over the past few decades, reaching 40% of GDP today (Chart II-4). The dollar will eventually have to depreciate in order to generate a trade surplus large enough to allow the U.S. to cover the extra interest payments on its growing stock of foreign debt. Chart II-4Structural Drivers Of the U.S. Dollar The structural depreciation of the U.S. dollar observed since the early 1980s supports the theory, because it has trended lower along with the NIIP/GDP ratio. However, the downtrend probably also reflects other structural factors. For example, U.S. output-per-employee has persistently fallen relative to its major trading partners for decades (Chart II-4, third panel). The bottom line is that, while the dollar is likely to remain in a structural downtrend, it should receive at least a short-term boost from the combination of fiscal stimulus and higher tariffs. What could cause the dollar to buck the theory and depreciate even in the near term? We see three main scenarios in which the dollar could fall on a 12-month investment horizon. (1) Strong Growth Outside The U.S. First, growth momentum favored Europe, Japan and some of the other major countries relative to the U.S. in 2017. This helps to explain dollar weakness last year because the currency tends to underperform when growth surprises favor other countries in relative terms. It is possible that momentum will remain a headwind for the dollar this year. Nonetheless, this is not our base case. European and Japanese growth appears to be peaking, while fiscal stimulus should give the U.S. economy a strong boost this year and next (see the Overview section). (2) A Lagging Fed The Fed will play a major role in the dollar's near-term trend. The Fed could fail to tighten in the face of accelerating growth and falling unemployment, allowing inflation and inflation expectations to ratchet higher. If investors come to believe that the Fed will remain behind-the-curve, rising long-term inflation expectations would depress real interest rates and thereby knock the dollar down. This was part of the story in the Nixon years. Under pressure from the Administration, then-Fed Chair Arthur Burns failed to respond to rising inflation, contributing to a major dollar depreciation from 1968 to 1974. We see this risk as a very low-probability event. Today's Fed acts much more independently of Congress beyond its dual commitment on inflation and unemployment. And, given that the economy is at full employment, there is nothing stopping the FOMC from acting to preserve its 2% inflation target if it appears threatened. Chair Powell is new and untested, but we doubt he and the rest of the Committee will be influenced by any political pressure to keep rates unduly low as inflation rises. Even Governor Brainard, a well-known dove, has shifted in a hawkish direction recently. President Trump would have to replace the entire FOMC in order to keep interest rates from rising. We doubt he will try. (3) Long-Run Sustainability Concerns It might be the case that the deteriorating outlook for the NIIP undermines the perceived long-run equilibrium value of the currency so much that it overwhelms the impact of rising U.S. interest rates and causes the dollar to weaken even in the near term. This scenario would likely require a complete breakdown in confidence in current and future Administrations to avoid a runaway government debt situation. Historically, countries with large and growing NIIP shortfalls tend to have weakening currencies. The sustainability of the U.S. twin deficits has been an area of intense debate among academics and market practitioners for many years. One could argue that the external deficit represents the U.S. "living beyond its means," because it consumes more than it produces. Another school of thought is that global savings are plentiful, and investors seek markets that are deep, liquid and offer a high expected rate of return. Indeed, China has willingly plowed a large chunk of its excess savings into U.S. assets since 2000. If the U.S. is an attractive place to invest, then we should not be surprised that the country runs a persistent trade deficit and capital account surplus. But even taking the more positive side of this debate, there are limits to how long the current situation can persist. The large stock of financial obligations implies flows of income payments and receipts - interest, dividends and the like - that must be paid out of the economy's current production. This might grow to be large enough to significantly curtail U.S. consumption and investment. At some point, foreign investors may begin to question the desirability of an oversized exposure to U.S. assets within their global portfolios. We are not suggesting that foreign investors will suddenly dump their U.S. stocks and bonds. Rather, they may demand a higher expected rate of return in order to accept a rising allocation to U.S. assets. This would imply that the dollar will fall sharply so that it has room to appreciate and thereby lift the expected rate of return for foreign investors from that point forward. Chart II-5 shows that a 2% current account deficit would be roughly consistent with stabilization in the NIIP/GDP ratio. Any deficit above this level would imply a rapidly deteriorating situation. A 4% deficit would cause the NIIP to deteriorate to almost 80% of GDP by 2040. The fact that the current account averaged 4.6% in the 2000s and 2½% since 2010 confirms that the NIIP is unlikely to stabilize unless major macroeconomic adjustments are made (see below). Chart II-5Scenarios For The U.S. Net International Investment Position Academic research is inconclusive on how large the U.S. NIIP could become before there are serious economic consequences and/or foreign investors begin to revolt. Exorbitant Privilege The U.S. has been able to get away with the twin deficits for so long in part because of the dollar's status as the world's premier reserve currency. The critical role of the dollar in international transactions underpins global demand for the currency. This has allowed the U.S. to issue most of its debt obligations in U.S. dollars, forcing the currency risk onto foreign investors. The U.S. is also able to get away with offering foreign investors a lower return on their investment in the U.S. than U.S. investors receive on their foreign investment. Chart II-6 provides a proxy for these two returns. Relatively safe, but low yielding, fixed-income investments are a large component of foreign investments in the U.S., while U.S. investors favor equities and other assets that have a higher expected rate of return when investing abroad (Chart II-7). This gap increased after the Great Recession as U.S. interest rates fell by more than the return U.S. investors received on their foreign assets. Today's gap, at almost 1½ percentage points, is well above the 1 percentage point average for the two decades leading up to the Great Recession. Chart II-6U.S. Investors Harvest Higher Returns Chart II-7Composition Of Net International ##br##Investment Position A yield gap of 1.5 percentage points may not sound like much, but it has been enough that the U.S. enjoys a positive net inflow of private investment income of about 1.2% of GDP, despite the fact that foreign investors hold far more U.S. assets than the reverse (Chart II-6, top panel). In Chart II-8 we simulate the primary investment balance based on a persistent 3% of GDP current account deficit and under several scenarios for the investment yield gap. Perhaps counterintuitively, the primary investment surplus that the U.S. currently enjoys will actually rise slightly as a percent of GDP if the yield gap remains near 1½ percentage points. This is because, although the NIIP balance becomes more negative over time, U.S. liabilities are not growing fast enough relative to its assets to offset the yield differential. Chart II-8Primary Investment Balance Simulations However, some narrowing in the yield gap is likely as the Fed raises interest rates. Historically, the gap does not narrow one-for-one with Fed rate hikes because the yield on U.S. investments abroad also rises. Assuming that the yield gap returns to the pre-Lehman average of 1 percentage point over the next three years, the primary investment balance would decline, but would remain positive. Only under the assumption that the yield gap falls to 50 basis points or lower would the primary balance turn negative (Chart II-8, bottom panel). Crossing the line from positive to negative territory on investment income is not necessarily a huge red flag for the dollar, but it would signal that foreign debt will begin to impinge on the U.S. standard of living. That said, the yield gap will have to deteriorate significantly for this to happen anytime soon. What Drives The Major Swings In The Dollar? While the dollar has been in a structural bear market for many decades, there have been major fluctuations around the downtrend. Since 1980, there have been three major bull phases and two bear markets (bull phases are shaded in Chart II-9). These major swings can largely be explained by shifts in U.S./foreign differentials for short-term interest rates, real GDP growth and productivity growth. A model using these three variables explains most of the cyclical swings in the dollar, as the dotted line in the top panel of Chart II-9 reveals. Chart II-9U.S. Dollar Cyclical Swings Driven By Three Main Factors The peaks and troughs do not line up perfectly, but periods of dollar appreciation were associated with rising U.S. interest rates relative to other countries, faster relative U.S. real GDP growth, and improving U.S. relative productivity growth. Since the Great Recession, rate differentials have moved significantly in favor of the dollar, although U.S. relative growth improved a little as well. Productivity trends have not been a factor in recent years. Note that the current account has been less useful in identifying the cyclical swings in the dollar. Looking ahead, we expect short-term interest rate differentials to shift further in favor of the U.S. dollar. We assume that the Fed will hike rates three additional times in 2018 and another three next year. The Bank of Japan will stick with its current rate and 10-year target for the foreseeable future. The ECB may begin the next rate hike campaign by mid-2019, but will proceed slowly thereafter. We expect rate differentials to widen by more than is discounted in the market. As discussed above, we also expect growth momentum to swing back in favor of the U.S. economy in 2018. U.S. productivity growth will continue to underperform the rest-of-world average over the medium and long term. Nonetheless, we expect a cyclical upturn in relative productivity performance that should also support the greenback for the next year or two. Conclusion Reducing the U.S. structural external deficit to a sustainable level would require significant macro-economic adjustments that seem unlikely for the foreseeable future. We would need to see some combination of a higher level of the U.S. household saving rate, a balanced Federal budget balance or better, and/or much stronger growth among U.S. trading partners. In other words, the U.S. would have to become a net producer of goods and services, and either Europe or Asia would have to become a net consumer of goods and services. Current trends do not favor such a role reversal. Indeed, the U.S. twin deficits are sure to move in the wrong direction for at least the next two years. Longer-term, pressure on the federal budget deficit will only intensify with the aging of the population. The shortfall in terms of net foreign assets will continue to grow, which means that the long-term structural downtrend in the trade-weighted value of the dollar will persist. Other structural factors, such as international productivity trends, also point to a long-term dollar depreciation. It seems incongruous that the U.S. dollar is the largest reserve currency and that U.S. is the world's largest international debtor. The situation is perhaps perpetuated by the lack of an alternative, but this could change over time as concerns over the long-run viability of the Eurozone ebb and the Chinese renminbi gains in terms of international trade. The transition could take decades. The U.S. twin-deficits situation is not that dire that the U.S. dollar is about to fall off a cliff because of sudden concerns about the unsustainability of the current account deficit. Even though the NIIP/GDP ratio will continue to deteriorate in the coming years, it does not appear that the U.S. is anywhere close to the point where investors would begin to seriously question America's ability to service its debt. The U.S. will continue to enjoy a net surplus on its international investments except under a worst-case scenario for relative returns. From an economic perspective, we see no reason why the U.S. will not be able to easily continue financing its domestic saving shortfall in the coming years. There are other risks of course. Growing international political tensions and a trade war could threaten the U.S. dollar's status as the world's premier reserve currency. We will explore the geopolitical angle in next month's Special Report. In 2018, we expect the dollar to partially unwind last year's weakness on the back of positive cyclical forces. Additional protectionist measures should support the dollar as long as retaliation is muted. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Mathieu Savary Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy 1 A Wave of Protectionism? An Analysis of Economic and Political Considerations. Bank of Canada Working Paper 2008-2. Philipp Maier. 2 The Unintended Consequences of U.S. Steel Import Tariffs: A Quantification of the Impact During 2002. Trade Partnership Worldwide, LLC. Joseph Francois and Laura Baughman. February 4, 2003. 3 See footnote to Chart II-1. 4 Fiscal Policy and the Current Account. Center for Economic Policy Research, Discussion Paper No. 7859 September 16, 2010. III. Indicators And Reference Charts The earnings backdrop remains constructive for the equity market. In the U.S., bottom-up forward earnings estimates and the net earnings revisions ratio have spiked on the back of the tax cuts. Unfortunately, many of the other equity-related indicators in this section have moved in the wrong direction. The monetary indicator is shifting progressively into negative territory as the Fed gradually tightens the monetary screws. Valuation in the U.S. market improved a little over the past month, but our composite Valuation Indicator is still very close to one sigma overvalued. Technically, our Speculation Indicator is still in frothy territory, but our Composite Sentiment Indicator has pulled back significantly toward the neutral line. Our Technical Indicator broke below the 9-month moving average in March (i.e. a 'sell' signal). These are worrying signs. Nonetheless, at this point we believe they are a reflection of the more volatile late-cycle period that the market has entered. An equity correction could occur at any time, but a bear market would require a significant and sustained economic downturn that depresses earnings estimates. Our checklist does not warn of such a scenario over the next 12 months. It is also a good sign that our Willingness-to-Pay indicator is still rising, at least for the U.S. The WTP indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. While this suggests that investor flows remain positive for the U.S. equity market, the WTP appears to have rolled over in both Europe and Japan. This goes against our overweight in European stocks versus the U.S. in currency hedged terms (see the Overview section). Our Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) remained on its bullish equity signal in March. The RPI combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. So far, the indicator has not flashed 'red'. Treasurys are hovering on the 'inexpensive' side of fair value, but are not cheap based on our model. Extended technicals suggest that the period of consolidation will persist for a while longer. Value is not a headwind to a continuation in the cyclical bear phase. Little has changed on the U.S. dollar front. It is expensive by some measures, but is on the oversold side technically. We still expect a final upleg this year, before the long-term downtrend resumes. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights The current U.S.-China trade skirmish is essentially the beginning of a new cold war. The U.S. and China are engaged in a struggle for supremacy, so trade conflicts will persist. The conflict could evolve into a "game of chicken" - the most dangerous type of game. The U.S. needs Europe's help against China - but an adventure in Iran could cost it that help. Geopolitical risks will cap the rise in bond yields over the next six months, push up oil, and give a tailwind to global defense stocks. Feature The opening salvo of the U.S.-China trade war has caught the investment community by surprise as the market is quickly repricing the odds of a global trade war.1 Nervousness over the breakdown of globalization comes at the same time as our key China view - that Beijing's structural reforms will constrain growth - are beginning to have an impact on global growth (Chart 1).2 Chart 1China Reforms Dragging On Global Growth Fortuitously, we found ourselves in Asia at the onset of "hostilities" and were thus able to see regional investors' reactions in real time. Our clients focused their questions on the economic impact of the announced tariffs (yet to be determined, in our view), constraints facing President Trump (minimal as well), and potential Chinese retaliation (understated). The focus, however, should be on the big picture. The March 23 U.S. announcement of tariffs on around $50 billion worth of Chinese imports is not just the opening salvo of a trade war. Rather the emerging trade war is the opening salvo of a new cold war, a global superpower competition between the U.S. and China that will define the twenty-first century. Put simply, the U.S. and China are now enemies. Not rivals, competitors, or sparing partners. Enemies. It will take the market some time for investors to internalize this idea and price it properly. Meanwhile, in the short term, fears of a full-born global trade war are overblown. The trade tensions are really only about two countries, with uncertain global implications. Investors are right to be cautious, but risks to global earnings are overstated at this time. How Did We Get Here? The ongoing trade tensions are not merely a product of a nationalist Trump administration that decided to call out China for decades of unfair trade practices. They are also the product of the geopolitical context, which we have defined through three "big picture" themes. These three themes allowed us to correctly forecast that the defining feature of the twenty-first century would be a Sino-American conflict. We would be thrilled to see this culminate merely in a trade war. The themes are: Multipolarity (Chart 2)3 Apex of globalization (Chart 3)4 The breakdown of laissez-faire economics (Chart 4)5 Chart 2Multipolarity Is Messy And Volatile Chart 3When Hegemony Declines, Globalization Declines Chart 2 elucidates a key lesson of history: the collapse of British hegemony at the end of the nineteenth century ushered in two world wars. Political science, game theory, and history teach us that periods of multipolarity are rarely peaceful.6 Today's world is not exactly multipolar, as the U.S. remains the preeminent global power. However, regional powers - such as China, the EU, Russia, India, Japan, Iran, and perhaps Turkey and Brazil - have a lot more room to maneuver within their spheres of influence. This means that global rules written by the U.S. at the conclusion of the Second World War are being rewritten for regional contexts. Normatively there is nothing wrong with this process. But practically, multipolarity means that "challenger powers" - such as China today or the German empire in the late nineteenth century - seek to undermine rules and norms of behavior that they had little or no say in setting up. And such rules are necessary to underpin geopolitical stability and grease the wheels of globalization. As Chart 3 shows, trade globalization peaked in the past when the hegemon could no longer enforce global rules. We have therefore emphasized to clients since 2014 that, if we are right that the world is multipolar, then we are essentially at the apex of globalization. A parallel process has seen the breakdown of the laissez-faire consensus, which underpinned the expansion of trade in goods, labor, and capital across sovereign borders. Economic globalization has lifted many boats around the world, but outsourcing - combined with technological innovation - has seen the lower middle class in developed nations face diminishing returns (Chart 4). Chart 4Globalization: No Friend To Developed-Market Middle Class That said, a revolt against globalization and "globalists" is thus far mainly an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon, and particularly an American one. Why? Because the particularities of the U.S. laissez-faire economic model, with its scant social protections, laid its middle class bare to the vagaries of globalization and technological change (Chart 5). However, there is no guarantee that other DM countries will not succumb to the same pressures down the line. Chart 5The 'Great Gatsby' Curve: Or, How Anglo-Saxons Turned Against Laissez Faire This background is important for investors because merely blaming a nationalist Trump administration or a mercantilist Beijing for today's tensions ignores the underlying context. President Trump can change his mind on a dime, but the geopolitical context can only evolve slowly.7 Mercantilism is here to stay; it is a feature, not a bug, of a multipolar world. Contrast today's tensions with those of the 1970s and 1980s between the U.S. and its major trade partners. The 1971 Smithsonian Agreement and the 1985 Plaza Accord ended overt trade protectionism by the U.S. (in 1971), and threats thereof (in 1985), by securing the compliance of these trade partners with Washington's currency and trade demands. Japan further conceded to U.S. demands in 1989 after a two-year trade war. Today, the U.S. and China are not geopolitical allies huddled under the same nuclear umbrella for protection against an ideologically fueled rival. They are ideological rivals. The reason it took a decade for the conflict to erupt is two-fold. First, the U.S. became entangled in the global war on terror after 9/11, which took its focus off of its emerging competitor in Asia. Second, the consensus view - that China would asymptotically approach a Western democracy as it embraced capitalism - has proven to be folly.8 Bottom Line: The China-U.S. trade conflict is a product of today's particular geopolitical context. At heart, it is a conflict for geopolitical primacy in the twenty-first century and thus unlikely to end quickly. Sino-American Conflict Is Intractable The current U.S.-China trade tensions are more of a skirmish than a war. We think that there is considerable room for a step-down in tensions over the next 12 months. First, the Trump administration has not launched an economic war against China. Not only has the U.S. restricted its list of Chinese goods under tariff consideration to just $50 billion of imports - roughly 12% of total Chinese exports to the U.S. - but it has decided to bring a case against China to the World Trade Organization (WTO). The latter is hardly a move by a mercantilist administration dead-set on across-the-board economic nationalism. Second, China has responded almost immediately by offering several concessions, including renewing pledges to open its economy to inward investment and to protect intellectual property (IP) rights. While these may seem like boilerplate concessions that Beijing has floated before, the current context of trade tensions and domestic structural reforms makes it more likely that Chinese policymakers will follow through on their promises. As such, we can see the current round of tensions tapering off, especially after the U.S. midterm elections. However, we doubt that the structural trajectory of Sino-American relations will be significantly altered even if current tensions subside. First, from China's perspective, its extraordinary economic ascent (Chart 6) is merely the return of the millennium's status quo (Chart 7). The last 180 years - roughly from the beginning of the First Opium War in 1839 to today - were the aberration. During this short period of Chinese weakness, the West - with Britain and then the U.S. at the helm - conspired to restructure global rules and norms of geopolitical and economic behavior without input from the Middle Kingdom. Chart 6China's Economic Rise Has Been Extraordinarily Fast... Chart 7China Sees Its Success As A Return To The Status Quo As such, China's influence in key post-WWII economic institutions like the WTO and the IMF is limited while its military has second-class status even in its own "Caribbean Sea," the South China and East China Seas. From the U.S. perspective, China's growth over the past two decades was made possible by U.S. hegemony. The U.S. secured the global rules and norms that enabled China to integrate seamlessly into the global marketplace and then compete its way to the top. Not only did the U.S. allow China to access its credit-fueled markets, but the U.S. Navy protected China's maritime trade, including vital energy supplies transiting from the Middle East. As a thank you for these efforts, China reneged on its WTO commitments, periodically suppressed its currency, stole American intellectual property, and withheld market access from U.S. corporations via tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade. Washington policymakers, and not only Trump's hawkish advisors, are turning against China. There is an emerging consensus among the U.S. foreign policy, defense, intelligence, and economic policy elites that: Sino-American economic symbiosis is over (Chart 8); Chart 8U.S.-China ##br##Symbiosis Is Dead Chart 9The U.S. Is Least##br## Exposed To Trade Chart 10China's Share Of Global##br## Exports Has Skyrocketed The U.S. can afford to confront China over trade because it is the least exposed major economy to global trade (Chart 9); The Chinese have acquired a massive share of global exports without a commensurate opening of their domestic market (Chart 10); Arresting Chinese technology transfer and intellectual property theft is a national security issue (Chart 11); The U.S. can confront China because it has emerged victorious from every global conflagration in the past (Chart 12). Chart 11China Imports Conspicuously Little U.S. IP Chart 12America Is Chaos-Proof Fundamentally, American policymakers want to see China's rapid economic growth slow, they want to see China's capital markets and companies constrained by openness to global competition, and they want to put a leash on China's catch-up in the technological and manufacturing value chain (Chart 13). This is not their stated objective as it would imply that the U.S. wants to see China weakened, and the Chinese leadership miss its decade and century economic development goals. But this is precisely what the U.S. establishment wants. As such, the political and economic visions of American and Chinese policymakers are directly at odds with one another. What does this mean for investors? Over the past several years we have developed a reputation of being sanguine about geopolitics. While many of our peers in the political analysis industry overstate the probability of geopolitical risk, we have (successfully) bet against the worst-case scenario in several prominent crises.9 We like to think that this is because we combine game theory with an understanding of the underlying power dynamics. By emphasizing constraints, we have successfully identified how power dynamics constrain the worst-case outcome.10 When it comes to Sino-American tensions, however, we have always been alarmists. This is because we believe the constraints to conflict are overstated, not understated. Furthermore, the potential market impact of a new cold war is unclear and potentially very large. Both the U.S. and China fundamentally think they can win a trade war. This means that they are engaged in a "regular game of chicken," named after the 1950s practice of racing hot rods head-on in order to prove one's manhood.11 Game theory teaches us that a game of chicken is the most unpredictable game because it can create an equilibrium in which all rational actors have an incentive to keep driving head on - to stick to their guns - despite the risks. In Diagram 1, we can see that continuing to drive carries the greatest risk, but also the greatest reward, provided that your opponent swerves. Chart 13China's Steady Climb Up##br## The Value Ladder Continues Diagram 1A Regular ##br##Game Of Chicken Since all actors in a game of chicken assume the rationality of their opponents, they also expect them to eventually swerve. In the current context, this means that the U.S. assumes that China is driven by economic rationality and will not dare face off against the U.S., which has far less to lose given its modest exposure to global trade. Chinese policymakers, however, also think they can win. They look over the Pacific and see a country riven by political polarization (Chart 14) where half of the country thinks the other is "a threat to the nation's well-being" (Chart 15).12 China, meanwhile, has just consolidated its political leadership and feels confident enough in its domestic stability to dabble with growth-constraining economic reforms. Beijing can use any trade tensions with the U.S. to further justify painful reforms. Chart 14Inequality Fuels Political Polarization Chart 15Live And Let Die Who is right? We do not know. And that scares us as it means that the most sub-optimal equilibrium - the bottom-right quadrant of Diagram 1 - is more probable than people think. An important difference maker, one that would alter Beijing's risk calculus considerably, is Europe. Despite being highly leveraged to China's growth, the EU still exports nearly double the value of goods to the U.S. than China (Chart 16). In addition, Europe's trade surplus with the U.S. mostly pays for its deficit with China (Chart 17). Chart 16The EU Exports More To U.S. Than China Chart 17EU Surplus With U.S. Pays For Deficit With China Over the next several months, investors will be able to gauge whether the Trump administration is filled with ideological nationalists who believe in Fortress America or wily realists who know how to get things done. The key question is whether Trump will embrace America's traditional transatlantic alliance with Europe and harness it for the trade war with China. If he embraces it, we will predict that the combined forces of U.S. and Europe will successfully force China to concede to the pressure. If Trump fails, however, we could have a prolonged U.S.-China trade war. Early indications are optimistic. The U.S. gave the EU an exemption from tariffs on steel and aluminum imports on March 22, a delay that will end on May 1. This followed a March 21 meeting between EU Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmström and U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross. We suspect, but have no evidence, that the U.S. asked the EU to join in its effort to force China to change its trade practices at the WTO. As an exporting bloc, the EU has a lot more to lose from attacking China than the U.S. But it also has much to lose from unabated Chinese mercantilism and technological theft, and much to gain if China opens its doors wider. As such, we posit that Europe will, in the end, join the U.S. and Japan in a concerted effort to pressure China. This will increase the probability that Beijing ultimately gives in to trade pressure. In the long term, it will also ensure that President Trump does not break the critical transatlantic alliance with Europe, which would be paradigm shifting. But, on the other hand, it will set China and the West on a collision course. China's and the West's suspicions of each other will ossify. Bottom Line: In the short term, trade tensions are likely overstated as U.S. actions against China are largely muted and restrained. In the long term, the U.S.-China trade war could potentially devolve into a "game of chicken," the most dangerous type of conflict. The key variable will be whether the U.S. administration is savvy enough to arrange European collaboration against China. If the U.S. treats the EU harshly and ignores its transatlantic ally on other issues - such as conflict with Iran, discussed below - we could be in for a wild ride in the coming months and years. Either way, Europe stands to gain from a conflict between China and the U.S. Both sides are likely going to try to enlist the EU on their side. As such, we are opening a long Europe industrials / short U.S. industrials trade. Meanwhile, growing trade tensions, policy-induced slowdown in China, and repricing of geopolitical risks in East Asia and the Middle East should cap global bond yields over the next six months. We take 50.4bps and 54.4bps profits on our short U.S. 10-year government bond vs. German bund and short Fed Funds December 2018 futures trades. Iran: The Next Target Of Trump's "Maximum Pressure" Policy President Trump's North Korea policy worked brilliantly in 2017. The policy of "maximum pressure" combined military maneuvers, economic sanctions, and extremely bellicose rhetoric to convince Pyongyang and regional powers that the U.S. has lowered its threshold for full-scale war on the Korean peninsula. China reacted swiftly, starving North Korea of hard currency through economic sanctions (Chart 18). The result was a declaration by Pyongyang in late November that it had finally completed its quest to obtain a nuclear deterrent (an exaggeration at best), an olive branch for the Olympics, and an offer by Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un to meet with President Trump. Chart 18China Gives Kim To Trump The policy of "maximum pressure" yielded such extraordinary results with North Korea that President Trump is now eager to trademark the process and apply it to Iran and potentially other global issues. Ahead of the all-important May 12 deadline - when the White House will decide whether to end the current waiver of economic sanctions against Iran - President Trump has replaced two establishment advisors with hawks. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has been replaced with CIA Director and noted Iran-hawk Mike Pompeo. Meanwhile, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster has been replaced by conservative pundit (and former U.S. Ambassador to the UN) John Bolton. Bolton is on record arguing that the U.S. should bomb Iran. The role of the national security advisor varies with the president. Some presidents rely on the position more than others. However, given this administration's inexperience with foreign policy, the role is critical in shaping the White House worldview. The national security advisor manages the staff of the National Security Council (NSC), whose role is to coordinate with the vast network of U.S. intelligence agencies and filter information to the president. Given how large America's foreign, defense, and intelligence establishment is, and given the nature of human and signals intelligence, U.S. presidents often have to act upon diametrically opposing pieces of intelligence. As such, the national security advisor and the NSC can play a critical role in deciding what intelligence makes it to the president's desk and in what context. Staffers in the National Security Council (NSC) are often apolitical. We have been told that several current experts are leftovers from the Obama administration. It is likely that an ideological pundit like John Bolton, who served briefly in the George W. Bush administration, will set out to quickly eliminate non-partisan staffers on the NSC and tilt the information flow away from the empirical to the conspiratorial. With Bolton and Pompeo effectively in charge of U.S. foreign policy it is possible that the U.S. will misapply "maximum pressure" policy to Iran and bungle the complicated coordination with geopolitical allies on China. In particular, the U.S. has to endear itself to the EU if it wants a global economic alliance against China. But the EU also does not want to renegotiate Iran sanctions. Abrogating the 2015 nuclear deal - the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPA) - would throw the tentative Middle East equilibrium into chaos. While Iran has played a role in preserving the regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, it has largely kept its vast network of Shia militias and allies in check, particularly in Lebanon and Iraq. Ironically, it was the Obama administration's "flawed" JCPA that has allowed Trump to focus on China in the first place. As we argued when the deal was signed, the conservative critics of the deal itself were correct. The JCPA did not degrade Iran's nuclear capability but merely arrested it.13 The point of the deal was implicitly to give Iran a sphere of influence in the Middle East so that the U.S. could extricate itself and focus on China. The Obama administration assessed, in our view non-ideologically, that the U.S. cannot fight two wars at the same time. If the Trump administration decides not to waive sanctions on May 12, it will be in abrogation of the deal. Unlike North Korea, however, Iran has multiple levers it can deploy against the U.S. and its allies' interests in the region. As such, the policy of "maximum pressure" will create much greater risks when applied to Iran. At the very end, it could be as successful as when applied to North Korea, but our conviction view is much lower (and to remind clients, we were optimists about the strategy when applied to North Korea!).14 Furthermore, and again unlike North Korea, Iran is beset with domestic risks. This actually makes it less likely that Tehran will cooperate with the U.S. North Korea is a simple domestic political system where Kim Jong Un can alter policy on a whim without much domestic pushback. In Iran, the dovish and moderate President Hassan Rouhani has to contend for power with hawks who have been critical of the JCPA. Meanwhile, the restive youth population could rise up at the first sign of elite division or weakness. This complicated domestic dynamic is why we cautioned clients back in January that Iran would likely add geopolitical risk premium to the oil markets.15 Bottom Line: It appears that President Trump, motivated by the success of his "maximum pressure" strategy against North Korea, now thinks he can apply it as successfully to Iran. This raises the prospect that Trump will discontinue the waiver of economic sanctions on May 12, effectively re-imposing a slew of economic sanctions against Iran and foreign companies looking to conduct business with it. Geopolitical risks are likely to rise in the Middle East as a result of U.S.-Iran tensions. As we go to publication, Saudi authorities have intercepted another Houthi missile heading towards Riyadh just days after Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman visited Washington, D.C. The White House appears to relish the opportunity to fight a war on two fronts, a trade war with China and a geopolitical war with Iran. Expect volatility and an elevated geopolitical risk premium in oil markets. Stay overweight global defense companies across markets. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Market Reprices Odds Of A Global Trade War," dated March 6, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Politics Are Stimulative, Everywhere But China," dated February 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2013," dated January 16, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, and "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see John Mearsheimer, The Tragedy Of Great Power Politics (New York: Norton, 2001). 7 Would President Hillary Clinton have avoided a trade war with China? We do not think so. Secretary Clinton was considered a "China Hawk" while at the State Department and pushed for the "Pivot to Asia." Jennifer Harris, the lead architect of Clinton's economic statecraft agenda in the U.S. State Department, recently penned a book that called for greater use of economic tools for geopolitical ends. The book, War By Other Means, introduces the term geoeconomics and calls for the U.S. to use economic instruments to promote and defend national interests. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Blog, "We Read (And Liked)... War By Other Means," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 In 2000, while campaigning on behalf of China's WTO entry, President Bill Clinton remarked, "economically, this agreement (China's WTO entry) is the equivalent of a one-way street. It requires China to open its markets ... to both our products and services in unprecedented new ways. All we do is to agree to maintain the present access which China enjoys ..." Please see "Full Text of Clinton's Speech On China Trade Bill," dated March 9, 2009, available at nytimes.com. 9 To name just a few: the risk of an Israeli attack against Iran, the risk of a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, the risk of Euro Area collapse, the risk of Saudi-Iranian war, the risk of Russian-Turkish war, etc. 10 For the best example of how game theory is combined with our constraint-based paradigm, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After Greece," dated July 8, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 See James Dean in Rebel Without A Cause. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "Trump Re-Establishes America's 'Credible Threat,'" dated April 7, 2017, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, and "Insights From The Road - The Rest Of The World," dated September 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Watching Five Risks," dated January 24, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights After the March FOMC Meeting, market pricing for short-term rates is largely consistent with the Fed's forecasts. For investors and the Fed, the health of the economy and earnings matter more than Trump's political woes. However, the U.S. / China trade disputes will now take center stage. How can investors prepare for the trough in Citigroup Economic Surprise Index? Investors remain skeptical that the unemployment rate can fall to 3.5% and wonder what pace of monthly payroll growth would be required to get it there. Feature The S&P 500 fell more than 2% last Thursday after President Trump announced a new round of tariffs aimed at China. Treasury yields drifted modestly lower, and the trade weighted dollar fell 1%. Credit spreads widened. The trade tensions and the softer dollar drove gold up by nearly 3%. Meanwhile, another drawdown in oil inventories drove WTI oil nearly 5% higher. The VIX climbed last week, and has more than doubled since the start of the year. The market largely ignored last week's FOMC meeting. Fed Chair Powell stuck to the script at his first post-meeting press conference, but noted that trade was a topic of discussion. The "...For Inflation" section of this week's report provides more detail on Fed's view of the economy and rates. U.S. risk assets also sold off last week as market participants reacted negatively to Trump's political woes and trade policies. BCA's view is that investors should fade the former and focus on the later. We discuss Trump's political situation, as well as the trade tensions in the second section of this week's report ("...For the Next Tweet"). Nearly all the data in last week's sparse economic calendar exceeded expectations. At 1.8%, the Atlanta Fed GDPNow estimate for Q1 finished the week where it started. An unusual run of harsh winter weather in the Northeastern U.S. in March will keep downward pressure on the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index for the next month or so. We provide more detail on the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index and the performance of risk assets as the index rises and falls in the "...For The Washout" section of this week's report. Moreover, in the final section of the report ("...For The Labor Market"), we discuss how the unemployment rate can get to BCA's target of 3.5% in the next 12 months. ... For Inflation As widely expected, the FOMC last week delivered its sixth rate hike of the cycle and Fed members were more optimistic on the economic outlook. However, U.S. trade policy is a cloud over the outlook. The Fed downgraded its assessment of current economic conditions, but upgraded the outlook. The current pace of economic activity was described as "moderate" and opposed to "solid" in the previous FOMC statement. This reflects some disappointing data releases, which is also apparent in the Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model forecasting just 1.8% growth in Q1. But the Fed does not expect the softness to persist and noted that "the economic outlook has strengthened" (details below in "...For the Washout"). This was reflected in the updated economic projections. GDP growth forecasts were revised to 2.7% and 2.4% for 2018 and 2019, respectively (Chart 1). That's up from 2.5% and 2.1%, and comfortably above the Fed's 1.8% estimate for potential growth. As a consequence, the Fed expects the unemployment rate to drop to 3.6% in 2019, which would be well below the Fed's revised 4.5% estimate of full employment (details below in "...For the Labor Market"). Despite growth being above-trend and the jobless rate falling far below NAIRU, FOMC participants are not forecasting a major acceleration in inflation. From 1.9% in 2018, core PCE inflation is seen fairly steady at 2.1% in 2019 and 2020. To some degree, the upward pressure on inflation will be mitigated by a higher path for the Fed funds rate. Although the median projection remains for three rate hikes this year, the Fed expects slightly faster rate hikes in 2019 and 2020 (Chart 2). The Fed funds rate is now expected to end 2020 at 3.375%, up from 3.125% expected in December. This will put monetary policy on the tighter side of the Fed's 2.875% estimate of the neutral rate. Chart 1The FOMC'S Latest Forecasts Chart 2Market And The Fed In Agreement On Rates Of course, the path of the Fed funds rate will depend on the degree of slack in the economy and the resulting inflationary pressures. The Fed could be underestimating the inflationary pressures associated with a jobless rate that will be nearly 1% below NAIRU. Alternatively, a rising participation rate could slow the decline in the unemployment rate, or the Fed's estimate of NAIRU could get revised much lower. Finally, while the fiscal stimulus is behind the Fed's more optimistic outlook, U.S. trade policy is a growing downside risk (details below in "...For the Next Tweet"). During his press conference, Fed Chair Powell said that FOMC members were aware of the risk, but it was not incorporated into their forecasts. President Trump announced tariffs on China last week. China may then retaliate with its own tariffs. As we've said before, nobody wins from trade wars. Economic activity will be weaker and prices will be higher. A full blown trade war could jeopardize the Fed's rosy forecasts. Bottom Line: Market pricing for short-term rates is largely consistent with the Fed's forecasts. Therefore, the outcome of last week's FOMC meeting is not very market relevant. Investors are more focused on trade policy for now. ... For The Next Tweet BCA is looking beyond any market volatility induced by President Trump's political scandals.1 The decision to impeach President Trump is a purely political decision that rests with the House of Representatives. Under GOP control, Trump will not likely be impeached if he continues to fire his White House aides or members of his cabinet. That is his purview as President. However, relieving Special Counsel Mueller of his duties would probably be a red line for House Republicans and lead to impeachment. That said, it is very difficult to see the impeachment in the House lead to Trump's removal by the Senate, given his elevated approval ratings among GOP voters (Chart 3). Trump's support with GOP voters, our Geopolitical Strategy service's critical measure of whether Trump can stay in power, is back at 2016 election levels with GOP voters (Chart 3). Furthermore, conviction in the Senate (and removal from office), requires 67 votes. If the Democrats take the House, they are likely to impeach Trump in 2019. But even if the Democrats retake the Senate this fall, they would fall far short of that 67-vote threshold for conviction. For investors and the Fed, the health of the economy and earnings matter more than Trump's political woes. Equity markets performed well when the economy and earnings backdrop was favorable during presidential scandals in the 1920s and the 1990s. In the early 1970s, amid soaring inflation and the worst recession since the Great Depression, there was a bear market in equities (Chart 4A). Likewise, surges in equity market volatility amid political scandals were related more to economic and financial events than politics (Chart 4B). Chart 4AFor Markets,##BR##Economy Matters More Than Politics Chart 4BMarket Volatility During##BR##U.S. Political Scandals Today's environment - while not as robust as in the 1920s or late 1990s - provides support for higher stock prices, above-trend economic growth, escalating inflation, three more Fed rate hikes this year, and higher Treasury bond yields. Moreover, none of the issues that investors care about (tax cuts, deregulation, lifting of the spending caps, etc.) can be reversed by Trump's impeachment. Even a Democratic wave in this fall's mid-term Congressional elections will not deliver the opposition party a veto-proof majority (Chart 5). Thus, in the current economic cycle, we expect pro-market forces at the legislative and executive branches of government to persist. Chart 5Democrats's Lead in Generic Congressional##BR##Ballot Has Moved Lower This Year However, Trump's political scandals may cost the GOP the House in this fall's mid-term elections. Table 1 and Chart 6 show that political gridlock is not positive for stock prices after controlling for important macro factors.2 The average monthly return on the S&P 500 is considerably higher when the executive and legislative branches are unified. The worst outcome for equity markets, by far, is when the President faces a split legislature. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service noted that while the market has cheered the limited scope of tariffs imposed earlier this month, investors may be underestimating the political shifts that underpinned Trump's move. There is little reason to think that protectionism will fade when Trump leaves office. The Administration's decision late last week to introduce sanctions aimed at China represents another escalation of the trade spat initiated in early March. Increased trade tensions with China represent a near-term risk to the markets.3 However, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team notes that the latest round of tariffs suggests that Trump has made a bid to increase negotiation leverage with China rather than launch a protectionist broadside. This is good news in the short term, relative to the worst fears given Trump's lack of legal/constitutional constraints. But in the long term, Trump's latest move on trade policy support's our view that geopolitical risk is moving to East Asia and the U.S. / China conflict is a high-risk scenario that markets are now going to have to start pricing in.4 Table 1Divided Government Is, In Fact, Bad For Stocks Chart 6A Unified Congress Is A Boon For Stocks Bottom Line: Investors should dismiss the risk of domestic political scandals interrupting the market-friendly policy back drop. However, U.S. / China trade disputes will take center stage. China is motivated to prevent a trade war through significant compromises that Trump can advertise as wins to his audience this November. If Trump accepts these concessions, then the risk of a trade war with China will likely be removed until the next race for President in 2020. ... For The Washout The U.S. economic data have disappointed so far this year, as illustrated by Citigroup Economic Surprise Index (Chart 7). The Index peaked at 84.5 in December 2017 and subsequently has moved lower for 64 days. Since early 2011, there were six other episodes when the Surprise Index behaved similarly. These phases lasted an average of 86 days; the median number of days from peak to trough was 66 days. The implication is that the trough in the Citigroup Economic Surprise reading may be a month or two away. However, the relatively low economic expectations at end-2017 suggest that the disappointment may be truncated. On the other hand, the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017, along with the lifting of budgetary spending caps in early 2018, have likely raised economists' near-term projections. Chart 7U.S. Financial Markets As Economic Surprise Index Declines The performance of key financial markets and commodities since the Economic Surprise Index crested in December 2017 matches the historical record, with a few notable exceptions (Table 2 and Charts 7 and 8). As the Index rolled over in late 2017, stocks beat bonds, credit outperformed Treasuries and the dollar fell, matching previous episodes. However, counter to the historical trend, gold and oil prices have increased and small caps have underperformed in the past three months. Table 2Financial Market Performance As The Economic Surprise Index Falls Chart 8Economic Surprise Approaching A Turning Point Based on BCA's research,5 tactical investors should add to their risk positions as the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index bottoms and begins to climb. As the Economic Surprise Index rises, stocks beat bonds by an average of 8700 bps and in six of the seven episodes since 2011 (Table 3). Furthermore, the performance of stock-to-bond ratio is better when the Economic Surprise Index is accelerating. Table 3 again shows that all asset classes also perform better when the Index climbs. After briefly moving above zero in early 2017 - indicating that inflation data was stronger than analysts projected - the Citigroup Inflation Surprise index rolled over again (Chart 9, top panel) through year end 2017. Reports on the CPI, PPI and average hourly earnings continued to fall short of consensus forecasts despite tightening of the labor and product markets. The disappointment on price data relative to consensus forecasts is not new. Although there were brief periods when prices exceeded forecasts in 2010 and 2011, the last time that inflation exceeded market consensus in this business cycle was in late 2009 and early 2010. In the last few years of the 2001-2007 economic expansion through early 2009, the price data eclipsed forecasts more than half of the time. During this interval, economists underestimated the impact of surging energy prices on inflation readings. Table 3Financial Market Performance As The Economic Surprise Index Rises Chart 9The Fed Cycle And Inflation Surprise Moreover, the Citigroup Inflation Surprise index escalated during previous tightening regimes when the economy was at full employment and the Fed funds rate was in accommodative territory (Chart 9). The last time those conditions were in place, which was in 2005, the Fed was wrapping up a rate increase campaign that began in mid-2004. An increase in the Citigroup Inflation Surprise Index also accompanied most of the Fed's rate hikes from mid-1999 through mid-2000. In late 2015, as the current set of rate hikes commenced, the inflation surprise index was on the upswing, the economy was close to full employment and the Fed funds rate was accommodative. Bottom Line: The disappointing run of economic data will not end for another few months. The unusually harsh winter weather in March in the Northeastern exacerbates the situation. However, the weakness in the economic data is not a sign that a recession is at hand. We expect that the inflation surprise index will continue to grind higher, as unemployment dips further into 'excess demand' territory (details below in "...For The Labor Market"). After the Citigroup Economic Surprise Index forms a bottom and starts to rise, history suggests that stocks will beat bonds, investment-grade and high-yield corporate bonds will outpace Treasuries, and gold and oil will climb. Stay overweight stocks versus bonds, long credit and underweight duration. ... For The Labor Market BCA expects the unemployment rate to hit 3.5% by late 2018 or early next year, the first time since December 1969. Our base case assumes that the economy will generate 200,000 nonfarm payroll jobs per month and that the labor force participation rate will remain at 63%. The unemployment rate was 4.1% in February 2018 and bottomed at 4.4% in 2006 and 2007; the rate reached a 30-year low at 3.8% in 2000. As noted in the first section of this week's report, at the conclusion of last week's meeting, the FOMC nudged down its view of this year's unemployment rate to 3.8%. The FOMC also slightly adjusted its long-term forecast of the unemployment rate to 4.5%. The implication is that BCA and the FOMC expect the U.S. economy to continue to run below full employment this year. Nonetheless, investors remain skeptical that the unemployment rate can fall to 3.5% and wonder what pace of monthly payroll growth would be required to get it there. In Table 4 we look at various scenarios (monthly increases in payrolls, annual percentage change in participation rate) to show when the unemployment rate will dip below 3.5%. In the past three months, total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 242,000 per month, and in the past year, the average monthly increase was 190,000. The participation rate was 63% in February, little changed from a year ago as an improved labor market offset demographic factors that continue to drive down this rate. Our calculations assume that the labor force will expand by 0.9% per year, matching the growth rate in the past 12 months. Chart 10 shows the history of the unemployment rate and several scenarios in the next two years that assume the participation rate stays at 63%. Table 4Dates When 3.5% Unemployment Rate Threshold Is Reached Chart 10The Unemployment Rate Under Various Monthly Job Count Scenarios Bottom Line: BCA's view is that the FOMC's forecast for the unemployment rate at the end of 2018 (3.8%) is too high and only marginally lower than the current 4.1% rate. This is inconsistent with real GDP growth well in excess of its supply-side potential. The macro backdrop will likely justify the FOMC hiking more quickly than the March 2018 dots forecast. The risks are skewed to the upside. BCA expects the 2/10 Treasury yield curve to steepen through mid-year and then flatten by year-end, spending most of 2018 between 0 and 50 bps. Stay underweight duration. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Policies Are Stimulative Everywhere But China," dated February 28, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," dated March 14, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?," dated March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Reports, "Solid Start," dated January 8, 2018 and "The Revenge Of Animal Spirits," dated October 30, 2017. Both available at usis.bcaresearch.com.