Global

Introduction Our clients know it is important to keep up to date with the latest thinking on investment (that is of course why they read BCA's Global Asset Allocation). But with hundreds of investment books published every year - most gimmicky or aimed at inexperienced individual investors - it is hard to know which books to read. Ahead of the holiday season, when our clients may have a few quiet days in the office to do some background reading, we have combed through the investment books published during 2016 to come up with our recommendations. We selected books that we think investment professionals (CIOs, asset allocators, investment advisers, money managers) will find useful in their work to help improve their understanding of markets or their investment process. We excluded books aimed solely at personal investors, and general books on economics or current affairs. These are serious investment books - the sort you could read at your desk and not be embarrassed if your boss or staff member caught you - though the best are also a pleasure to read. We hope you will find something useful here. Your Complete Guide To Factor-Based Investing - The Way Smart Money Invests Today - By Andrew L. Berkin & Larry E. Swedroe In response to client requests, Global Asset Allocation published a Special Report in July 2016 on Smart Beta strategies,1 which are the "benchmark-driven version of factor-based investing." We concluded that "smart beta strategies can be a useful tool in both strategic and tactical asset allocations" and that "thorough due diligence is the key to success." But we did not have room in a short report to delve into details on how to do the due diligence. This book provides exactly that guidance on "how to do the due diligence" among the hundreds of potential factors that have been identified by academics and financial practitioners over the past half century. First, the authors provide a list of criteria that a factor must meet in order to be considered as a useful factor. In addition to providing explanatory power to portfolio returns and delivering a premium (an above-market return), the factor must have Persistence (has it historically delivered reasonably reliable returns?), Pervasiveness (does it, on average, deliver those returns in a variety of locales and asset classes?), Robustness (does it depend on one very specific formulation but fails to work if other related versions are tested?), Intuitiveness (does it make sense?) and Investability. Then the authors present in detail the seven factors that they have identified according to the above criteria, each in a separate chapter. These factors are: Market Beta, Size, Value, Momentum, Profitability and Quality, Term, and Carry. Readers can refer to these chapters in any order. Finally, the authors present very interesting appendixes to explain some widely known factors which they consider as just a variation on these seven factors. Overall, this is an easy read and a useful guide for non-quant investors who are interested in factor-based investing in general and Smart Beta strategies in particular. Trading On Sentiment - The Power Of Minds Over Markets - By Richard L. Peterson Far more often than investors care to admit, intellect and logic take a back seat to emotion. During bull markets, the highly activated reward system deactivates the loss system, thereby fueling overconfidence and greed. Investors ignore risks. During bear markets, the loss system overrides the reward system, media stories amplify fear, and sentiment becomes too pessimistic. As such, the authors advocate that investors need to understand emotional weaknesses and plan ahead for moments of vulnerability, both during bull and bear markets. The book is filled with important lessons, thought-provoking quotes from renowned investors, and does a wonderful job of applying behavioral finance to trading. While some of the chapters on short-term trading may not be relevant for our clients, many chapters, such as the section on bubble formation and the impact of behavioral biases and emotions on those bubbles, certainly make it a worthwhile read. One of our favorite points was the Keynes beauty contest example. A newspaper published pictures of multiple faces and participants were asked to identify which six would receive the most votes from the entire participant pool. The book outlines the different levels of thinking, from using one's perceptions to more advanced attempts to try to understand what others will like. We believe this example of game theory provides an important lesson for investing. It is imperative that investors understand market participants, as well as their motivations, thought processes and interpretations. Another noteworthy story from the book was the chess tournament held by playchess.com in 2005. Players were allowed to team up with human and computer partners. In general, the combination of humans and computers performed the best. Surprisingly, a team of amateurs and computers won the competition. The authors argued that amateurs have a different mental makeup, where lack of ego and flexibility in thinking allowed for a better decision-making process. Within GAA, we apply similar ideas and processes. We have quant models that we use as a starting point in our decision-making process. However, we understand that models cannot capture all fundamentals and relationships can change. As such, we combine our seasoned judgment to add more logic and flexibility to our process. Adaptive Asset Allocation: Dynamic Global Portfolios To Profit In Good Times - And Bad - By Adam Butler, Michael Philbrick and Rodrigo Gordillo Forget viewing risk as simply asset price volatility. Instead, the authors advocate that risk should be measured as the probability that someone will not meet their financial goals, and the objective should be to minimize that risk. While we are often programmed to think of risk in terms of volatility, drawdown, etc., it is important to remember the ultimate goal of meeting client objectives. The book briefly brings up a case study from the Cass Business School that concludes it is "more important to understand how the parts of a portfolio work together than it is to understand the individual parts themselves." In Global Asset Allocation, we apply this framework, often making our decisions at sub levels, for example country/region and sectors, based on their co-movement with the other assets and effect on the overall portfolio. While we generally agree with the authors on their adaptive asset allocation framework, which includes momentum, recent volatility and correlations, we have found that correlations can be quite difficult to model. First, two assets that are typically correlated can take a very long time to converge. Second, relationships between financial assets change often. Investors must apply fundamental analysis and judgment to understand when this occurs and why. We also disagree with a portion of the section on regime investing. The authors break regimes into four categories - inflationary boom, disinflationary boom, stagflation and deflationary bust. However, they also state that it is "very difficult to know with any confidence which regime we are actually in at any point in time, and much harder still to predict when a regime will change and what direction such a transition would take." While we agree with the latter part of that statement, we disagree with the former. Regimes typically last for at least a decade. As such, turning points are challenging to forecast but a decade-long trend should be identifiable based on macro fundamentals. Overall, the book contains several interesting points and we suggest clients read it. Even though it may not offer necessarily brand new material, the book offers important reminders that it certainly cannot hurt to review and presents some fresh perspectives on investment topics. Empire Of The Fund: The Way We Save Now - By William A. Birdthistle Mutual funds, with a total of $16 trillion in assets in the U.S., have a reputation as the simplest investment vehicle for individuals. But this book argues they also contain significant problems: poor regulation, weak governance, frequent scandals and, in particular, high and non-transparent fees. While the book is aimed at individual savers, any professional investment adviser who recommends mutual funds will find much in here that is useful - and worrying. Birdwhistle, a lawyer specializing in the investment industry, describes in detail current legal and structural issues surrounding the mutual fund industry. He sees the high level of fees (which total $100 billion a year) as the biggest problem. Fees are highly variable (the cost of an S&P 500 index fund can vary from a few basis points to as much as 1.25%) and it remains surprisingly difficult to figure out the exact amount of fees for each fund. He focuses his ire on the distribution (12b-1) fee, which allows "fund advisers to use the money of current investors...to advertise the fund to prospective investors." Making mutual funds function efficiently is increasingly important since individuals are forced more and more to provide for their own retirement and most are failing to do so: the median 401(k) account contains only $111,000, which would currently provide an income of only $7,300 a year. What is the solution? Birdthistle rejects - in our view too readily - ETFs (too many are exotic, and they tempt savers to trade frequently) and target-date funds (some have too high an allocation to equites at retirement date). His main suggestion is that savers should be required to pass a test to obtain a "financial license" (like a driver's license) before being allowed to buy tax-exempt pension plans, which we find intrusive and impractical. But his proposal for a nationwide pooled savings scheme, like the Thrift Savings Plan available for Federal government employees, is interesting. The TSP, run by Blackrock with a choice of 10 straightforward funds, benefits from scale to reduce its expense ratio to only 2.9 basis points. The author also suggests greater enforcement, arguing that the SEC's performance has been disappointing. For a complex book that cites legal cases and carefully describes fund economics, it is a delight to read, with numerous entertaining anecdotes and telling analogies. Highly recommended for wealth managers. The Institutional ETF Toolbox - By Eric Balchunas This is a well-structured reference book - a "toolbox" - covering everything one could possibly want to know about ETFs. Glancing through the Table of Contents, for example, it's easy for a reader to spot the section titled "Conclusion: Five Takeaways." "Implied liquidity," not just traded volume, is important for ETFs because of their "creation/redemption" process. But what is "implied liquidity" and how does creation/redemption work? Search the Index at the end of the book, and you find the pages that give the answers. The book has two parts. The first explains why ETFs are so popular, where they came from, how they work, how institutions can use them in numerous different ways, and why due diligence is as important in selecting ETFs as in selecting active managers. The second part breaks down the ETF world into categories by asset class such as equities, fixed income and alternatives, and by strategy/style such as smart beta, currency hedging and liquid alts (otherwise known as "hedge fund replicas"). In each category, the author gives an overview of the ETF choices available and some specifics of each ETF included. Since the book is written by a Bloomberg analyst, naturally it includes plenty of helpful examples of how to use Bloomberg functions for further ETF research. The ETF industry is constantly evolving. The author also provides a list of related websites and podcasts for continuing education. Finally, the author has done a good job in writing about a "highly technical" subject in an easy to read and entertaining fashion. We even found a few trivia questions for your Christmas party: for example, "Which ETF holds the all-time record for the fastest to reach to US$ 1 billion AUM and what is that all-time record time?" For a book published by Bloomberg, we were surprised to see so many typos. But it does not prevent us from recommending this as a reference book for our clients who already use ETFs or are considering using them in their asset allocation decisions. The Intelligent REIT Investor - How To Build Wealth With Real Estate Investment Trusts - By Stephanie Krewson-Kelly and R. Brad Thomas After the market close on 31 August 2016, publicly traded REITs and other listed real estate companies were removed from Financials and promoted to their own GICS sector. This separation significantly raises the profile and attraction of the asset class. For many years, the reputation of REITs was tarnished by the mortgage REIT debacle of 1974. But, with REITs' market cap exploding from just $8.7 billion in 1990 to $940 billion in 2015, investors need to understand the importance of this asset in portfolio construction. The author describes the publicly traded equity REIT as the purest form of corporate and property ownership because of its 1) professional management, 2) strong corporate governance, and 3) complete pre-tax profits distributions to shareholders. The real economy strongly influences property and REIT fundamentals and, when rising rates are accompanied by a robust economy, REITs perform well. The book does a great job at introducing a beginner REIT investor to this complex investment structure built on multiple property types, lease agreements, and numerous share class structures. A key attraction of REITs has been their high yields relative to bonds and equities. Consequently there is an entire section devoted to analyzing safety and sustainability of dividends. Lease length and structure have also been strong fundamental predictors of REITs' performance. The author clarifies the connection between cash flow streams and their impact on stock performance during different economic scenarios. The book also introduces the newest innovations and developments in the REIT industry - most importantly the rise in popularity of exchange-traded vehicles that provide diversification and liquidity. Low expense ratios and tax efficiency of ETFs make them a compelling choice. The book closes with a thorough run-through of various analysis techniques used by industry experts to read between the lines of real estate financial statements. The author stresses that one of the most enduring challenges in analyzing REITs is the lack of standardized reporting. Give the current search for yield, investors can surely benefit from this asset class which has seen an ever expanding global exposure. Global Asset Allocation is currently overweight REITs2 in our global portfolio. Investors who need a thorough explanation of how the asset class works will profit from reading this book. Index Revolution - Why Investors Should Join It Now - By Charles D. Ellis Nobody will ever know just how much harm was done by sticking the term "passive" onto indexing. Passive is synonymous with "giving up." The author argues that this hurt the reputation of index investing in the period from the 1960s to the late 1990s, when it was hard to see how anything but active investing would be accepted, and when even mediocre managers could make double-digit returns. But the same can't be said for the current market. The author comes with over 50 years of experience in active management. In the first half of the book he uses real-life experiences to play devil's advocate in the debate between active management and indexing. He starts by explaining important structural shifts in the market that have changed the landscape of investing: for example, greater disclosure requirements that have reduced market inefficiencies; the increased proportion of trades executed by algorithms; and the way that large funds are limited to large-cap investments. However, his strongest argument for indexing is actually a compliment to active management - the increasing number of skillful managers has made markets more efficient, leading to an erosion of alpha over the years. The author moves on to provide evidence for how active strategies underperform indexing. Over 80% of large-cap managers and almost 90% of small-cap managers underperformed their benchmarks over a 10-year period through December 2015. He argues that fees are misunderstood because of the common behavioral bias of "framing" - results differ depending on how the question is framed. Fees should be quantified not as a percentage of assets, but as a percentage of the manager's performance. Hence the true cost of active investing is the incremental fees above indexing, as a percentage of the incremental return above indexing. The author closes with a number of arguments in favor of indexing: 1) low turnover and, subsequently, lower taxes; 2) lower operational costs; 3) increased portfolio diversification; and 4) avoiding manager risk. We do not completely agree with the author's dismissal of active investing, but there are number of important facets about indexing that investors should consider. The case for indexing has never been stronger thanks to all-time low bond yields, high equity valuations, and weak growth expectations. The author sums up the active vs passive debate with this provocative quote from Suzanne Duncan, Global Head of Research at State Street: "Indexing is not being passive; it is an active decision to not be foolish and pay for something that isn't there." Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Senior Analyst patrick@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Is Smart Beta A Useful Tool In Global Asset Allocation?," dated July 8, 2016 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "REITs Vs. Direct: How To Get Exposure To Real Estate," dated September 15, 2016 available at gaa.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Investors are understating the risks that the Trump administration will enact protectionist trade policies. Contrary to popular belief, the economic costs to the U.S. of a protracted "trade war" would be low. The geopolitical impact, however, would be much more sizeable, as would the impact on S&P 500 profits. The near-term risks to global equities are on the downside, although firmer growth in developed economies should provide support to stocks over a 12-month horizon. Global bond yields will be higher this time next year, as will the dollar. The yen is especially vulnerable. We are closing our long Spanish/short Italian 10-year bond trade for a gain of 6.2%. Feature They come over here, they sell their cars, their VCRs. They knock the hell out of our companies. - Donald Trump in an interview with Oprah Winfrey discussing trade with Japan, 1988 Making Tariffs Great Again Donald Trump has flip-flopped on many issues. On trade, however, he has been perfectly consistent. As the quote above demonstrates, Trump has been advocating mercantilist policies ever since he entered the public spotlight in the 1980s. Even in the unlikely event that he wanted to pivot on this issue, he would be hard-pressed to do so. The Republican establishment and most Democrats will hate him no matter what he does. If Trump backpedals from his hardline stance on trade and immigration, he will lose a large chunk of his white, working-class base (Chart 1). One might argue that Trump would have no choice but to adopt a more conciliatory tone if the imposition of protectionist trade policies were to push the U.S. into a recession. However, contrary to widespread opinion, it is far from obvious that this would happen. While rising protectionism would have a major negative effect on many other economies, the impact on the U.S. would be modest, even if other countries were to match higher U.S. tariffs with retaliatory measures. Keep in mind that the U.S. is a relatively closed economy, with exports totaling only 12% of GDP. Exports to China and Mexico amount to 0.9% and 1.4% of GDP, respectively. And much of these exports are intermediate goods that are processed and reshipped back to the U.S. or some other third market. It would not make sense for China or Mexico to put up import barriers on these intermediate goods because this would just reduce domestic employment, without giving domestic firms much of a leg up. One should also remember that an appreciation of the dollar reduces U.S. export competitiveness in much the same way as higher tariffs placed by foreign governments on U.S.-made goods. The real trade-weighted dollar has appreciated by 20% since mid-2014 (Chart 2). While this obviously has been unpleasant for U.S. exporters, it has not pushed the economy into recession. Neither will retaliatory foreign tariffs. Chart 1Trump's Supporters Are Not ##br##Free Trade Enthusiasts Trump And Trade Trump And Trade Chart 2The Dollar Has Been ##br##Appreciating Since Mid-2014 bca.gis_wr_2016_12_09_c2 bca.gis_wr_2016_12_09_c2 Why The Consensus On Trade Is Misleading The view expressed above is far outside the consensus and clashes strongly with the large number of studies arguing that the implementation of Trump's trade agenda would have grave consequences for the U.S. economy. Let me first enumerate the ways these studies fall short on strictly economic grounds, and then discuss why they may still ring true if one takes a broader perspective. As far as the pure economics are concerned, these studies all suffer from some combination of the following deficiencies: They assume that foreign producers can fully or almost fully pass on the cost of U.S. tariffs to their customers. In reality, the evidence suggests that foreign producers will absorb about half of the increase in tariffs through lower profit margins. In other words, the imposition of a 20% tariff would only raise U.S. import prices by around 10%. Granted, retaliatory tariffs would squeeze the profit margins of U.S. exporters. However, this effect would be mitigated by the fact that the U.S. runs large bilateral trade deficits with China and Mexico (Chart 3), as well as the fact that foreign producers have less pricing power in the relatively large U.S. market than American producers have abroad. On net, this implies that higher trade barriers could actually make the U.S. better off by shifting the terms of trade in its favor. Chart 3The U.S. Runs Large Bilateral Trade Deficits With China And Mexico Trump And Trade Trump And Trade These studies treat tariffs like regular old taxes. To the extent that tariffs are taxes whose burden is partly borne by domestic consumers, their imposition has a dampening effect on activity. However, to model the impact of higher tariffs simply as a tightening of fiscal policy implicitly assumes that any tariff revenue will be used to pay down debt, rather than being used to finance tax cuts and spending increases. Given that Trump is touting a program of fiscal stimulus, that is not a sensible assumption. Moreover, unlike, say, a sales tax hike, higher tariffs divert demand towards domestically-produced goods. This tends to boost employment. These studies overstate the adverse effect of tariffs on domestic investment. More than half of global trade consists of capital equipment and intermediate goods (Chart 4). To the extent that higher tariffs raise the cost of production, this can lower investment. Moreover, trade barriers tend to increase economic inefficiencies. This can lead to slower productivity growth, causing firms to reduce capital spending. In practice, however, neither effect is particularly significant. As we discussed two weeks ago, the negative impact of trade barriers on productivity growth is generally overstated, especially for large economies like the United States.1 Chart 5 shows that productivity growth was actually faster in the three decades following the Second World War than in the hyper-globalization era that began in the early 1980s. Chart 4Intermediate And Capital Goods ##br##Make Up Over Half Of Global Trade Trump And Trade Trump And Trade Chart 5Rising Trade Has Not ##br##Boosted Productivity Growth Rising Trade Has Not Boosted Productivity Growth Rising Trade Has Not Boosted Productivity Growth While the price of capital goods does influence investment spending, for the most part, firms tend to base their investment decisions on the expected demand for their products. Since the U.S. runs a trade deficit, an equal percentage-point decline in both exports and imports would increase final demand through the familiar Y=C+I+G+X-M identity. This should lead to higher investment. Moreover, even if higher trade barriers leave final demand unaffected, there are reasons to think that investment would still rise. Think about a closed economy where most households decide all of a sudden that they prefer strawberry ice cream over vanilla ice cream. Let us assume, just for the sake of argument, that shifting production from vanilla to strawberry ice cream is very difficult and requires a lot of new investment. What do you expect would happen to overall investment in this economy? The answer is that it would likely rise, as companies scramble to build out new strawberry ice cream-making capacity. Now extend the analogy to trade. If the U.S. slaps tariffs on manufacturing imports, this will lead to a wave of new domestic investment in industries that benefit from tariff protection. This is bad news for companies that must incur the cost of relocating production back onshore, but it is good news for American workers who can now find gainful employment. The Bigger Picture Our guess is that in purely economic terms, the U.S. would not suffer much if the Trump administration were to forge ahead with its protectionist trade agenda, and could actually benefit if America's trading partners felt restrained in how they could retaliate. Yet, focusing only on the economics misses the bigger picture. Trade agreements are also about politics - they help form the geopolitical glue that holds the global community together. As we noted two weeks ago, the real reason the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was so disastrous was not because it contributed to the Great Depression, but because it led to a breakdown of international relations among democratic governments at a time when fascism was on the rise.2 Donald Trump's threat to pull out of trade deals and unilaterally impose tariffs on countries that he feels are engaging in unfair trade practices is likely to accelerate the shift to a multipolar geopolitical order where competing countries strive to carve out their own spheres of influence. As Chart 6 shows, such geopolitical orders have often contributed to the breakdown of globalization, and at times, have even led to military conflict. Chart 6AIncreasing Multipolarity And De-Globalization Tend To Go Hand-In-Hand bca.gis_wr_2016_12_09_c6a bca.gis_wr_2016_12_09_c6a Chart 6BIncreasing Multipolarity And De-Globalization Tend To Go Hand-In-Hand bca.gis_wr_2016_12_09_c6b bca.gis_wr_2016_12_09_c6b The fact that rising protectionism could benefit the U.S. at the expense of other countries is bound to stoke anger abroad. China, the focus of much of Trump's rhetoric, is especially vulnerable. Trump has threatened to declare the country a "currency manipulator," even though it meets only one of the three criteria for such a designation as set out by the Treasury Department.3 Other countries should not breathe a sigh of relief, however. There is a certain logic about protectionism that makes it difficult to hike tariffs on just one or two countries. For example, if the U.S. raises tariffs on China, some of the existing demand for Chinese goods will be diverted to countries such as Korea or Vietnam, rather than back to the U.S. This creates an incentive to raise tariffs on those countries as well. It is easy to see how the whole global trading system can break down under such circumstances. Investment Conclusions Donald Trump's threat of across-the-border tariffs of 35% on Mexican goods and 45% on Chinese goods will likely turn out to be a negotiating ploy. That said, some increase in trade barriers seems inevitable. These need not even be explicit barriers. Trump's success in browbeating Carrier into keeping its plant open in Indiana is an example of things to come. Corporate America does a lot of business with the government, and the subtle threat of cancelled government contracts will make any CEO take notice. Good news for Main Street perhaps, but definitely bad news for Wall Street. For now, investors are focusing on the positive elements of Trump's agenda. That may change soon. Yes, increased infrastructure spending and corporate tax cuts are both bullish for stocks. However, effective U.S. corporate tax rates are already quite low thanks to numerous loopholes. Thus, any cuts to statutory rates may not boost S&P 500 profits by as much as investors are hoping (Chart 7). And while more infrastructure investment is welcome, there simply are not enough "shovel ready" projects around. Chart 7U.S. Effective Corporate Tax Rate Is Already Quite Low U.S. Effective Corporate Tax Rate Is Already Quite Low U.S. Effective Corporate Tax Rate Is Already Quite Low Moreover, Trump's plan to finance infrastructure spending through private-public partnerships greatly narrows the universe of possible projects. The U.S. Society Of Civil Engineers estimates that most of the "infrastructure gap" consists of deferred maintenance (i.e., potholes to fix, bridges to repair).4 It is difficult to get investors interested in such work, which is why it is typically financed directly through government budgets. Meanwhile, financial conditions have tightened via a stronger dollar and higher bond yields (Chart 8). Historically, such a tightening has been bearish for stocks (Table 1). We are tactically cautious on a three-month horizon, and are positioned for this by being short the NASDAQ 100 futures. Our guess is that global equities will correct by about 5%-to-10% from current levels, setting the stage for positive returns down the road. U.S. high-yield spreads, which are near post-crisis lows, are also likely to widen (Chart 9). Chart 8U.S. Financial Conditions Have Eased U.S. Financial Conditions Have Eased U.S. Financial Conditions Have Eased Chart 9U.S. High-Yield Spreads Likely To Widen U.S. High-Yield Spreads Likely To Widen U.S. High-Yield Spreads Likely To Widen Table 1Stocks Tend To Suffer When Bond Yields Spike Trump And Trade Trump And Trade A correction in risk assets could temporarily knock down Treasury yields. Nevertheless, the long-term path for global bond yields is to the upside. The three key features of Trump's platform - fiscal stimulus, tighter immigration controls, and trade protectionism - are all inflationary. Only JGB yields are likely to stay put for the foreseeable future due to the BOJ's well-timed decision to peg the 10-year yield at zero. As bond yields elsewhere rise, the yen will come under further downward pressure. We see USD/JPY reaching 125 in 12 months' time. Chart 10Global Growth Is Accelerating Global Growth Is Accelerating Global Growth Is Accelerating A weaker yen should boost Japanese stocks, at least in local-currency terms. European equities will also benefit from a somewhat cheaper euro and firming global growth (Chart 10). Steeper yield curves are helping to boost European bank shares, despite ongoing concerns about the health of the Italian financial sector. As we have discussed in the past, systemic risks around the Italian banks are overstated.5 With that in mind, we are closing our long Spanish/short Italian 10-year bond trade for a gain of 6.2%. The recent rally in commodity markets and the uptick in global activity indicators are welcome developments for emerging markets. Still, it will be hard for EM equities to muster a sustainable rally as long as the dollar remains in an uptrend and protectionist sentiment is on the rise. For now, a modest underweight in EM stocks is warranted. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1,2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Elusive Gains From Globalization," dated November 25, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 The U.S. Treasury is allowed to define a country as a currency manipulator if: i) it runs a large trade surplus with the U.S.; ii) it has an excessively large current account surplus with the rest of the world; and iii) it is engaging in direct foreign exchange intervention in order to weaken its currency. While the first criterion arguably holds, the other two do not, given that China's overall current account surplus currently stands at 2.4% of GDP and recent currency intervention has been designed to prevent the yuan from depreciating more than it would have otherwise. 4 Please see "Failure to Act: Closing the Infrastructure Investment Gap for America's Economic Future," American Society of Civil Engineers (2016). 5 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Italian Bank Job," dated July 29, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Dear Client, This week's BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy contains our 2017 Outlook for Energy markets. After surprising the markets with a production cut last week, OPEC and Russia likely will do so again with a successful implementation of their agreement next year. Even if they only get buy-in on 60% to 70% of the 1.8 mm b/d in cuts they believe they've secured, production cuts and natural declines in production that are not reversed via enhanced oil recovery (EOR) will accelerate the drawdown in global crude oil and refined products inventories, which is the stated goal of the agreement. We expect the U.S. benchmark WTI crude prices to average $55/bbl next year, up $5 from our previous forecast, on the back of last week's announced cut. We are moving the bottom of the range in which we expect WTI prices to trade most of the time next year to $45/bbl and keeping the upside at $65/bbl. For 2018 and beyond, our conviction is lower: The massive capex cuts seen in the industry will place an enormous burden on shale producers and conventional oil producers - chiefly Gulf Arab producers and Russia - to offset natural decline-curve losses and meet increasing demand. Any sign either or both will not be able to move quickly enough to meet growing demand and replace natural declines could spike prices further out the curve. For the international benchmark, Brent crude oil, things get a bit complicated next year: As the spread between Brent and WTI prices widens - the Feb17 spread was pricing at ~ $2.10/bbl earlier this week (Brent over) - we expect U.S. WTI exports to increase from current levels averaging ~ 500k b/d, which should keep the price differential in check next year. For the near term, we are using a +$1.50/bbl differential (Brent over) for our 2017 central tendency, although this could narrow and invert as U.S. exports grow. We closed out our long Feb/17 Brent $50/$55 call spread last week - recommended November 3, 2016, expecting OPEC and Russia to agree a production cut - with a 156% indicated profit. We are taking profits of 80.6% on our long Aug/17 WTI vs. short Nov/17 WTI, basis Tuesday's close, and replacing it with a long Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18 WTI spread at today's closing levels, expecting backwardation to widen next year. We remain bullish U.S. natural gas near term, given reduced year-on-year production growth going into year-end. A normal-to-colder winter will be especially bullish. We remain long 2017Q1 natural gas, which is up 21.1% since we recommended the position on November 2, 2016. Longer term, we are neutral natgas, expecting production growth to resume in 2017. Kindest regards, Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Feature KSA, Russia Deal Drives Oil Prices In 2017 The evolution of oil prices next year will be dominated by the agreement between OPEC, led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and non-OPEC, with Russia in the lead, to cut production by up to 1.8 mm b/d. The stated volumes to be cut are comprised of 1.2 mm from OPEC, 300k b/d from Russia, and another 300 from other non-OPEC producers. Later this week, other non-OPEC producers are scheduled to arrive in Vienna to discuss cuts they will pledge to make starting in January. Non-OPEC production is down ~ 900k b/d this year, according to the IEA's November Oil Market Report, so it is difficult to see where these cuts will come from. Outside Russia, Kazakhstan and Oman, anything coming out of the meetings with non-OPEC producers in Vienna this week will be decline-curve losses disguised as production cuts. Still, it means they're not funding EOR programs to replace lost production (e.g., China's 10% yoy losses). Even if actual cuts only amount to 60 - 70% of the volumes agreed at OPEC's November 30 meeting in Vienna, we expect OECD storage levels - combined commercial inventories of both crude oil and refined products - to fall some 10%, or 300 million bbls, to ~ 2.75 billion bbls by the end of 2017Q3. This would put stocks roughly at their five-year average levels, the stated goal of OPEC, and its reason for negotiating the production cut (Chart of the Week). In addition, this will flatten the forward Brent and WTI curves, and deepen an already-developing backwardation in WTI beginning with contracts delivering in December 2017 (Chart 2). This will reverse the contango structure in place since mid-2014, which allowed commercial OECD oil inventories to swell by 400 mm bbls, and non-OECD inventories to increase by 240 mm bbls, according to OPEC estimates. Chart of the WeekOPEC's, Russia's Goal: Normalize Storage##br## To Five-year Average Level bca.ces_wr_2016_12_08_c1 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_08_c1 Chart 2Backwardation Expected ##br##In WTI And Brent bca.ces_wr_2016_12_08_c2 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_08_c2 Analysts Expect Cheating On The Deal Most analysts expect cheating on this deal: OPEC's production is expected to fall to 33mm b/d following production cuts, from a record high in November of 34.2mm b/d, according to a Reuters poll.1 At 33mm b/d, OPEC's output would be 500k b/d above the targeted production level of 32.5mm b/d agreed at OPEC's November 30 meeting in Vienna with Russia (Table 1). In other words, most analysts think OPEC will only deliver 700k b/d of the 1.2 mm b/d it pledged to cut under this deal. We disagree. Table 1Allocation of OPEC Cuts 2017 Commodity Outlook: Energy 2017 Commodity Outlook: Energy This Deal's Going To Work: KSA And Russia Want And Need It OPEC's goal is to get inventories back to 5-year average levels. The Cartel's latest Monthly Oil Market Report puts the global stock overhang at 304mm over the 5-year average, just slightly over our calculated value to end October (Chart of the Week).2 To get stocks to the 5-year average level by the end of June 2017 - when the Vienna agreement runs out - would require an average weekly draw of ~ 11.7mm bbl in OECD oil and products stocks, or roughly 1.7mm b/d. Between normal decline-curve losses and the production cuts, if KSA and Russia got full compliance on this deal, it stands a good chance of meeting OPEC's goal by the end of June. Even if they don't and get, say, a total of 1.1 to 1.2mm b/d in cuts from OPEC and non-OPEC producers, the Agreement's storage goal will be achieved by the end of 2017Q3 or the beginning of Q4. Chart 3KSA And Russia Need To Back Off ##br##After Near-Vertical Output Increases bca.ces_wr_2016_12_08_c3 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_08_c3 Unlike past production-cut deals, we think there is a good chance KSA and Russia will get fairly high compliance on this agreement. Given the results of the Reuters survey on expected compliance, our out-of-consensus call is predicated on our belief this round of cuts is fundamentally different from what we've seen before. KSA and Russia - and their allies - want and need this deal. KSA and Russia have made their point by massively increasing production in a down market, but both now need to - and want to - back off of flogging their fields and driving prices lower (Chart 3). Given the extremely high dependence both have on oil revenues, they need higher prices.3 For starters, Russia was an active participant in this deal: its energy minister, Alexander Novak, told KSA's oil minister, Khalid Al-Falih, Russia would cut - not freeze - production in the lead-up to the November 30 meeting, and would contribute half the cut OPEC wanted from producers outside the Cartel. In addition, Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, was "directly involved" in the deal, mediating between KSA and its arch rival Iran, according to various press reports.4 Politically, after having invested so much capital, we do not think Russia will backslide on this agreement. There may be some fudging on what actually constitutes a "cut" - e.g., 2017Q1 maintenance that removes 200k b/d or so from production may be called a "cut" - but by Q2 we expect to see the full 300k b/d cut taken. By the same token, we do not think KSA will backslide on its commitment. Saudi's new oil minister Al-Falih invested considerable political capital in getting a deal done, as well, over the course of meetings in Algiers, Istanbul and finally around the November 30 Vienna meeting. Practically, both KSA and Russia have burned through considerable foreign reserves to fund government expenditures following the price collapse (Chart 4). By our estimates, KSA will have burned through $220 billion in reserves between July 2014, just prior to its decision to launch OPEC's market-share war, and December 2016, equivalent to 30% of foreign reserves. Russia will have drawn down its official reserves by $77 billion over the same period, or 16% of its total holdings. Chart 4Lower Oil Prices Forced KSA And Russia ##br##To Burn Through Reserves bca.ces_wr_2016_12_08_c4 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_08_c4 In addition, both want to tap foreign direct investment (FDI) for cash, investments and technology, and will find it difficult to do so if oil markets remain chronically oversupplied and subject to large downdrafts as producers relentlessly increase production, as we noted in recent research.5 Both KSA and Russia are working on larger agendas next year and 2018. And both require higher prices. They cannot afford to run down reserves any further. Russia is looking to sell 19.5% of Rosneft, after the state pushed through a $5.2 billion merger with Bashneft in October. KSA is looking to issue additional debt, having raised $17.5 billion in October, and will look to IPO 5% of state-owned Aramco next year or in 2018. Both must convince FDI that money invested in their economies will not be wasted because oil production cannot be reined in. And, they both must attend to increasingly restive populations. As a result of the production cuts, KSA's and Russia's export revenues will increase: KSA's 2017 oil export revenues will increase by close to $17.5 billion, and Russia's will increase by ~ $9 billion, following the ~ $10/bbl lift in oil prices the agreement has provided. Both will be able to lever their production to support more debt issuance. KSA will need that leverage to pull off the diversification it is attempting under its Vision 2030 initiative. Russia needs higher prices for its secondary offering of Rosneft, and to get some much-needed breathing room for its budget after years of sanctions, recession and lower government revenues. We would not be surprised if Russia sees additional production cuts next year, which will goose prices a little and put a firmer support under the ~ $50/bbl floor (basis Brent crude oil prices). Given the dire straits in which Russia finds itself, the government likely will increase taxes in 2017, which will result in lower production at the margin. We expect, however, that this will be spun in such a way as to show that when Putin gets involved, positive results occur.6 KSA's Allies Will Cut; Iran And Iraq Are Maxed Out For Now We believe this is a deal that will hold up, which, net, will generate something along the lines of 1.1 to 1.2mm b/d in production cuts in 2017H1. UAE and Kuwait can be counted on to support KSA, as they always have, and cut. And Oman - now at 1mm b/d - will step up for a small slug of the cuts too, and have said they'll match OPEC up to a 10% cut. Iran and Iraq have taken production as far as it can go over the next six months to a year, and do not represent a threat to the KSA-Russia deal (Chart 5). Iran's maxed out - they're not capable of adding all that much to their current 3.7mm b/d output. Iraq could cheat, but we don't think they can go much above 4.5mm b/d, despite their assertion they're at 4.7 mm b/d. Besides, producing at 4.4mm b/d, per the agreement, will produce more revenue for them at higher prices than producing 4.7 mm b/d at lower prices (if they actually could get to that level), and they realize that. According to press reports, Iraq only signed on to the deal in Vienna after they saw the rally in prices following leaks a deal had been reached. Maybe at this time next year, they will have mobilized some FDI to get production ramping, but even that's doubtful. With the exception of Libya and Nigeria - both of which are exempt under this deal - everyone in OPEC outside Iraq, KSA and the GCC OPEC members is producing at max (Chart 6). Libya and Nigeria are equally likely to raise output as prices increase as they are to lose output. The higher prices go the more likely these states are to see increased violence, as warring factions within their borders vie for control of rising oil revenues. Internal conflicts have not been resolved: Any increase in prices accompanied by increased production gives the warring factions more to fight over. The expected value of their increased production next year is therefore zero. Chart 5KSA's Allies Will Support It;##br## Iran, Iraq Maxed Out bca.ces_wr_2016_12_08_c5 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_08_c5 Chart 6Most Of OPEC Ex Gulf States ##br##Also Are Producing At Max Levels bca.ces_wr_2016_12_08_c6 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_08_c6 U.S. Shale Production Will Rise We expect to see evidence of the cuts contained in the KSA-Russia deal to begin showing up in the February - March period, in the form of falling commercial inventory levels. The only thing that can destabilize the six-month KSA-Russia deal is U.S. shale-oil production coming back faster and stronger than expected (Chart 7). Pre-cut, we (and the U.S. EIA) estimated U.S. shale production would bottom in late 2017Q1, and then start re-expansion as rig counts rose to sufficient levels. However, overall 2017 production would be 200 - 300 kb/d lower than 2016 production. Chart 7If U.S. Shale Ramps Too Quickly ##br##KSA-Russia Deal Could Unravel bca.ces_wr_2016_12_08_c7 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_08_c7 If, as we expect, the higher oil price caused by the KSA-Russia deal results in an increase of only ~ 200 kb/d above this estimate, with the production response substantially occurring in the second half of 2017, there's a good chance this deal can hold together and get global commercial oil stocks down to average levels by September 2017. As we've argued, KSA and Russia already have to have factored that in. The apparent average breakeven for the U.S. producers (including a return on capital) appears to be ~ $55/bbl, which could pop above $60 from time to time next year as the long process of restoring U.S. production plays out.7 Having the international oil market pricing at the marginal cost of U.S. shale producers is a lot better for KSA, Russia and the rest of the distressed, low-cost sovereign producers than the low-$40s that cleared the market a few weeks ago. As long as the global market is pricing to shale economics at the margin, these states earn economic rent. Too fast a move to or through the $65 - $75/bbl range would no doubt produce a short-term revenue jump for cash-strapped producers - particularly those OPEC members outside the GCC. But it also would make most of the U.S. shales economic to develop, and incentivize the development of other "lumpy," expensive production that does not turn off quickly once it is brought on line (e.g., oil sands and deepwater). This ultimately would crash prices over the longer term, making it difficult for the industry to attract capital. This is not an ideal outcome for KSA's planned IPO of Aramco, or Russia's sale of 19.5% of Rosneft, or their investors. Even so, reinvestment has to be stimulated with higher oil prices in the not-too-distant future, most likely in 2018. Oil production so far has barely started to show the negative production ramifications of the $1+ trillion cuts to capex that will occur between 2015 and 2020, resulting in some 7mm b/d of oil-equivalent production not being available to the market. We expect the effects of this foregone production to show up over the next four years, and believe there is not much producers, particularly International Oil Companies (IOCs), can do to stop it, since their mega-project investments generally require 3-5 years from the time spending decisions are made until first oil is produced. Chart 8Accelerating Decline Rates And##br## Steady Demand Will Stress Shale Producers bca.ces_wr_2016_12_08_c8 bca.ces_wr_2016_12_08_c8 With such huge cuts to future expenditures, and enormous amounts of debt incurred by the IOCs to pay for the completion of legacy mega-projects that will need to be repaid ($130B in debt added in the past two years), OPEC could see a looming shortage of oil developing later this decade if IOC-sponsored offshore production falls into steep declines, as we think is likely. With U.S. shales accounting for a larger share of global production, the global decline curve will accelerate from our estimated current level of 8 - 10% p.a. This will be happening as oil demand continues to grow 1.2 - 1.5mm b/d over the 2017 - 2020 interval (Chart 8). These massive capex cuts seen in the industry since OPEC's market-share war was launched in November 2014 will place an enormous burden on shale producers and conventional oil producers - chiefly Gulf Arab producers and Russia - to offset natural decline-curve losses and meet increasing demand. Any sign either or both will not be able to move quickly enough to meet growing demand could spike prices further out the curve, as we've noted in previously. Investment Implications Of BCA's Oil View The KSA-Russia deal is short term - it expires in June, but is "extendable for another six months to take into account prevailing market conditions and prospects," according to terms of the Agreement contained in the OPEC press release of November 30. This forces investors to take relatively tactical positions in the oil markets, with some optionality for longer-dated exposure. We closed out our long Feb/16 Brent $50/$55 call spread last week - recommended November 3, 2016, expecting OPEC and Russia to agree a production cut - with a 156% indicated profit (using closing prices). We are taking profits of 80.6% on our long Aug/17 WTI vs. short Nov/17 WTI, basis Tuesday's close, and replacing it with a long Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18 WTI spread at today's closing levels, expecting backwardation to widen next year. This is a strategic recommendation, which also will give us exposure to higher prices by the end of 2017. We will look for overshoots on the downside to get long options exposures again, and longer dated exposures as well. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "OPEC expected to deliver only half of target production cut: Kemp," published online by reuters.com on December 6, 2016. OPEC has invited Russia, Colombia, Congo, Egypt, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Oman, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Bolivia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain and Brunei to meet in Vienna Dec. 10, according to Reuters. 2 Please see the feature article in last month's OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report published November 11, 2016, "Developments in global oil inventories," beginning on p. 3. 3 Please see "Ignore The KSA - Russia Production Pact, Focus Instead On Their Need For Cash," in the September 8, 2016, issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see "Exclusive: How Putin, Khamenei and Saudi prince got OPEC Deal Done," published by reuters.com on December 1, 2016, and "OPEC Deal Hinged on 2 a.m. Phone Call and It Nearly Failed," published on line by bloomberg.com on December 1, 2016. See also Russia Today's online article "Putin 'directly involved' in OPEC reaching production cut deal," published December 2, 2016, on rt.com, which also details Putin's meetings months prior with KSA Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the G20 meeting in China. 5 Please see issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "The OPEC Debate", dated November 24, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 6 Lukoil officials are talking up production cuts and possible tax hikes in Iranian and Arab media: Here is an Iranian outlet (https://financialtribune.com/articles/energy/54595/lukoil-sees-60-oil-in-2017), and an Arab outlet with a longer version of the same TASS story (http://www.tradearabia.com/news/OGN_317517.html). Concerns re possible tax increases next year, which will force production lower, appear in the second-to-last paragraph. 7 Please see pp. 22 - 23 of "From Boom to Gloom: Energy States After the Oil Bust," presented by Mine Yucel, Senior Vice President and Director of Research at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, July 12, 2016, for a discussion of shale breakevens. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Closed Trades

Highlights The brief history of our model portfolios is a tale of two regions: our global portfolios are beating their benchmarks by an aggregate 350 basis points ("bps"), while our U.S. portfolios lag by 55 bps. Defensive sector tilts weighed on all four portfolios, but market-cap tilts gave the U.S. portfolios a big boost, and currency-hedged country and fixed-income positions turbocharged global portfolio performance. We expect to see bond yields, the dollar and DM equity prices higher at year-end 2017 and our portfolio positioning will continue to reflect these broad themes. True inflection points are few and far between, but the U.S. will at least experience a sugar rush, and we are adding some credit risk while walking back some of our defensive equity positioning to prepare for it. Table 1Summary Portfolio Performance December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market Feature This report presents the first review of our model portfolios, which have now been live for seven weeks. Going forward, we will review them in our first publication of every month. The reviews will have two components: an ex-post examination of portfolio performance and an ex-ante discussion of our outlook. Both components are meant to foster transparency, with the ex-post component opening a window on our ongoing efforts to improve our process, and the ex-ante component shining a light on how our views are evolving in real time. Results To Date Our model portfolios have outperformed, on balance, over their first two months, but the aggregate results cover over a fault line between U.S. and global portfolio performance. The U.S. Long-Only portfolio is just even with its benchmark and the Long/Short lags by 55 bps, (Table 1). The disparity highlights the way dollar moves can create international opportunities. Being on the right side of the greenback helped us generate alpha despite dreadful sector positioning. Portfolio Performance Attribution We track portfolio attribution on up to six applicable dimensions. For all the portfolios, we consider Asset Allocation, Equity Sector Allocation and Fixed Income Category Allocation. If the Equity portion of the portfolios has any mid- or small-cap exposures, we track Market Cap Allocation; if it has multi-country exposures, we track Country Allocation; and if it has short positions, we track Long/Short Allocation based on the contribution from its long/short pairs. Since all of the portfolios were initially set to match our benchmark asset allocations (60% Equity/37.5% Fixed Income/2.5% Cash), we have no Asset Allocation attribution to report in this update (Table 2). Table 2Applicable Attribution Sources December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market U.S. Long-Only Our U.S. Long-Only portfolio (Table 3) outperformed its benchmark by 1 basis point through November 30.1 Market cap allocation paved the way to the outperformance, as small- and mid-cap stocks zoomed higher following the election (Table 4). Our fixed-income category allocations helped, as well, with the outperformance of our income hybrids bucket and our sizable underweight in lagging investment-grade corporates more than making up for our zero weight in outperforming high yield (Table 5, bottom panel). The gains were consumed by equity sector underperformance, which labored mightily under an inopportune defensive bias (Table 5, top panel). Table 3U.S. Long-Only Model Portfolio: Absolute Performance By Position December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market Table 4U.S. Relative Performance Contribution From Market-Cap Positioning December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market Table 5U.S. Relative Performance Contribution From Sector Positioning December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market U.S. Long/Short Our U.S. Long/Short portfolio (Table 6) underperformed its benchmark by 55 basis points through November 30.2 Larger defensive sector tilts weighed on the long/short portfolio relative to its long-only counterpart, compounded by short positions in cyclical sectors (Table 7, bottom panel). Our fixed-income pairs fared better: while the HYG short/LQD long detracted from performance, the IEF short/TIP long was able to offset it (Table 7, top panel). The former, an anti-credit risk (and duration-extending) play, was poorly positioned on both counts, but the latter was well positioned to reap the benefit of the pickup in inflation expectations. Table 6U.S. Long/Short Model Portfolio: Absolute Performance By Position December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market Table 7U.S. Relative Performance Contribution From Long/Short Pairs December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market Global Long-Only Our Global Long-Only portfolio (Table 8) outperformed its benchmark by 188 basis points through November 30.3 Successful country positioning contributed to the sizable outperformance, as the (currency-hedged) Japan overweight was a rousing success (Table 9). Fixed-income category allocations were also big winners, driven by the currency-hedged non-U.S. aggregate exposure (BNDX) and the U.S. aggregate (AGG) and corporate holdings (LQD), which more than offset the drag from the unhedged international sovereign exposure (BWX) (Table 10, bottom panel). Only equity sector allocations weighed on the portfolio, as both Staples and Health Care were drubbed by the benchmark index (Table 10, top panel). Table 8Global Long-Only Model Portfolio: Absolute Performance By Position December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market Table 9Global Relative Performance Contribution From Country Positioning December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market Table 10Global Relative Performance Contribution From Sector Positioning December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market Global Long/Short Our Global Long/Short portfolio (Table 11) outperformed its benchmark by 166 basis points through November 30.4 Just like its U.S. counterpart, the global Long/Short portfolio was weighed down by its wrong-footed long defensives/short cyclicals pairs (Table 12). Country long/short pairs paid off nicely, however, especially in November, as emerging markets with sizable current account deficits, like Turkey and Brazil, underperformed their less dollar-vulnerable peers. Our fixed-income long/short pairs also outperformed, albeit by a smaller margin. Table 11Global Long/Short Model Portfolio: Absolute Performance By Position December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market Table 12Global Relative Performance Contribution From Long/Short Pairs December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market How Our Views Fared Rates, Inflation And Credit Markets rewarded two of the four components of our fixed-income view. U.S. inflation expectations surged (Chart 1) and developed-world sovereigns proved to be an especially poor value, as the aggregate G7 economies' 10-year bond yield spiked faster than at any point since the taper tantrum in 2013 (Chart 2). These views, expressed as portfolio tilts - underweight fixed income, own TIPS and hold duration at or below benchmark duration - worked well when translated to portfolio positions, as noted above. Chart 1Inflation Expectations Spiked... bca.bcasr_sr_2016_12_08_c1 bca.bcasr_sr_2016_12_08_c1 Chart 2...And So Did Nominal Yields bca.bcasr_sr_2016_12_08_c2 bca.bcasr_sr_2016_12_08_c2 The bear-flattening call turned out to be a dud, as the Treasury yield curve steepened despite the looming Fed tightening cycle. Overwhelmed by our anti-duration call, though, it had no meaningful portfolio impact. Our credit-bearish call was a central fixed-income pillar in all four of our portfolios, and it did constrain performance as high yield outperformed at home and abroad. Yields may well be due to pull back following their November surge, but we see them ending 2017 higher, making credit's positive carry an attractive buffer against rising rates. Economic Growth And Corporate Earnings Our concerns that the equity rally has become uncomfortably stretched, and that U.S. corporate margins face downward pressure, did not amount to anything over the last two months. Since we maintained benchmark equity weightings across all of our portfolios, however, our too-early views did not affect performance. We expressed our defensives-over-cyclicals view in every portfolio's sector allocations to the detriment of performance across the board. Thanks to currency-hedged Japanese equities' surge, the global portfolios benefitted slightly from our view that European and Japanese multinationals would find the going easier than their U.S. counterparts, and we remain optimistic about the potential for a relative European profit inflection. New And Revised Views Rates, Inflation And Credit There are still too many unknowns about the details of policy proposals to assess whether or not the U.S. is on the cusp of sustained growth acceleration, but the incoming administration, supported by a compliant Congress, can unquestionably bestow a sugar rush. The credit upshot is that it will be harder to default if both growth and inflation get a fillip in 2017. The curve is likely to steepen on the grounds that our bond strategists expect the Fed to allow inflation expectations to gather momentum before it signals an increased pace of hikes and a higher terminal rate. The bond vigilantes could add to the upward pressure on long rates if they ever stir from their long hibernation. It would be entirely reasonable for yields to retrace at least a portion of their sudden and sizable move, and our U.S. Bond Strategy service has moved to benchmark duration to position for near-term consolidation. It still sees long rates higher a year from now, though, and we are not going to wait to add some carry to the portfolio. We are replacing our U.S. REIT exposure with business development company exposure via the BIZD ETF, which will add some beta along with credit exposure. We are going to add bank loans in the form of the BKLN ETF, providing some rate protection (bank loans carry floating rates) and allowing us to dip our toe into the most senior tranche of the high-yield space. BKLN will push our Treasuries exposure to below benchmark,5 but we will maintain Treasury duration near benchmark in line with our bond strategists' tactical guidance. We will look to exit our TLT position on a 10-year rally back to the 2-2.2% range. Chart 3Pigs Get Slaughtered bca.bcasr_sr_2016_12_08_c3 bca.bcasr_sr_2016_12_08_c3 Cyclicals Versus Defensives The uncertainty around the impact of the incoming administration's proposed policies keeps us from fully reversing course on our cyclicals/defensives positioning. But our conviction about higher rates increases our remorse at overstaying our welcome in Staples and Telcos (Chart 3). As an analogue to positioning for near-term economic acceleration by taking on some credit risk, we're shifting capital away from rate-driven Staples and Telecom to Discretionaries and Energy. Our exit from Swiss equities in the global portfolios furthers our move to more neutral intra-equity settings. We are adding Energy exposure to all of the portfolios to reflect our strategists' bullish take on crude oil. The recently agreed OPEC-Russia production cuts will fuel inventory drawdowns that will keep crude prices from falling below $50. Our Energy Sector Strategy service argues that U.S. shale producers will reap the greatest benefits, as $50+ crude will allow them to accelerate oilfield reinvestment and grow production in 2017. We are therefore adding FRAK, an ETF dominated by U.S. shale oil and natural gas producers, to our U.S. portfolios.6 Other Portfolio Changes Aside from dialing back our defensive equity positioning and embracing some credit risk, our biggest change has been to pull in our horns on the sector tilts across all of our portfolios. We are chastened by being off-sides with our sector calls and are pulling back until we have a better sense of direction. We are waiting in all portfolios for an opportune time to shorten duration. We expect to maintain our sizable income hybrids sleeve as the nascent bond bear market grinds along. Table 13 shows our revised U.S. Long-Only portfolio. As mentioned above, it no longer shuns cyclical sector or credit exposures and will continue to evolve with the anticipated direction of the economy. We have chosen not to rebalance our mid- and small-cap exposures and we would be happy to increase them if they retrace some of their relative gains in the near term. The U.S. Long/Short portfolio (Table 14) is effectively an amplified version of the Long-Only portfolio but its sector tilts are being trimmed considerably as well. Table 13Revised U.S. Long-Only Model Portfolio December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market Table 14Revised U.S. Long/Short Model Portfolio December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market The changes to our Global Long-Only portfolio mute its defensive bias and attempt to simplify it by removing standalone currency-hedging positions (Table 15). We substitute HEWU, the currency-hedged version of EWU, for our existing EWU/FXB pair, giving up some liquidity to save on ETF and borrow fees. We clean up the other currency short by exiting our Swiss equity position, which is no longer needed now that we are dialing back the portfolio's defensive cast. We exit BWX and reallocate its proceeds to BNDX and AGG to simplify the portfolio and remove incremental sovereign and currency exposure. We replace LQD with JNK to introduce a modest high-yield exposure to the portfolio. Table 15Revised Global Long-Only Model Portfolio December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market Like its U.S. counterpart, our Global Long/Short portfolio is significantly dialing back its sector tilts (Table 16). The Staples, Telco and Utilities overweights are being eliminated, along with the Financials short. The Health Care overweight and the corresponding Industrials and Tech shorts have been reduced. As in the Long-Only portfolio, we are exiting Switzerland and redeploying the proceeds in Energy, Discretionaries and a slightly reduced U.S. underweight. We are replacing the incremental exposure to U.S. Investment Grade (LQD) with High Yield (JNK), reflecting our U.S. rates and credit view. With the addition of JNK, we are taking the opportunity to do a little housecleaning by replacing the U.S. leg of our EM junk spread-widening pair, formerly HYG, with JNK, which better aligns with our portfolio benchmark and is 10 bps cheaper per annum. Table 16Revised Global Long/Short Model Portfolio December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market December Model Portfolios Review: The Power Of Currency Hedging In A Dollar Bull Market Doug Peta, Vice President Global ETF Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 Through December 5th, the U.S. Long-Only portfolio is in line with its benchmark. 2 Through December 5th, the U.S. Long/Short portfolio has underperformed by 65 basis points. 3 Through December 5th, the Global Long-Only portfolio has outperformed by 184 basis points. 4 Through December 5th, the Global Long/Short portfolio has outperformed by 160 basis points. 5 In our October 12th Special Report introducing the model portfolios, we referred to outdated Aggregate/High Yield proportions in our U.S. and global fixed income benchmarks. Based on the outstanding value of the bonds in the indexes, the correct U.S. breakdown is 90/10 AGG/HY and the correct global breakdown is 93/7 AGG/HY, not 95/5 as originally stated. Our performance attribution calculations reflect the correct benchmarks. 6 For more information on the shale producers and the effects of the OPEC cuts, please see the following Energy Sector Strategy reports, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com: Constructive On U.S. Shale Producers And Select Service Companies, published July 6, 2016; The OPEC Debate, published November 23, 2016; and Recommendation Additions & Changes Following OPEC's Cut, published December 7, 2016.

Highlights Global Duration: Global bond yields, pushed higher since July on the back of improving global growth and rising inflation, have now overshot to the upside on excessive expectations of U.S. fiscal stimulus. Take profits on bearish bond positions and increase portfolio duration exposure to at-benchmark on a tactical basis until the oversold conditions unwind. 2017 Global Yield Curve Expectations: The recent steepening of government bond yield curves across the developed markets should soon begin to fade, leading to a more diverse evolution of curves during the course of 2017: steeper in the U.S., core Europe and in Japan (at the long end), flatter in the U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. U.K. Inflation Protection: Take profits on our recommended U.K. inflation trades (overweight inflation-linked bonds and CPI swaps), in response to the recent stability of the Pound and signs that the Bank of England is shifting in a more hawkish direction. Feature Time To Tactically Take Profits On Short Duration Positions Investors have been reminded over the past few months that boring old bonds, just like equities, can generate painful losses when prices disconnect from fundamentals. Back on July 19, we moved to a below-benchmark stance on overall portfolio duration, as we noted that government bonds across the developed markets had reached an overbought extreme despite improving trends in global growth and inflation (Chart of the Week).1 Bonds have sold off smartly since, with benchmark 10-year government yields in the U.S., U.K., Germany and Japan rising +88bps, +60bps, +36bps, +27bps respectively. The popular market narrative is that the latest leg of the bond selloff is a direct result of Donald Trump winning the White House. This raised investor awareness to the bond-bearish implications of a protectionist U.S. president looking to provide a fiscal kick to an economy already at full employment. The reality, however, is that global bond yields troughed a full four months before the U.S. elections on the back of a better global growth picture. It is quite possible that the latest bump in yields would have happened even if Trump did not win the election. Rising industrial commodity prices, happening in the face of a strengthening U.S. dollar that typically dampens prices, also suggest that bond yields have been responding more to faster realized growth and inflation and less to future expected fiscal stimulus (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekGlobal Bonds##br## Are Oversold Global Bonds Are Oversold Global Bonds Are Oversold Chart 2Stronger Growth Has ##br## Pushed Yields Higher bca.gfis_wr_2016_12_06_c2 bca.gfis_wr_2016_12_06_c2 Looking ahead, if the global economy evolves as we expect, with growth continuing to look relatively robust and inflation continuing to grind higher, then yields have even more upside in 2017. However, bonds now appear deeply oversold amid highly bearish sentiment. U.S. Treasury yields, in particular, have overshot the fair value estimates from our models (Chart 3). Also, this week's ECB meeting is unlikely to provide any bearish surprises for bond investors, as the ECB will likely extend the current QE program (at the current pace of buying) until at least next September. This should act to cap the recent widening of global bond term premia (Chart 4) and prevent a "Fifth Tantrum" from unfolding in global bond markets, as we discussed last week.2 Therefore, we are taking profits today on our bearish bond call and moving back to a tactical at-benchmark portfolio duration stance. However, we still expect yields to rise over the next year to levels beyond current forward rates.3 Thus, we would look to reinstate a below-benchmark duration posture if the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield were to fall to the 2-2.2% range. We will also look for signs of oversold momentum fading and a reduction in short positioning in U.S. Treasuries before re-establishing a below-benchmark duration tilt (Chart 5). The next leg of pressure on global bond yields should come from the U.S., given our optimistic view on U.S. growth and inflation for next year (see below). Chart 3UST Yields Are##br## A Bit Too High bca.gfis_wr_2016_12_06_c3 bca.gfis_wr_2016_12_06_c3 Chart 4A Big Adjustment In##br## Term Premia & Expectations bca.gfis_wr_2016_12_06_c4 bca.gfis_wr_2016_12_06_c4 Chart 5Taking Profits On##br## Our Bearish Bond Call bca.gfis_wr_2016_12_06_c5 bca.gfis_wr_2016_12_06_c5 Bottom Line: Global bond yields, pushed higher since July on the back of improving global growth and rising inflation, have now overshot to the upside on excessive expectations of U.S. fiscal stimulus. Take profits on bearish bond positions and increase portfolio duration exposure to at-benchmark on a tactical basis until the oversold conditions unwind. Some Initial Thoughts On Developed Market Yield Curves In 2017 With only a handful of trading days remaining in 2016, it is time to peer ahead to how markets could perform in the New Year. We will be publishing our full 2017 Outlook report on December 20th, but this week we are presenting some preliminary ideas on how government bond yield curves could evolve over the course of next year. United States - Eventual Bear Steepening In Excess Of The Forwards We see U.S. growth accelerating to a 2.8% pace next year, an above-potential pace that is stronger than current consensus forecasts.4 Combined with a steady grind higher in realized inflation (both headline and core), this will generate a nominal growth outcome over 5% in 2017. This will help push the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield to the 2.8-3.0% area by the end of 2017 as the Fed will likely continue to raise rates but not as fast as nominal growth will accelerate (i.e. will remain accommodative). This move will be led by rising inflation expectations, which we see rising to a level consistent with the Fed's inflation target.5 This will put steepening pressure on the U.S. Treasury curve, at a pace that will easily exceed the flattening currently priced into the forwards (Chart 6, top panel). We see the potential for curve steepening pressure to come both from growth, which will push up longer-dated real yields and steepen the "real" yield curve, and from inflation, with a tight labor market putting upward pressure on wage and price inflation even with a stronger U.S. dollar (Chart 7). Chart 6A Steeper UST Curve,##br## Led By Rising Real Yields bca.gfis_wr_2016_12_06_c6 bca.gfis_wr_2016_12_06_c6 Chart 7Will UST Yields Pause##br## After A Rate Hike Next Week? bca.gfis_wr_2016_12_06_c7 bca.gfis_wr_2016_12_06_c7 For now, however, we are keeping a "neutral" stance on U.S. yield curve exposure until we see signs that oversold conditions in the Treasury market have corrected. One final point: the Treasury market likely moved too quickly in recent weeks to discount a fiscal ease under the new Trump administration. However, any impetus to growth from the government sector, coming at a time when the U.S. economy is running near full employment, will be another structural factor putting steepening pressure on the yield curve in the next year through more Treasury issuance and stronger inflation pressures. Core Euro Area - Very Modest Steepening In Line With The Forwards As we discussed in a recent Weekly Report, the ECB will most likely continue with its current bond-buying program, with no tapering of the size of the purchases, until at least September 2017.6 European inflation remains too low relative to the ECB's target (Chart 8) and the central bank will be wary about reducing monetary stimulus anytime soon. The overriding presence of ECB buying will act to limit the upside in longer-dated European bond yields, even in an environment where U.S. Treasury yields rise over the course of 2017. The core European government bond yield curves (Germany, France) will likely still see some modest steepening pressure, led by upward pressure on real yields, as global growth continues to improve. Combined with the lagged impact of the weakening Euro and the rise in commodity prices, there should be some mild additional steepening pressure coming from inflation expectations, as well. The forward curves are currently pricing in a very modest steepening over the next year, and we do not see a case for the curve to steepen much beyond the forwards (Chart 9). We continue to favor core Europe as a recommended overweight in our global Developed Market bond allocation. Favoring the longer-end of the curve (10 years and longer) in Germany and France - the higher yielding parts of these low-yielding bond markets - makes the most sense against the backdrop of subdued Euro Area inflation. Chart 8No Threat To Global Bonds##br## From The ECB This Week bca.gfis_wr_2016_12_06_c8 bca.gfis_wr_2016_12_06_c8 Chart 9ECB QE Will Limit##br## Any Curve Moves In Europe bca.gfis_wr_2016_12_06_c9 bca.gfis_wr_2016_12_06_c9 Japan - Expect Long-End Steepening, Even With Bank Of Japan Curve Targeting The Japanese yield curve is now fairly straightforward to predict, with the Bank of Japan (BoJ) now explicitly targeting the level of JGB yields. The BoJ has committed to keep the 10yr JGB yield at 0% until Japanese inflation expectations overshoot the 2% BoJ target. With inflation expectations currently sitting just above 0%, that goal is now far from being realized. We see very little movement in the 2-10 year part of the JGB curve next year, but we expect the curve beyond 10 years to be more influenced by trends in global bond yields, with the BoJ providing no guidance on the desired level of longer-dated JGB yields. Given our views on a potential bear-steepening of the U.S. Treasury curve in 2017, we expect that the 10/30 JGB curve will also steepen (Chart 10). Focusing Japanese bond exposure on the 10-year point makes the most sense in this environment, although at a yield of 0% the return prospects are hardly inviting. U.K. - Steepening Will Turn To Flattening The Bank of England (BoE) took out a very large insurance policy on the U.K. economy by cutting interest rates and re-starting quantitative easing (QE) after the shocking Brexit vote. This has appeared to work, as U.K. economic growth has been surprisingly strong in the months since the June referendum. But the ramifications of the BoE's aggressive easing was a massive depreciation of the Pound and a subsequent rise in U.K. inflation (Chart 11). Chart 10BoJ Is Not Worrying About##br## The Long End For JGBs BoJ Is Not Worrying About The Long End For JGBs BoJ Is Not Worrying About The Long End For JGBs Chart 11The Post-Brexit ##br## Adjustment Is Nearly Complete The Post-Brexit Adjustment Is Nearly Complete The Post-Brexit Adjustment Is Nearly Complete This has set up a situation where the Gilt market is behaving much like the U.S. Treasury market did after the Fed introduced its own QE programs between 2008 & 2012. The result was as rise in nominal bond yields led by rising inflation expectations and stronger economic growth, both of which were a function of a weaker currency. In the case of the U.K. now, the rise in inflation has been strong enough to force the BoE to back off its promise to deliver an additional rate cut before the end of 2016. The BoE will likely not extend the latest QE program beyond the March 2017 expiry, as well. There is even a chance that the BoE could be forced to hike rates sometime in the first half of 2017. Against this backdrop where the BoE has to play a bit of monetary catchup to rising nominal growth, the Gilt curve is likely to see some flattening pressure after the recent steepening. With the forwards pricing in no change in the slope of the curve next year (Chart 12), curve flattening positions that limit exposure to the front-end of the Gilt curve could offer opportunities in 2017 after global bond yields consolidate the recent rise in yields. While we believe it is too early to reposition our Gilt curve allocation this week, we are taking profits on our recommended U.K. inflation protection trades given the recent stability of the Pound and growing evidence that the Bank of England is turning more hawkish (Chart 13). Specifically, we are closing our Overlay Trade favoring index-linked Gilts versus nominals at a profit of +59bps. We also advise closing our "Brexit hedge" trade suggested in June before the referendum, which was a long position in U.K. CPI swaps versus U.S. equivalents. Chart 12Nearing The End Of ##br## Gilt Curve Steepening? Nearing The End Of Gilt Curve Steepening? Nearing The End Of Gilt Curve Steepening? Chart 13Take Profit On U.K.##br## Inflation Protection Trades Take Profit On U.K. Inflation Protection Trades Take Profit On U.K. Inflation Protection Trades Canada - The Steepening Is Over A modest steepening of the Canadian government bond yield curve in 2017 is currently priced into the forwards. We think even this small move is unlikely to be realized. The short-end of the yield curve should stay well-anchored around current levels. Probabilities extracted from the Canadian Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve currently show a 4% market-implied chance of a rate cut, and 40% odds of a rate hike, by December 6th 2017. Of the two, the probability of a rate hike looks too high. The Bank of Canada (BoC) has rarely increased policy rates when our BCA Canadian Central Bank Monitor was in "easy money required" territory (Chart 14). More likely, the Bank of Canada will stay on hold throughout 2017 due to a lack of inflationary pressures. The Canadian unemployment rate remains far higher than the full employment level, while a wide gap has developed between the growth rates of core CPI and weekly earnings; low wage inflation usually drags core CPI inflation lower. Already, the Canadian CPI less the most volatile components - one of the core inflation measures monitored by the BoC - has rolled over. In the longer part of the curve, the weakening economic cycle will keep yields well contained. While the rebound in energy prices seen this year is a positive for the beaten-up Alberta economy, even higher prices will be needed for Canadian energy producers to rekindle investments in that sector given the high cost of oil extraction in Western Canada. Without a meaningful recovery in Alberta, the Canadian economy will be unable to expand at an above-trend pace; growth will be slower than the general consensus forecast of 2.0% in 2017.7 To profit from that view, we are opening a new butterfly spread trade on the Canadian curve: going long the 2-year/10-year barbell versus a short position in the 5-year bullet. This trade should generate positive excess returns if the 2-year/10-year slope of the Canadian curve flattens, as we expect (Chart 15). Chart 14Canadian Short Rates##br## To Remain Well-Anchored Canadian Short Rates To Remain Well-Anchored Canadian Short Rates To Remain Well-Anchored Chart 15Go Long A Canadian 2/10 ##br## Barbell Vs. The 5yr Bullet Go Long A Canadian 2/10 Barbell Vs. The 5yr Bullet Go Long A Canadian 2/10 Barbell Vs. The 5yr Bullet Australia - Flattening Phase Ahead A small flattening of the Australian yield curve over the next 12 months is currently priced into the forwards. This expectation seems reasonable to us, but the bulk of the flattening should come from the short end where yields will drift higher over the course of the year. Australian inflation prospects are improving, with the Melbourne Institute Inflation Gauge having stabilized of late. As the negative impact of imported goods price deflation recedes going forward, domestic inflation should rise. In addition, our model is calling for core CPI inflation to grind higher in 2017 (Chart 16). Chart 16Australian Inflation Is Bottoming... Australian Inflation Is Bottoming... Australian Inflation Is Bottoming... Chart 17...Even As Australian Growth Is Starting To Cool ...Even As Australian Growth Is Starting To Cool ...Even As Australian Growth Is Starting To Cool Because of this, the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) will progressively become less dovish and greater odds of a rate hike will be priced into the yield curve. This is already starting to happen, on the margin; since October, the probability of a rate cut by December 5th, 2017 has decreased substantially, from 65% to 5%. As we have been pointing out over the past several months, the Australian economy has been humming along. China's policy reflation seen earlier in 2016 had a direct positive impact on Australian export demand, while a rising terms of trade fueled by higher base metals prices has provided a boost to domestic income. However, the upward pressure on yields from accelerating domestic growth has become milder of late. Employment growth, motor vehicle sales and aggregate private sector credit growth are now all trending to the downside (Chart 17). This might be an indication that the boom from the first half of this year is starting to dissipate. This tames, to some extent, our optimism over the Australian economy. If economic activity continues to slow modestly, corporate bond supply, i.e. demand for credit and liquidity, should ease. In turn, this should also alleviate the recent upside pressure on the longer part of the Australian government bond yield curve. Chart 18The NZ Curve Will Follow##br## The Forwards In 2017 The Bond Vigilantes Take A Break For The Holidays The Bond Vigilantes Take A Break For The Holidays In sum, on a 3-6 month horizon, the short end of the Aussie curve could edge higher as the market prices in a less dovish RBA that will need to begin worrying about rising inflation once again. While at the same time, longer-term bond yields might have seen their highs given some cooling of economic growth. We already have a recommended position on the Australian curve to benefit from these trends, as we are short the 4-year government bond bullet versus a long position in the 2-year/6-year barbell. This trade was initiated earlier this year, has generated +13bps of profits so far, and remains valid.8 As an exit strategy, we will re-evaluate this trade if high-frequency cyclical Australian data disappoint further or the current expansion of Australia's terms of trade starts to reverse. New Zealand - Following The Forwards The New Zealand forward yield curve is currently pricing a 12bps flattening over the next 12 months, with the 2-year/10-year slope expected to move from 107bps to 95bps (Chart 18). This move seems reasonable to us. As we discussed in a recent report, inflation will re-surface in New Zealand in 2017.9 The upside surprise will be due to those factors: Narrowing global output gaps that will bring about a more inflationary global backdrop. A boost from China, most notably through higher producer prices. A weakening of the Kiwi dollar in response to a more hawkish Fed. A stronger dairy sector, which should help New Zealand's exports and reflate domestic wages. A potential reversal of migration inflows, which should shrink the supply of workers and tighten the labor market, boosting wage growth and pressuring price inflation higher. If this view materializes, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) will become more hawkish. This should push short term yields higher and flatten the New Zealand government bond yield curve. Like everywhere else, the New Zealand yield curve has steepened over the last month as global bond markets have priced in faster growth and the potential impact of Trump-ian fiscal stimulus in the U.S. As this external impact dissipates in the next few months, the main factor driving the shape of the New Zealand curve will swing back to expectations of future RBNZ policy. Bottom Line: The recent consistent steepening of government bond yield curves across the developed markets should soon begin to fade, leading to a more diverse evolution of curves during the course of 2017: steeper in the U.S., core Europe and in the long end in Japan; flatter in the U.K., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Jean-Laurent Gagnon, Editor/Strategist jeang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy/U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Six Reasons To Tactically Reduce Duration Exposure Now", dated July 19, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com & usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy/U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fourth Tantrum", dated November 29, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com & usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 The current 1-year forward rate for the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury is 2.67% 4 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Better U.S. Economic Data Will Cause The Dollar To Strengthen", dated October 14, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 5 The Fed targets headline PCE inflation, while inflation compensation in U.S. TIPS is priced off headline CPI inflation. The historical gap between the two measures is about 40bps, thus a level of breakeven inflation in TIPS that is consistent with the Fed's 2% inflation target is 2.4% (2% PCE inflation + 0.4%). 6 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The ECB's Next Move: Extend & Pretend", dated October 25, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 7 Both the Bank of Canada and the median economist surveyed by Bloomberg forecast 2.0% real GDP growth in 2017. For further details, please http://www.bankofcanada.ca/2016/10/mpr-2016-10-19/ 8 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Five Yield Curve Trades For The Rest Of The Year", dated May 24, 2016, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "A Post-Trump Update Of Our Overlay Trades", dated November 22, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index The Bond Vigilantes Take A Break For The Holidays The Bond Vigilantes Take A Break For The Holidays Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights We update the long-term structural themes that we expect will be key drivers of financial market performance over the next one to five years, drawing investment conclusions from each. Debt Supercycle. The final stage of a debt supercycle is often marked by an increase in public debt, which we may now see in the U.S. Meanwhile, the eurozone and emerging markets are still at an early stage of post-debt deleveraging. Technological Disruption. The IT revolution has reached the mature phase, and behind it is a new wave of technologies including artificial intelligence and biotech. The first and last stages of tech waves are the only times where investors typically make profits. Emerging Market Deleveraging. EM assets will continue to underperform until these countries complete structural reforms and deal with the consequences of a decade of credit excesses. Multipolar Geopolitics. The end of American hegemony raises the risk of military conflicts and will make the world less globalized. End Of The Bond Bull Market. Interest rates have been in structural decline since the early 1980s. With a rotation to fiscal policy and (eventually) higher inflation, the path of least resistance for yields is upwards. Subpar Long-Run Returns. With bond yields low and equities expensive, investors will find it hard to achieve the returns they have become accustomed to over the past 30 years. Substantially more risk will be required to achieve the same level of return. Bear Market In Commodities. Weak demand growth (as China reengineers its economy), excess resource capacity, and an appreciating dollar make this a very different environment to the 2000s. Mal-Distribution Of Income. The backlash from stagnant incomes in Anglo-Saxon economies will continue. Populism is likely to cause the labor share of GDP to rise, hurting profits and lowering investment returns. Feature I. Introduction Chart 1Major Market Cycles Major Market Cycles Major Market Cycles The key views in Global Asset Allocation (GAA), as in other BCA services, center on the cyclical time-horizon, six to 12 months. This means analyzing principally where we are in the business cycle, the impact of liquidity and monetary conditions, and the current outlook for economic and earnings growth. But it is also important to understand the long-term picture: the structural trends in asset prices, debt, demographics, technology, and other "long wave" factors that have profound and protracted impacts on investment performance. Specifically, investors need to get right long-term shifts in things such as economic growth, the U.S. dollar, commodity prices, interest rates, and the relative performance of stocks and bonds (Chart 1). Such long-term themes, therefore, represent the road-map around which GAA develops its cyclical views. Ever since the service began in 2011 (and indeed in its predecessor, the BCA Premium Service), we have published a list of Major Themes, that "should be key drivers of financial market performance over the next 1-5 years." This Special Report updates and fleshes out these major themes. We have retained five of our current themes: The End of The Debt Supercycle The End of The 35-Year Global Bond Bull Market Subpar Long-Run Returns Bear Market in Commodities The Mal-Distribution of Income &Social Unrest And have added three new themes: Technological Disruption EM in A Multi-Year Deleveraging Multipolar Geopolitics In the report we describe each of these themes and draw investment conclusions from them. The descriptions are relatively brief (since most of these themes will be familiar to BCA clients), but we spend more time on analyzing the new themes and on the Debt Supercycle, which is central to our world view. We have dropped two of our earlier themes: Financial Sector Re-Regulation: Bank regulation has indeed been drastically tightened in the years since the Global Financial Crisis. As a result, banks have deleveraged significantly in most regions (Chart 2), their profitability has declined (Chart 3), and share price performance has been poor. But this phase may be over. Bank loan growth has recovered in the U.S. and the new Trump administration may both boost demand for borrowing and ease regulation. In Europe and Japan, bank stock performance will henceforth be driven more by shifts in loan demand and the shape of the yield curve than by regulation. Chart 2Banks Have Deleveraged... bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c2 bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c2 Chart 3... And Become Much Less Profitable bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c3 bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c3 Chart 4The Lowest Interest Rates Ever bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c4 bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c4 A Generational Shift: Our concept was that Millennials (usually defined as those who came of age after 2000 - so born between 1977 and 1994) would behave differently: they would own less (preferring to Uber and couch-surf), depend on social media, and be less focused on their careers. Arguably, this has not been the case. Like previous generations, Millennials have started to acquire possessions. In the U.S. last year, one-half of homebuyers were under 36; Millennials bought 4 million cars (making them the second largest group of purchasers behind baby-boomers). Moreover, this is a hard theme to draw investment conclusions from. Every generation is slightly different - but how concretely does this affect asset prices? One final thought. A common thread running through our themes is that there is little new under the sun. Most phenomena in economics and markets are cyclical. Many of the charts in this report show that the same environment comes round time and again, after five, 10 or 50 years. Much analysis in investment theory is based on this (think of Kontratiev waves, "the fourth turning," Dow Theory etc.) But what is fascinating about today's world is that there are trends we are experiencing for the first time in history: Zero or negative interest rates: never in history have governments, companies, and individuals been able to borrow so cheaply (Chart 4), sometimes even being paid for the privilege. Demographics: The world population has grown continuously since the Black Death in 1350. Indeed the fastest population growth on record was as recent as the 1960s (Chart 5). But growth has slowed sharply since, and is expected to be only 0.1% a year by the end of the century. As a result, we are seeing an unprecedented slowdown - and even decline - in the size of the workforce in many countries (Chart 6). Chart 5Population Growth Has Slowed Drastically bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c5 bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c5 Chart 6The Workforce In Some Countries Is Shrinking bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c6 bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c6 The impacts of these two trends will be profound - but they won't be found by looking at historical precedents. II. Debt Supercycles One of the key ways in which BCA has long looked at the world is through the concept of debt supercycles. Our founder, Hamilton Bolton, wrote in 1967 of "the possibilities inherent in an intensive study of changes in bank credit as a major cyclical and supercyclical investment tool....History shows period after period of excessive bank credit inflation. It also shows a number of periods in which bank credit deflation has been allowed to erode the whole economic and investment structure."1 Simply put, when credit in the economy expands (and these days one needs to look more broadly than at just bank credit) it tends to boost growth, raise asset prices, and underpin the effectiveness of monetary policy. At some point, the level of credit becomes unsustainable and the subsequent deleveraging causes financial conservatism as borrowers focus on repairing their balance-sheets. This makes monetary policy relatively ineffective, and has negative effects on growth and asset prices. The two biggest debt supercycles over the past 50 years were in Japan from 1970 to 1990, and in the U.S. and parts of Europe starting in the early 1980s and culminating with the Global Financial Crisis in 2007 (Chart 7). The fallout from the end of Japan's debt supercycle has been stark: since 1990, Japanese nominal GDP has grown by only 0.4% a year (compared to 6% a year over the previous 10 years) and even today the Nikkei index is 55% below its peak. In the U.S., the early 1980s' financial deregulation and the fiscal policies of the Reagan government caused both private and government debt to begin to rise as a percentage of GDP (Chart 8). From the late 1990s, monetary policy was kept too easy, which culminated in the housing bubble of 2004-7. After that bubble burst, households reduced debt (partly through defaults) and government spending rose sharply for a few years to cushion the recession. Chart 7Debt Supercycles Everywhere Debt Supercycles Everywhere Debt Supercycles Everywhere Chart 8U.S. Debt Started To Rise From 1980 bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c8 bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c8 Since 2009, BCA has been talking about a "post debt supercycle" in the U.S.2 The household savings rate rose (Chart 9), as consumers became cautious, preferring to save rather than spend (Chart 10). This has meant that consumption growth has been lower than wage growth, whereas the opposite was the case up to 2007. Monetary policy also became ineffective since, in such a weak growth environment, companies were not inclined to spend on capital investment despite ultra-low interest rates (Chart 11). Chart 9Household Savings Rate Has Risen Since The Crisis bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c9 bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c9 Chart 10Consumers Prefer To Save Than Spend Consumers Prefer To Save Than Spend Consumers Prefer To Save Than Spend Chart 11Companies Not Spending Despite Low Rates Companies Not Spending Despite Low Rates Companies Not Spending Despite Low Rates There are two competing theories to explain the sub-trend growth of the current expansion. Larry Summers' theory of secular stagnation3 describes a world in which, even with ultra-low interest rates, desired levels of saving exceed desired levels of investment, leading to chronic shortfall in demand. BCA's debt supercycle explanation is closer to that of economists such as Kenneth Rogoff, who argues that once deleveraging and borrowing headwinds subside, growth trends might rise again.4But the two theories may not be so incompatible: secular factors, such as demographics, play a role in both. The final stage of a debt supercycle is often an increase in public debt. That has certainly been the case in Japan: while the private sector has deleveraged aggressively since 1990, government debt to GDP has risen from 67% to 250% - without having much discernible effect on boosting growth. In the U.S., government debt has stabilized as a percentage of GDP over the past two years, and the baseline projection made by the Congressional Budget Office in March this year forecasts it to increase by only 10 percentage points over the next decade. But the election of President Trump might change that. His campaign promised tax cuts and infrastructure spending amounting to about USD6 Trn which, all else being equal, would increase government debt/GDP by another 30 percentage points over a decade. There are two other regions where we see the debt supercycle being an important factor over the coming years: the Eurozone and emerging markets. In Europe, some of the most indebted countries, notably the U.K. and Spain, have made progress in deleveraging since the Global Financial Crisis - although the balance-sheet repair is likely to remain a drag on the economy for a while longer. But France and Italy have hardly delevered at all, and some smaller countries such as Belgium have seen a substantial increase in private debt/GDP (Chart 12). The Eurozone remains generally a very heavily bank-dependent economy, with total bank credit almost back to a historical peak (Chart 13). Germany, by contrast, has long had an aversion to debt: private sector debt/GDP has never been above 130% and is currently only around 100%. This unwillingness to borrow and spend by the world's fourth largest economy has been a drag on European growth. Chart 12Deleveraging In Europe Has Been Patchy Deleveraging In Europe Has Been Patchy Deleveraging In Europe Has Been Patchy Chart 13Eurozone Bank Loans Have Not Declined Eurozone Bank Loans Have Not Declined Eurozone Bank Loans Have Not Declined Emerging markets delevered after the Asian crisis in 1997-8 but the wave of global liquidity created in 2009-12 flowed into EMs, triggering excessively high credit growth. Private-sector EM debt has reached an average of 140% of GDP (Chart 14), and a higher percentage of global GDP than was U.S. debt at the peak of the housing bubble in 2006. Although the debt buildup is most extreme in China, where private-sector debt/GDP has risen by 70 percentage points over the past seven years, the same phenomenon is apparent in many other emerging markets, notably Brazil, Turkey, Russia and Malaysia (Chart 15). Chart 14The EM Debt Supercycle May Be Ending The EM Debt Supercycle May Be Ending The EM Debt Supercycle May Be Ending Chart 15And It's Not Just About China And It's Not Just About China And It's Not Just About China BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy has argued for a while that this is unsustainable and that a period of deleveraging will cause growth to slow in many emerging markets and that the strains from the excessive lending, such as rising NPL ratios, will become apparent.5 The deleveraging has already started to happen, with loan growth in Brazil, Malaysia and Turkey - but not yet China - slowing sharply (Charts 16 & 17). Chart 16EM Bank Lending Now Slowing... EM Bank Lending Now Slowing... EM Bank Lending Now Slowing... Chart 17...Almost Everywhere ... Almost Everywhere ... Almost Everywhere We draw a number of conclusions for long-term asset allocation from this analysis. The post debt supercycle is likely to remain a drag on global growth, and therefore on returns from risk assets, for some years to come. But the U.S. is likely to be less affected than the eurozone since the household sector there has already substantially deleveraged and the Trump administration is more likely to use government spending to fill the gap. Emerging markets will underperform for some years to come as they too go through a period of deleveraging. III. Disruptive Technology Technological change is a key driving force of economies and markets. As Joseph Schumpeter said, capitalism is a "process of industrial mutation...that incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one." Nikolai Kondratiev described 45-60 year waves that were triggered by "the irruption of a technological revolution and the absorption of its effects." Understanding where we are in the technological cycle, then, is very important for investors wanting to catch deep trends. But it is particularly hard at the moment because, at the same time as the world is still seeing ramifications coming through from personal computing (which began as long ago as 1971, with Intel's announcement of the first microprocessor) and from the internet (which started as Arpanet in 1969), there is a new wave of revolutionary technologies still mainly on the drawing-board, including robotics, artificial intelligence, and genetic engineering. The best framework for thinking about technological cycles is provided by economist Carlota Perez.6 She describes five "surges of development" starting with the Industrial Revolution, which she dates from the opening of Arkwright's cotton spinning mill in Cromford in 1771 (Table 1). Her key argument is that these revolutionary technologies have powerful and long drawn-out effects on the financial, social, institutional, and organizational framework and therefore tend to move through a similar pattern of four phases (Chart 18) lasting around 50 years in all. The fifth wave, Information Technology, for example, started in its installation phase with development of the microprocessor, PCs, and mobile phones in the 1970s and 1980s, reached frenzy in the 1990s, hit a turning-point (which often triggers a stock market crash) in 2000-2, before reaching the deployment phase in the 2000s, and may now be at maturity (growth in computers and smart phones is slowing). Table 1The Five Historic Technology ##br##'Surges Of Development' Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes Chart 18The Four Stages Of Technology Waves Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes But Perez wrote her book in 2002, and we could now be close to the beginning of the sixth wave. Think about the situation 30 years ago, in 1986. It would not have been hard to extrapolate how technology might develop over the coming years since some people already used PCs, mobile phones, and the internet but, as William Gibson said at the time, "the future is already, here - it's just not very evenly distributed." Today there are still a few further developments to come in these fifth-wave technologies (we've listed some in Table 2). But there is a whole further set of technologies (self-driving cars, graphene, distributed energy generation) which almost nobody uses now, but which could become important. Many of these build on the developments of the fifth wave (ubiquitous connectivity, cheap and powerful computing) in the same way that previous revolutions grew from their predecessors (cars wouldn't have been possible without steel, for example). Table 2Fifth And Sixth Wave Technologies Still To Come Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes The implications of these new technologies are hard to predict, and many have undoubtedly been over-hyped. As Bill Gates said: "We always overestimate the change that will occur in the next two years and underestimate the change that will occur in the next ten." So how should investors deal with this? The macro implications are enormous. Every new wave of technologies has a large impact on employment, as jobs in dying industries disappear. U.S. farm workers, for example, fell from over half of the labor force in 1880 to only 12% by 1950 (Chart 19). But perhaps more relevant - given that self-driving vehicles may replace taxi, truck, and delivery drivers - is that the number of horses in the U.S. fell from 26 million to 4 million over the 50 years starting in 1915 (Chart 20). These jobs, of course, were replaced by new opportunities in manufacturing or services. And the number of drivers in the U.S. is only 3.8 million currently, or less than 3% of the workforce. Nonetheless, in the maturity phase of the technology wave (where we are now for the IT revolution), Perez points out, there is often popular unrest as "workers organize and demand...the benefits that have been promised and not delivered." Chart 19Farm Workers Were Disrupted ##br##In The Late 19th Century Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes Chart 20...And So ##br##Were Horses Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes Investing in new technologies is naturally appealing to investors, but often tricky to get right. Alastair Nairn7 identifies five similar phases for investing in technology but concludes that investors can usually make money only in the first stage, when initial skepticism reigns, and in the final stage, when the technology has matured and the surviving handful of leading players can now make good profit. Analysis by economists at the Atlanta Fed showed (Table 3) that, of the 24 U.S. PC manufacturers listed on the U.S. stock market between 1983 and 2006, only 10 made a positive return for shareholders.8 Of these, only five beat the overall index. The picture is similar for other technology waves, except perhaps for the nascent auto industry when 12 of 23 listed manufacturers outperformed the index in 1912-1928. Table 3Investments In New Technology Companies Rarely Beat The Market Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes Nairn also argues that it is easier to spot losers than winners: "The winners take many years to emerge and...it is well-nigh impossible to identify them early. ...Conversely, the losers tend to be more obvious, and more obvious at an early stage." Think back to the early days of the internet. Investors would have struggled to pick the eventual winners (Apple, Amazon, Google - but many might have guessed Yahoo or even Pets.com) but should have understood that the media, travel, retailing, and film-camera industries would all be disrupted. Chart 21IT And Healthcare Sectors ##br##Are Likely To Continue To Outperform IT And Healthcare Sectors Are Likely To Continue To Outperform IT And Healthcare Sectors Are Likely To Continue To Outperform So how should investors apply these conclusions? If we are in the mature phase of the Fifth Wave and the skepticism phase of the Sixth, this is a time when investors can benefit from tilts towards sectors where technological changes are taking place, most notably IT and Healthcare, which are likely to continue to outperform over the long run (Chart 21). Exposure to what our colleague Peter Berezin calls BRAIN stocks - biotech, robotics, artificial intelligence, nanotech - makes sense.9 This can be captured through venture capital funds. Potential losers might include energy companies and utilities, as improvements in solar energy lead to more distributed power. Even oil company BP reckons that renewables will provide 16% of power generation in 2035 - and 35% in the EU - up from 4% today, with the cost of solar power expected to fall by 40% over the time. Other sectors that could be disrupted include automakers, which could be challenged by developments in electric vehicles, and financial institutions, whose business model could be under threat from peer-to-peer lending, robo-advisers and other developments in fintech. IV. Emerging Markets In A Multi-Year Deleveraging BCA has recommended a structural underweight on emerging market (EM) equities relative to developed markets (DM) since 2010.10 This call worked well until the end of last year. So far this year, however, EM equities have outperformed DM by 5%, despite their sharp selloff (Chart 22) after the U.S. election. Our view is that emerging markets remain structurally challenged and that their long-run underperformance is likely to continue. We view the outperformance this year as simply a counter-trend move driven largely by two factors: a) the extreme relative undervaluation of EM vs. DM at the beginning of the year; and b) unconventional quantitative easing from the ECB and BoJ, and massive back-door liquidity injections (Chart 23) by EM central banks, such as in China and Turkey. Chart 22Counter-Trend Rally Largley Driven By... bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c22 bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c22 Chart 23QE / Massive Liquidity Injection By PBoC bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c23 bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c23 After the bounce, however, EM equities are no longer especially cheap relative to their DM counterparts, with the relative forward PE ratio now at its five-year average. Going forward, the poor profit outlook - due to persistent structural problems in the EM economies - will continue to weigh on the relative performance of EM assets. We maintain our structural underweight call on EM equities in a global portfolio. First, the factors that drove the massive outperformance of emerging markets in 2002-2010 have disappeared: the once-in-a-generation debt-fueled consumption binge in DM, and the investment-fueled double-digit growth in China which triggered a bull market in commodities (Chart 24). But EM countries did not take full advantage of these exogenous forces to reform their economies: to foster domestic demand, and optimize resource allocation and industrial structure. When China slowed and U.S. consumers went through a much-needed deleveraging after the Great Recession, exports to DM slowed and even contracted, and commodities prices declined sharply. As a result, the export-driven economic model of EM countries has broken down. The structural drivers of economic growth in the EM, both productivity and capital efficiency (Chart 25), have been in a downtrend, while debt (Chart 26) has continued to soar. Chart 24Regime Has Shifted bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c24 bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c24 Chart 25Structural Drivers Have Weakened bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c25 bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c25 Chart 26Debt Has Soared Debt Has Soared Debt Has Soared Structural problems require structural solutions. These solutions vary by country, but in general require less state intervention in the economy, flexible labor markets, and better incentive structures to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. But structural reforms are a painful process and take strong political will to implement. A case in point is China, which delayed its announced supply-side reforms and reverted to monetary and fiscal stimulus when growth slowed. Second, history shows that no credit boom can last forever. Chart 27 shows private non-financial credit-to-GDP ratios in major developed economies. They have experienced periods of deleveraging of various magnitudes and durations, even though these nations have deep and sophisticated banking, credit, and financial markets, and some have plenty of domestic savings. Similar patterns have been observed in EM economies, although their deleveraging episodes have tended to be more frequent and of larger magnitude (Chart 28). Chart 27No Credit Boom Lasts ##br##Forever In DM Economies No Credit Boom Lasts Forever In DM Economies No Credit Boom Lasts Forever In DM Economies Chart 28Asian Economies: Many Interruptions During Structural Leveraging Process bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c28 bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c28 The main reason for these boom-bust credit cycles is the burden of debt servicing. As the private credit-to-GDP ratio rises, if interest rates are held constant, a larger share of income needs to be allocated to paying interest. At some point, debt service eats too much into debtors' incomes, causing debtors to default and creditors to reduce credit provision. This causes the economy to slow, followed by a painful but necessary restructuring to work off the excess leverage before a new cycle can start. We see no reason see why EM countries, China in particular, can sustain their current high and rising leverage levels. Deleveraging is inevitable. Third, this deleveraging in EM is at a very early stage, since credit in most EM countries continues to grow faster than nominal GDP (Chart 29). After years of booming corporate and household debt, a period of consolidation is inevitable. Hence, credit growth is set to slow to at least the level of nominal GDP growth. The credit impulse - the change in the rate of credit growth - is a key factor influencing GDP and profit growth. Chart 30 shows that if credit growth converges to nominal GDP growth within the next 12-24 months, the credit impulse will turn negative, ensuring a slowdown in the EM economies and a further contraction in corporate earnings, thus putting downside pressure on asset prices. Chart 29A Break In LEveraging Cycle Is Overdue bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c29 bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c29 Chart 30Negative Credit Impulse Bodes Ill For Profit And Equities Prices Negative Credit Impulse Bodes Ill For Profit And Equities Prices Negative Credit Impulse Bodes Ill For Profit And Equities Prices Chart 31Dismal Return on Equity Dismal Return on Equity Dismal Return on Equity Bottom Line: EM economies are at a very early stage of a multi-year deleveraging to work off credit excesses. Despite their year-to-date outperformance, we expect EM equities will continue to underperform their DM counterparts over the long run until their return on equity (Chart 31) improves significantly. V. Geopolitical Multipolarity Since the end of the Cold War, geopolitics has mostly remained in the background for investors. This is because the collapse of the Soviet Union ushered in an era of American hegemony that lasted for roughly two decades. During this period, the global concentration of economic, trade, and military power increased as the U.S. became the only true superpower (Chart 32). The world entered a period of "hegemonic stability," an era during which regional powers dared not pursue an independent foreign policy for fear of U.S. retaliation and during which the "Washington consensus" of laissez-faire capitalism and free trade was adopted by policymakers in both developed and emerging markets. Chart 32The End Of American Hegemony bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c32 bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c32 A central thesis of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy is that the world has entered a multipolar phase.11 Multipolarity implies that the number of states powerful enough to pursue an independent and globally-relevant foreign policy is greater than one (unipolarity) or two (bipolarity). Today, multipolarity is the product of America's decaying unipolar moment. The U.S. remains, by far, the most powerful country in the absolute sense, but it is experiencing a relative decline as regional powers become more capable on both the economic and geopolitical fronts (Chart 33). Multipolarity is not a popular theme with investors. It augurs uncertainty, rising risk premia, and unanticipated "Black Swan" events. In addition, some of our clients take issue with the thesis that the U.S. is in "decline." Although we can measure hard power and illustrate the relative decline of the U.S. empirically, perhaps the greatest evidence of global multipolarity are recent events that were unimaginable just five or ten years ago: Russia's annexation of Crimea; China's military expansion in South China Sea; Turkey's disregard for U.S. interests in Syria; U.S.-Iran détente (with little evidence that Tehran has actually curbed its nuclear capabilities); Dramatic withdrawal of U.S. troops in the Middle East. The point of a multipolar world is not that Russia, China, Turkey, Iran, and other powers seek to challenge America's global reach, but rather that each is more than capable of pursuing an independent foreign policy within their own spheres of influence. As the number of "veto players" in the global "Great Game" increases, however, equilibrium becomes more difficult to achieve. Uncertainty rises and conflicts emerge where none were expected. So what does multipolarity mean for investors? First, we know from formal modeling in political science, and from history, that a multipolar world is unstable and more likely to produce military conflict (Chart 34).12 There are three reasons: Chart 33U.S. Experiencing Relative Decline U.S. Experiencing Relative Decline U.S. Experiencing Relative Decline Chart 34Geopolitical Risk Is The Outcome Of Global Multipolarity bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c34 bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c34 During periods of multipolarity, more states can effectively pursue foreign policies that lead to war, thus creating more potential "conflict dyads" in the parlance of International Relations theory. In fact, evidence shows that this has already happened (and continues to happen), with the number of international or internationalized conflicts rising since 2010 dramatically (Chart 35). Power imbalances between states are more likely if there are more states that matter geopolitically. And power imbalances invite conflict as they are more likely to produce a situation in which one country's rising capabilities threaten another. During the Cold War, it didn't matter that Iran was more powerful than Saudi Arabia because the U.S. was present in the Middle East and willing to balance against Tehran. In a multipolar world, the weaker states are on their own. The probability of miscalculation rises due to the number of relevant states making geopolitical decisions simultaneously. For example, last year's shooting down of a Russian jet by the Turkish air force over Syria is an example of an incident that is mathematically more likely in a multipolar world. During the Cold War, the chances that Turkey would independently make the decision to shoot down a Soviet jet was far smaller as its foreign policy was closely aligned with that of its NATO ally the U.S. Chart 35Multipolarity Increases ##br##The Frequency Of Conflict Multipolarity Increases The Frequency Of Conflict Multipolarity Increases The Frequency Of Conflict There are a number of derivatives from the multipolarity thesis that will be relevant for investors. For example, despite Brexit, a multipolar world will support European integration.13 With geopolitical uncertainty rising in Europe's neighborhood - particularly in the Middle East and with Russia reasserting itself - Europe's core countries will not follow down the "exit" path that the U.K. pursued. On the other hand, the geopolitical disequilibrium in East Asia is deepening, with China's pursuit of a sphere of influence in the South and East China Seas likely to continue to raise tensions in the region. But the overarching concern for investors should be how multipolarity impacts the global economy. Global macroeconomic imbalances - such as the current combination of insufficient demand and excessive capacity - can be overcome either by unilateral policy from the hegemon or through coordination among the major economic and political powers. A multipolar world, however, lacks such coordination. Globalization is therefore at risk from multipolarity.14 Not only are regional powers pursuing spheres of influence, which is by definition incompatible with a globalized world, but the world lacks the hegemon that normally provides the expensive, and hard to come by, global public goods: namely economic coordination and geopolitical stability. History teaches us that the ebb and flow of trade globalization has been closely associated in the past with the shifting global balance of power (Chart 36). Trade globalization collapsed right around 1880, when the rise of a unified Germany and the ascendant U.S. undermined the century-old Pax Britannica. This trend ushered in a rise of competitive tariffs as the laggards of industrialization attempted to catch up with the established powers. Trade globalization recovered and began to grown again in the early twentieth century and immediately after the First World War, but both attempts were aborted by the lack of a clear hegemon willing to undertake the coordinating role necessary for globalization to take root and persevere. Chart 36Back To The 1930's? bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c36 bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c36 The lack of a clear hegemon and the diffusion of geopolitical power amongst multiple states can act as a headwind to global coordination. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the U.K. was too weak to enforce global rules and norms, and the surging U.S. was unwilling to do so. Today, the U.S. is (relatively) too weak and unwilling to do the job of a hegemon, while China is understandably unwilling to coordinate its economic policy with a strategic rival. The investment implications of multipolarity center on three broad themes: Apex globalization: Going forward, the world is going to be less, not more, globalized. This will favor domestic over global sectors and consumer-oriented economies over the export-oriented ones. Globalization is also a major deflationary force, which would suggest that, on the margin, a world that is less globalized should be more inflationary. DM over EM: Multipolarity is more likely to produce a number of conflicts, some of which lay dormant throughout the Cold War and subsequent era of American hegemony. These conflicts tend to be in emerging or frontier markets. Safe Havens: With the frequency of geopolitical conflict on the rise, safe haven assets like the U.S. Treasurys, U.S. dollar, gold, and Swiss and Japanese government bonds, should continue to hold an important place in investors' asset allocation. VI. End Of The 35-Year Global Bond Bull Market Since the early 1980s, interest rates have been in a structural decline on the back of falling inflation expectations. Thirty-five years later, the global bond bull market has reached its end (Chart 37). Importantly, this is not to suggest that a secular bear market in bonds is beginning. The global economy is still suffering from significant spare capacity and markets usually go through a volatile bottoming process before a new secular trend is established. Nevertheless, the path of least resistance for yields is upwards. Chart 37Long-Term Yields Have Bottomed Long-Term Yields Have Bottomed Long-Term Yields Have Bottomed The most significant shift regarding sovereign yields is the global transition from monetary to fiscal stimulus. Over the next few years, central bank asset purchases will be negligible at best, with normalization in central bank balance sheets being far more likely, albeit at a muted pace. From the fiscal perspective, the rotation has already occurred in several regions, with the liberal government in Canada promising to increase infrastructure spending, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe postponing next year's planned VAT tax hike, and incoming U.S. President Donald Trump expected to ramp up fiscal spending. Sovereign bond yields have been weighed down by the rise in inequality. IMF studies found that this increase in inequality has had substantial negative effects on real GDP growth and therefore the real component. Populism is growing, as evidenced by the surprising outcome of the Brexit vote, the rise of anti-establishment parties in Europe, and the highly polarizing candidates in the U.S. elections. However, as populism continues to mount, policymakers will be further pressured to take on additional reflationary measures, inevitably leading to higher inflation. Anemic productivity growth has dampened aggregate demand and applied downward pressure to bond yields. Initially, weak productivity gains are deflationary as they reduce the incentive for firms to invest and consumers to reduce their spending. The longer term effect however, is that the supply side catches up, causing the economy to overheat and inflation to rise (Chart 38). This was the case in low productivity economies in Africa and Latin America. Chart 38A Decline In Productivity Growth Is Deflationary In The Short Run, But Inflationary In The Long Run Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes Nevertheless, not all factors are pointing to higher yields. Demographic trends have been unfavorable, as working age population growth in the major countries has decelerated sharply since 2007. Conditions will likely worsen, with the UN forecasting growth to reach zero in the latter half of the next decade. The effect is further compression in the real component of bond yields as slower labor force growth reduces the incentive for firms to build new factories, shopping malls and office towers. Overall, while the global economy has been plagued by deflation, these signs suggest that the tide is finally turning. Higher consumer prices will not only lead to an increase in the inflation expectations component, but also the inflation risk premium, which compensates investors over the inflation outlook. As the majority of the rise in bond yields will come via the inflation component and not the real component, we advocate a long-term allocation to TIPS. VII. Subpar Long-Run Returns Asset prices have surged following the global financial crisis and have reached fairly expensive valuations. While this not to say that a bear market is imminent, it certainly makes financial assets more vulnerable to correction and it does suggest that long-term return prospects are bleak. Lower future returns will shift the efficient frontier inward, requiring substantially more risk to achieve the same level of returns. Investors will find it far more difficult to achieve returns they have become accustomed to over the past 30 years. Sovereign Bonds: After 35 years, the structural decline in interest rates is at an end. While we do not expect an outright bond bear market, the path of least resistance for yields is up (Chart 39). Across all major countries and regions, starting long-term real yields have been an excellent predictor for future five-year returns. Given that yields are at multi-century lows, and even negative in some regions, future returns will be meager. Investors should reduce their long-term allocation to sovereign debt. Chart 39Yields: The Path Of Least Resistance Is Up Yields: The Path Of Least Resistance Is Up Yields: The Path Of Least Resistance Is Up Corporate Bonds: Corporate debt is also priced expensively relative to its long-term history. The credit cycle is in its late stages, and while accommodative monetary policy will extend this phase, defaults will eventually grind higher and low starting yields will limit long-term returns. Investment grade real returns can be mostly explained by their starting real yields. In fact, real yields have been an even better predictor for investment grade returns than they have for sovereigns. Investment grade spreads are less important as they have historically been stable, and defaults are fairly rare in this space. For high yield, while starting real yields are important, spreads and defaults are also crucial determinants for performance. All valuation metrics suggest that both future investment grade and high-yield returns will fall far short of investors' ingrained expectations (Chart 40). Equities: The relationship between cyclically-adjusted price-to-earnings ratios (CAPEs) and real returns is well established, as a simple regression generates a high r-squared (Chart 41). Current valuations are expensive, suggesting low to mid single digit returns. However, there is reason to believe that this scenario is overly optimistic. First, global equities have benefitted from the structural decline in interest rates. Going forward however, the end of the bond bull market removes a substantial tailwind. Secondly, the Debt Supercycle, in which each cycle begins with more indebtedness than the one that preceded it, is played out in the developed world. The implication is that household credit demand will be weak and businesses are less likely to spend on capex, thereby dampening economic growth. Chart 40Low Starting Yields = Low Future Returns bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c40 bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c40 Chart 41Shiller P/E Suggests Below-Average Long-Run Equity Returns Shiller P/E Suggests Below-Average Long-Run Equity Returns Shiller P/E Suggests Below-Average Long-Run Equity Returns In order for investors to reach their return targets, we recommend several options. The end of the structural decline in interest rates does not bode well for sovereign bond returns. Instead, allocators should increase their structural exposure to equities. Investors should also focus more on bottom-up analysis and differentiating at lower levels, i.e. industry groups (GICS level 2). Finally, we advocate a long-term allocation to alternative assets. Alternatives provide downside protection through volatility reduction and substantial return enhancement potential given their active management and an illiquidity premium. VIII. Structural Bull Market In Resources Is Over Commodities experienced an unusually strong bull market in the 2000s, driven by very supportive global economic and financial conditions (Chart 42): 1) the U.S. dollar spent the decade in decline; 2) investment in mining capacity was depressed following the bear market of the 1990s; 3) rapid industrialization and double-digit growth in China. The bull market of 2000s lasted longer than its predecessors and was driven more by demand growth than by supply shortages. Commodities have never been a long-term buy. While there have been cyclical bull markets, the commodity complex in real terms has been in a structural downtrend for the past two centuries (Chart 43). This is despite a 20-fold increase in real GDP, a sign that rapid economic growth and weaker commodity prices can go hand in hand. The simple reason is that humans constantly find ways to extract commodities from the ground more cheaply and use them more efficiently. The current cyclical downturn is likely to continue for some years. Demand: A number cyclical and structural factors (Chart 44) will weigh on marginal demand for commodities in the long run: Chart 42Very SUpportive Backdrop In The 1990s bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c42 bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c42 Chart 43Not A Good Long-Term Investment Not A Good Long-Term Investment Not A Good Long-Term Investment Chart 44Shaky Demand Outlook bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c44 bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c44 Anemic Global Growth: Despite rising incomes, per capita consumption of base metals has been flat in most developed nations. With growth in the working age population slowing to 0.7% in 2010 - 2050, down from 1.7% in 1970 - 2010, the long-term outlook for consumer demand is poor. China: China consumes more zinc, aluminium and copper than the U.S., Japan, and Europe combined. It comprises more than 40% of global base metal demand, while it has only a 15% share of global GDP. With China's plans to transition into a consumer-driven services economy, this magnitude of incremental demand is highly unlikely in the future. Alternatives & Technological Advancements: Improved energy efficiency, the transition to renewable sources, and growth in electric-hybrid vehicles will weigh on demand for traditional sources of energy. A large-scale push towards nuclear energy, led by China's plans for 80GW of installed capacity by 2020, will pose a serious threat to marginal demand. Supply: Coordinated production cuts are a thing of the past. Underutilization (Chart 45) and market share-wars by countries that need to finance rising fiscal deficits have changed supply dynamics: Excess Capacity: Following the Global Financial Crisis, completion of projects which had been previously committed to, led to enormous capacity expansion when global growth was struggling. Both mining and oil & gas extraction capacity have reached new highs led by the U.S. This will continue to put downward pressure on both metals and energy prices until excess capacity has been removed. Proven Reserves: Known reserves of most metals have risen over the past decade and reached new highs: for example, in the case of copper, nearly three tons have been added to reserves for every ton consumed. In the crude oil market, technological progress has led to discovery of unconventional deposits, the best-known being Canadian oil sands, which by some estimates contain more than twice Saudi Arabia's crude oil reserves. Price Elasticity: The shale revolution brought with it leaner drilling operations which have a much shorter supply response time. The key to the price of crude is how quickly U.S. shale oil producers respond once the oil price rises above their current average cash cost of $50. This will limit the upside potential to crude oil for the next few years. U.S. Dollar & Real Rates: The dollar (Chart 46) has much more explanatory power for commodity prices than Chinese demand does. Given monetary policy and growth divergence between the U.S. and the rest of the world, the U.S. dollar will continue to appreciate. When real rates are low, the opportunity cost of keeping resources in the ground is also low. As growth starts to stabilize, rising real rates will add downward pressure on prices. Chart 45Relentless Supply Response bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c45 bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c45 Chart 46U.S. Dollar Vs Chinese Growth bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c46 bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c46 We remain structurally bearish on the overall commodity complex, but expect short-lived divergences within the group. As more nations agree on production cuts in oil, we expect energy markets to outperform metals. Precious metals will continue to stage mini-rallies on the back of heightened equity market volatility. Agricultural commodities will continue to bear the brunt of poor global demographics. IX. Mal-Distribution Of Income And Social Unrest The decision by the U.K. in June's referendum to leave the EU and Donald Trump's victory in the U.S. presidential election suggest a high degree of dissatisfaction with the status quo in Anglo-Saxon economies. This is hardly surprising given the stagnation of median wages in developed economies since the early 1980s, especially among the less educated (Chart 47), and growing inequality. The middle class (defined as those with disposable income between 25% below and 25% above the median) in the U.S. has fallen to 27% of the population from 33% in the early 1980s, and in the U.K. to 33% from 40% (Chart 48). Note that the decline in the middle class is much less prominent in continental Europe and Canada. Chart 47Wages For Less Educated Have Stagnated bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c47 bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c47 Chart 48Middle Class Has Shrunk In U.S. And U.K. But Not In Continental Europe Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes The Gini coefficient in the U.S. has risen to as high a level as during the 1920s (Chart 49). Branko Milanovic, the leading academic working on global inequality, explains the reasons are follows: "The forces that pushed U.S. inequality up in the roaring twenties were, in many ways, similar to the forces that pushed it up in the 1990s: downward pressure on wages (from immigration and/or increased trade), capital-based technological change (Taylorism and the Internet), monopolization of the economy (Standard Oil and large banks), suppression or decreasing attractiveness of trade unions, and a shift toward plutocracy in government."15 Chart 49U.S. Inequality Back To 1920's Level Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes The backlash has begun. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service has described how the median voter in the Anglo-Saxon world is shifting to the left.16 Around the world governments are abandoning austerity and moving to fiscal stimulus and spending to improve infrastructure. Many, for example, are raising the minimum wage. In the U.K., it is due to go up from GBP7.20 to 60% of the median wage (about GBP9.35) by 2020, and in California from $10 to $15 by 2022. The 40 years of a falling labor share of GDP and rising capital share have started to reverse in the U.S. over the past two or three years (Chart 50). These shifts also threaten growth of global trade. Trump opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement and says he will renegotiate or scrap the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Global trade, after continuous growth as a percentage of GDP since World War Two, has slowed since the Great Recession (Chart 51). The WTO reports an increase in trade-restrictive measures and a fall in trade-facilitating measures over the past 12 months (Chart 52). Chart 50Fall In Labor Share ##br##Of GDP Starting To Reverse Fall In Labor Share Of GDP Starting To Reverse Fall In Labor Share Of GDP Starting To Reverse Chart 51Trade Globalization* bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c51 bca.gaa_sr_2016_12_05_c51 Chart 52Trade Measures Are Getting ##br##Increasingly Restrictive Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes Refreshing Our Long-Term Themes Chart 53Populism Could Cause ##br##Profit Margins To Mean Revert Populism Could Cause Profit Margins To Mean Revert Populism Could Cause Profit Margins To Mean Revert These trends have significant implications for investors. The shift to populist politics is likely to be inflationary, as governments increasingly fall back on stimulative fiscal policy. A faster rise in wages will hurt corporate profit margins which, in the U.S., are likely to mean-revert from their current near-record highs (Chart 53). The popular discontent (and the growing unreliability of opinion polls) will make election results more unpredictable, as witnessed in the Brexit vote and the U.S. presidential election. A further pullback in global trade will hurt exporting sectors and export-dependent countries. All these factors lead to the conclusion that returns from investment assets over coming years are likely to be lower, and volatility higher, than has been the case over the past 40 years. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Senior Analyst patrick@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com 1 Money And Investment Profits, A. Hamilton Bolton, Dow-Jones-Irwin Inc, 1967, pp74, 304. 2 For our most recent detailed analysis of this, please see BCA Special Report, "The End Of The Debt Supercycle, An Update," dated May 11, 2016, available at reports.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see, for example, Summers' article in Foreign Affairs, "The Age of Secular Stagnation," dated February 15, 2016. 4 Please see, for example, Rogoff's article, "Debt Supercycle, not secular stagnation," Centre for Economic Policy Research, dated April 22, 2015. 5 Please see, for example, Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Gauging EM/China Credit Impulses," dated August 31, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see, for example, her book Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital, published in 2002. 7 Please see Alasdair Nairn, "Engines That Move Markets," Wiley, dated January 4, 2002. 8 Measured either over the whole period, or between the dates that they were listed during the period. 9 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Human Intelligence And Economic Growth," March 2013, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "EM Equities: Downgrade To Underweight," dated April 20, 2010, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, and Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Stay The Course: EM Risk - DM Reward," dated January 23, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see Mearsheimer, John "The Tragedy Of Great Power Politics," New York: W.W. Norton & Company (2001). 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-Exit?," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com, and BCA The Bank Credit Analyst, "Europe's Geopolitical Gambit: Relevance Through Integration," dated November 2011, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization: All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014. 15 Please see Branco Milanovic, "Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization," Harvard University Press, 2016. 16 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

GAA DM Equity Country Allocation Model Update The GAA DM Equity Country Allocation model is updated as of November 30, 2016. The model further augmented the overweight to the U.S. despite the fact that the U.S. had already been the largest overweight, at the expenses of the Euro Area. Japan's underweight is reduced again, albeit slightly. The model continues to dislike Canada and Australia even though the two countries have outperformed year to date. U.K. remains the largest underweight (Table 1). Table 1Model Allocation Vs. Benchmark Weights GAA Model Updates GAA Model Updates As shown in Table 2 and Chart 1, Chart 2 and Chart 3, the large overweight of the U.S. versus the non-U.S. (Level 1 model) worked well in November with 49 bps of outperformance versus the MSCI World benchmark, the level 2 (allocation within the 11 non-U.S. countries), however, underperformed significantly, resulting the overall model to underperform by 16 bps. Please see also on the website http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/trades/allocation_performance. Table 2Performance (Total Returns In USD) GAA Model Updates GAA Model Updates Chart 1GAA DM Model Vs. MSCI World bca.gaa_sa_2016_12_01_c1 bca.gaa_sa_2016_12_01_c1 Chart 2GAA U.S. Vs. Non U.S. Model (Level1) bca.gaa_sa_2016_12_01_c2 bca.gaa_sa_2016_12_01_c2 Chart 3GAA Non U.S. Model (Level 2) bca.gaa_sa_2016_12_01_c3 bca.gaa_sa_2016_12_01_c3 For more details on the models, please see the January 29th, 2016 Special Report "Global Equity Allocation: Introducing the Developed Markets Country Allocation Model." http://gaa.bcaresearch.com/articles/view_report/18850. GAA Equity Sector Selection Model The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model (Chart 4) is updated as of November 30, 2016. Table 3Allocations GAA Model Updates GAA Model Updates Table 4Performance Since Going Live GAA Model Updates GAA Model Updates Chart 4Overall Model Performance bca.gaa_sa_2016_12_01_c4 bca.gaa_sa_2016_12_01_c4 The momentum component has shifted Consumer Discretionary from underweight to overweight. For mode details on the model, please see the Special Report "Introducing The GAA Equity Sector Selection Model," July 27, 2016 available at https://gaa.bcaresearch.com. Xiaoli Tang, Associate Vice President xiaoli@bcaresearch.com Patrick Trinh, Senior Analyst patrick@bcaresearch.com Aditya Kurian, Research Analyst adityak@bcaresearch.com

Highlights Dear Client, This issue of BCA's Commodity & Energy Strategy features our 2017 Outlook for Bulks and Base Metals. The evolution of China's economy will, as always, be critical to these markets, given that country's outsized role in iron ore, steel and base metals. We are broadly neutral the complex, and, with the exception of the nickel market, see supply and demand relatively balanced. That said, the potential for price spikes - e.g., copper, where spare capacity is shrinking - and for monetary and fiscal policy errors to spill into these markets keeps downside price risk elevated. Next week, we will publish our 2017 Outlook for Energy Markets, with special attention to the oil market. As expected, OPEC and Russia agreed to cut production. As we went to press, WTI and Brent crude oil prices were up ~ 8.5% on the news. We will take profits today on our Long February 2017 Brent $50/bbl Calls vs. Short February 2017 $55/bbl Calls, which was up 73.6% basis Wednesday's close when we went to press. We remain long August 2017 WTI vs. Short November 2017 WTI futures in anticipation of a backwardated forward curve in 2017H2; as of Wednesday's close, this position returned 76.39% since November 3, when we recommended the exposure. Our 2017 Precious Metals and Agricultural outlooks will be published in the following weeks. We will finish with an outlook for commodities as an asset class in 2017 at year-end. We trust you will find these reports informative and useful for your investing and year-ahead planning. Kindest regards, Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President The monetary and fiscal stimulus that massively boosted China's housing market this year will wind down, bringing an end to the run-up in iron ore, steel and base metals prices. While we expect "reflationary" policies to continue going into the Communist Party Congress next fall, when new leadership roles will be announced, we do not expect anything along the lines of the surge in policy stimulus seen earlier this year: Unwinding and controlling property-market excesses and high debt levels will limit policymakers' desire to turbo-charge the housing market again, limiting the boost such policies provide. We are downgrading our tactically bullish view on iron ore to neutral. Our out-of-consensus bullish call was proven correct with a 43% rally in iron ore prices within the past eight weeks.1 Strategically, we retain a bearish bias, as rising iron ore supply may overwhelm the market again in 2017H2. We remain tactically neutral and strategically bearish steel. Low steel inventories and production disruptions caused by China's recently launched environmental inspection program likely will continue to support steel prices in the near term. However, persistently high steel output and falling demand from the Chinese property sector should eventually knock down prices in 2017H2. We remain neutral copper going into 2017, expecting Chinese reflationary stimulus to continue along with a concerted effort to slow the housing boom in that country. This will still support real demand for copper, but will reduce demand from new construction. Manufacturing will play a larger role on the demand side next year, while a stronger USD could limit price appreciation. We still believe nickel will outperform zinc over a one-year time horizon. We are bullish nickel prices, both tactically and strategically, as we expect a supply deficit to widen on rising stainless steel demand and falling nickel ore supply in 2017. For zinc, we remain tactically neutral and strategically bearish. We expect zinc supply to rise considerably in response to current high prices. For the global aluminum market, we remain tactically bullish and strategically neutral. Supply shortages will likely persist ex-China over the next three to six months. We have three investment strategies, including long iron ore/short steel futures, long nickel/short zinc futures, and buying aluminum on weaknesses. Feature Iron Ore & Steel: Limited Upside In 2017 A Quick Recap Back in early October, we wrote an in-depth report on global iron ore and steel markets in which we made an out-of-consensus tactically bullish call on iron ore, expecting the price to reach the April high of $68.70/MT in 2016Q4. Our prediction was realized, with iron ore prices surging 43% to a two-year high of $79.81/MT on November 11 (Chart 1, panel 1). Although the steel market has been much stronger than the assessment driving our tactically neutral stance indicated earlier in the quarter, our call that iron ore would outperform steel in the near term was correct: Steel prices rose 21% during the same period of time - only half of the iron ore price rally (Chart 1, panel 1). Over the past two months, the rally occurred in both futures and spot markets, and in the markets globally (Chart 1, panels 2 and 3). Chart 1Iron Ore: Downgrade To Tactically Neutral Iron Ore: Downgrade To Tactically Neutral Iron Ore: Downgrade To Tactically Neutral Chart 2Steel: Remain Tactically Neutral Steel: Remain Tactically Neutral Steel: Remain Tactically Neutral The 2017 Outlook First, we downgrade our tactically bullish view on iron ore to neutral, as China likely will import less iron ore in 2017Q1 (Chart 2, panel 1). China has imposed stricter environmental regulations on its domestic metals industry since 2014 to control pollution. The government currently is sending environmental inspection teams to major steel-producing provinces to check how well the steel producers are complying with state environment rules. Many steel-producing factories were closed this year, due to environmental violations. This will constrain growth in Chinese steel output in the near term (Chart 2, panel 2). Between 2011 - 15, the state-owned Xinhua news agency states Chinese steel capacity has been reduced by 90 million MT; authorities want to cut as much as 150 million MT by 2020, including 45 million MT this year.2 Chinese steel production generally falls in January and February as workers are celebrating the Chinese Spring Festival - the most important festival for the Chinese. Iron ore inventories at major Chinese ports are still high (Chart 2, panel 3). Given iron ore prices have already rallied more than 100% since last December and steel demand outlook remains uncertain next year, most steel producers likely will choose to push off purchases into 2017Q2 or later. While China may slow its iron ore purchases next year, global iron ore supply is set to increase in 2017 as many projects will come on stream. The world's biggest iron ore project, Vale's S11D, which has a capacity of 90 million metric tons (mmt) per year, is expected to ship its first ore in January 2017. Moreover, with iron ore prices above $70/MT, global top iron ore companies with low production costs can be expected to sell as much as they can to maximize their profit, given their all-in production costs for high-quality iron ore (62% Fe) typically are between $30 and $35/MT.3 That said, we are not bearish on iron ore prices in the near term. We prefer to be neutral. Iron ore prices will have pullbacks, but the downside may be also limited in 2017H1. Chinese domestic iron ore production is still in a deep contraction (Chart 2, panel 4). Plus, most steel producing companies prefer high-quality ore from overseas over the domestic low-quality ore. In addition, almost all steel companies in China are profitable at present, which means Chinese steel production will rise after the Spring Festival holidays. All of these factors will support iron ore prices. Chart 3Iron Ore & Steel: Strategically Bearish Iron Ore & Steel: Strategically Bearish Iron Ore & Steel: Strategically Bearish Second, we retain our tactically neutral view on steel. Chinese steel demand was lifted by China's expansionary monetary and fiscal policies this year - which we have dubbed China's "reflationary" policy - which included reductions in its central bank's policy rate and reserve requirement ratio, and implementation of additional infrastructure projects (Chart 3). This was the driving force for the sharp steel price rally this year. The big question is how sustainable Chinese steel demand growth will be? This will be highly dependent on the Chinese government's decisions and actions. More than a third of steel demand is accounted for by the property market, of which some 70% is residential property.4 Mortgages accounted for approximately 71% of all new loans in August of this year, down from 90% in July, according to Reuters.5 This loan growth powered the iron ore and steel markets this past 12 - 18 months and China's credit-to-GDP ratio to extremely high levels. The OECD recently observed, "The high pace of debt accumulation was sustained despite weaker domestic demand growth. This raises concerns about the underlying quality of new credit, disorderly corporate defaults and the possible extent to which it has been used to support financial asset prices. Residential property prices in some of the largest cities have risen by over 30% year-on-year, although price growth in smaller cities has been much more modest. The price gains have been partly driven by loose monetary policy and ample credit availability as well as reduced land supply."6 Based on our calculations, Chinese steel demand started showing positive yoy growth in July and, so far, had posted four consecutive months of positive yoy growth from July to October. In September and October, the growth was accelerated to 8.3% and 6.6%, respectively, a clear improvement from the 0.8% yoy growth registered in July. The growth may last another three to six months but could peak sooner, if there are no new stimulus plans announced by the government. In addition to the housing sector, China's auto industry also saw significant demand growth. As China cut the sale taxes on small passenger vehicles from 10% to 5% this year, Chinese car sales jumped 13.6% yoy for the first 10 months of 2016, a significant improvement from a 5.7% yoy contraction in the same period of last year. If the government lets the tax cut expire at year-end, Chinese auto production may decline in 2017, which will weaken Chinese steel demand. In the meantime, Chinese steel producers will keep boosting production next year, which likely will limit the upside for steel prices. That said, current steel inventories in China are still low. According to the China Iron and Steel Association (CISA), steel inventories at large and medium steel enterprises fell 9% from mid-September to late October. This probably will limit the downside for steel prices. Third, we retain a strategic bearish view on both iron ore and steel. If there is no additional reflationary stimulus deployed in 2017, we expect Chinese steel demand to weaken. In the meantime, Chinese steel producers will keep boosting their production. Let these two factors run nine to 12 months, and we believe they will be sufficient to knock down both steel and iron ore prices. Our research last year concluded the Chinese property sector is structurally down-trending.7 Given that the property market is the biggest end user of steel in China, accounting for about 35% of total steel demand, we are strategically bearish on steel and iron ore prices. How To Make Money In The Iron Ore & Steel Market? Chart 4Take Profit On Long ##br##Iron Ore/ShortSteel Rebar Trade Take Profit On Long Iron Ore/Short Steel Rebar Trade Take Profit On Long Iron Ore/Short Steel Rebar Trade We went long May/17 iron ore futures in Dalian Futures Exchange in China and short May/17 steel rebar futures in Shanghai Futures Exchange on October 6 (Chart 4). Both contracts are denominated in RMB. The relative trade gives us a return of 18.1% in two months. We are taking profits with this publication, but we may re-initiate this pair trade on pullbacks. Risks If China deploys additional fiscal and monetary stimulus next year, similar in scope to this year's stimulus, we will re-evaluate our view accordingly. If global iron ore production is less than the market expects we could see further rallies in iron ore prices. Should this occur, we will re-examine our market call, as well. Copper: Market Is Balanced; Little Flex On Supply Side The reflationary stimulus that powered China's property markets - and drove demand for iron ore and steel higher - also propelled copper prices to dizzying heights in 2016H2. We do not expect this juggernaut to continue, and instead expect copper to trade sideways next year as global supply and demand stay relatively balanced (Chart 5). China accounts for roughly half of global refined copper demand (Chart 6). Manufacturing activity has the greatest impact on prices: A 1% increase in China's PMI translates to a 1.8% increase in LME copper prices (Chart 7). Chart 5Copper Market Is In Balance Copper Market Is In Balance Copper Market Is In Balance Chart 6World Copper Markets Are Balanced World Copper Markets Are Balanced World Copper Markets Are Balanced Chart 7China Demand Will Remain Key For Copper China Demand Will Remain Key For Copper China Demand Will Remain Key For Copper China's property market accounts for about a third of global copper demand in used in construction, according to the CME Group, which trades copper on its COMEX exchange. A 1% increase floor-space started in China leads to a 0.3% increase in LME copper prices (Chart 8). The surge in demand from the housing market lifted China's copper demand over the past 12 - 18 months, as credit creation in the form of home-mortgage loans expanded at a rapid clip (Chart 9). We expect the Chinese government to continue to try to rein in a booming property market, which has seen mortgage-loan growth of 90% p.a. recently. If the government is successful, this will limit price gains for copper next year. If not, the bubble will continue to expand in large tier-1 and -2 cities in China, making the copper rally's fundamental support tenous to say the least. Chart 8China PMIs and USD TWI Drive LME Prices China PMIs and USD TWI Drive LME Prices China PMIs and USD TWI Drive LME Prices Chart 9Mortgage Growth Likely Slows in 2017 Mortgage Growth Likely Slows in 2017 Mortgage Growth Likely Slows in 2017 This drives our expectation that the real economic activity in China - chiefly manufacturing - will be the dominant fundamental on the demand side for copper next year. On the supply side, we expect 2.65% yoy growth in refined copper production, just slightly above the International Copper Study Group's 2% estimate. Company and press reports cite a reduced mine capacity additions, lower ore content in mined output, and labor unrest as reasons supply side growth is slowing. Our balances reflect a convergence of supply and demand for next year, and also highlight the reduced flexibility in the system to respond to unplanned outages. For this reason, the global copper market could be prone to upside price risk in the event of a major unplanned production outage. Watch Out For USD Strength Copper, like all of the base metals, is sensitive to the path taken by the USD. We continue to expect the Fed to lift rates next month and a couple of times next year. This most likely will lift the USD 10% or so over the next 12 months. This would be bearish for base metals, particularly copper, since 92% of global demand for the red metal occurs outside the U.S. Our modeling indicates a 1% increase in the broad USD trade-weighted index leads to a 3.5% decrease in LME copper prices. A stronger USD will raise the local-currency cost of commodities ex-U.S. EM demand would suffer, which would slow the principal source of growth for base metals. Metals producers' ex-U.S. with little or no exposure to USD debt-service obligations would see local-currency operating costs fall. At the margin, this will lead to increased supply. These effects would combine to push commodity prices lower, producing a deflationary blowback to the U.S. Nickel & Zinc: Going Different Ways In 2017? Zinc has outperformed nickel significantly for the past six years. This year alone, zinc prices have shot up over 90% since January, almost doubling the 50% rally in nickel prices for the same period of time (Chart 10, panel 1). The nickel/zinc price ratio has declined to its lowest level since 1998 (Chart 10, panel 2). Will nickel continue underperforming zinc into 2017? Or will the trend reverse next year? We believe the latter has a higher probability. Tactically, we are bullish nickel and neutral zinc. Strategically, we are bullish nickel and bearish zinc.8 Zinc's bull story has been well-known for the past several years, and nickel's oversupplied bear story also has been commented on in the news. However, both markets' fundamentals are changing. Based on World Bureau of Metal Statistics (WBMS) data, for the first nine months of this year, the supply deficit in the global nickel market was at its highest level since 1996. Meanwhile, the global zinc market was already in balance (Chart 10, panels 3 and 4). Chart 10Nickel Likely To Outperform Zinc In 2017 Nickel Likely To Outperform Zinc In 2017 Nickel Likely To Outperform Zinc In 2017 Chart 11Nickel Has More Positive Fundamentals Than Zinc Nickel Has More Positive Fundamentals Than Zinc Nickel Has More Positive Fundamentals Than Zinc Both nickel and zinc markets are experiencing ore shortages (Chart 11, panels 1 and 2). For the nickel market, the ore shortage was mainly due to the Indonesian ore export ban, and Philippines' suspension of nickel miners for violating that country's environmental laws. For the zinc market, the ore shortage arose because of several big mines' depletion, years of underinvestment, and mine suspensions due to low prices late last year. The nickel ore shortage will become acute as the Indonesian ban remains in place and the Philippines' government becomes stricter on domestic mining operations. However, for zinc, most of the output loss occurred last year, and actually may be restored to the market in the near future. Zinc prices reached $2,811/MT last year as the market was adjusting to lost supply - the highest level since March 2008. In terms of demand, nickel exhibits much stronger demand growth versus zinc (Chart 11, panels 3 and 4). In addition, China's auto sales tax-cut policy will expire at year-end, which may cause Chinese auto production to fall in 2017. This will affect zinc much more than nickel, as less galvanized steel will be needed next year if Chinese car production falls. Investment Strategies We sold Dec/17 zinc at $2,400/MT on November 3, and the trade was stopped out at $2,500/MT with a 4% loss (Chart 12, panel 1). Zinc prices jumped 11.5% in four trading days in late November, which we believe was mainly driven by speculative buying. Nonetheless, in the near term, global zinc supply is still on the tight side, and zinc inventories are low (Chart 12, panel 2). Zinc prices could rally more in the near term. We were looking to go Long Dec/17 LME nickel vs. Short Dec/17 LME zinc if the ratio drops to 4.3 since mid-November (Chart 13, panel 1). We also suggested that if the order gets filled, put a stop-loss for the ratio at 4.15. Chart 12Zinc: Stay Tactically Neutral Zinc: Stay Tactically Neutral Zinc: Stay Tactically Neutral Chart 13Risks To Long Nickel/Short Zinc Risks To Long Nickel/Short Zinc Risks To Long Nickel/Short Zinc On November 25, the order was filled at the closing price ratio of 4.17. But unfortunately the ratio declined to 4.08 on the next trading day (November 28), based on the closing price ratio, which triggered our predefined stop-loss level with a 2.2% loss. The ratio was trading at 4.17 again as of November 29. As the market is so volatile, we recommend initiating this relative trade if it drops below 4.05 to compensate the risk. If the order gets filled, we suggest putting a 5% stop-loss level for the relative trade. After all, nickel prices could still have pullbacks, as global nickel inventories still are elevated (Chart 13, panel 2). Risks Our strategically bearish view on zinc will be wrong if global zinc ore supply does not increase as much as we expect, or global zinc demand still has robust growth in 2017. Our strategically bullish view on nickel will be wrong if Indonesian refined nickel output increases quickly, resulting in a smaller supply deficit than the market expects. However, due to power shortages, poor infrastructure and funding problems, development on many of the smelters and stainless steel plants once envisioned for the nickel market have been delayed. We believe these problems will continue to be headwinds for Indonesian nickel output growth, and will continue to restrict supply growth going forward. Aluminum: Cautiously Bullish In 2017 Chart 14Aluminum: Remain Tactically Bullish ##br## And Strategically Neutral Aluminum: Remain Tactically Bullish And Strategically Neutral Aluminum: Remain Tactically Bullish And Strategically Neutral Sharp supply cuts combined with tight inventories have pushed aluminum prices higher this year. Prices in China have rallied more than 50% so far this year, which was more than double the 20% rise in the global aluminum market (Chart 14, panel 1). This probably indicates a tighter Chinese domestic market than the global (ex-China) market. Looking forward, we remain tactically bullish on LME aluminum prices and neutral on SHFE aluminum prices.9 The supply shortage will likely persist ex-China over next three to six months. Global aluminum production has declined faster than demand so far this year. Based on the WBMS data, global aluminum output was still in a deep contraction in September (Chart 14, panel 2). Even though China's operating capacity has been rising every month so far this year, Chinese total aluminum output for the first 10 months was still 1.1% less than the same period last year. In addition, considering the possible output loss due to the Spring Festival in late January, we believe it will take another three to six months for China to meet its own domestic demand and inventory restocking. Extremely tight domestic inventories should limit the downside of SHFE aluminum prices (Chart 14, panel 3) as the market adjusts on the supply side. We think there is more upside for LME aluminum prices, as the supply shortage will likely persist ex-China over next three to six months. Currently, Chinese aluminum prices are about 18% higher than the LME prices (both are in USD terms), which will likely limit the supply coming from China's exports to the rest of world. Strategically, we are neutral LME aluminum prices and bearish on SHFE aluminum prices. Currently, about 85% of the China's aluminum operating capacity is making money. With new low-cost capacity and more idled capacity coming back on line, profitable Chinese smelters will continue boosting their aluminum production to maximize profits. This, over a longer term like nine months to one year, should eventually spill over to the global market. Investment strategy Chart 15Still Look To Buy Aluminum Still Look To Buy Aluminum Still Look To Buy Aluminum We recommended buying the Mar/17 LME aluminum contract (Chart 15) if it falls to $1,640/MT (current: $1,721/MT). We expect the contract price to rise to $1,900/MT over the next three to five months. If our order is filled, we suggest a 5% stop-loss. Risks Prices at both the SHFE and LME may come under intense pressure if aluminum producers in China increases their output quickly, even at a small loss, in order to create jobs and revenue for local governments. If global aluminum demand falters in 2017 while supply is rising, we will revisit our strategically neutral view on LME aluminum prices. Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report for iron ore and steel "Global Iron Ore And Steel Markets: Is The Rally Over?," dated October 6, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. In this report, we are using Metal Bulletin iron ore price delivered to Qingdao port in China as our iron ore reference price. 2 Please see "N. China city cuts 32 mln tonnes of steel capacity" published October 30, 2016, by Xinhua's online service, xinhuanet.com. 3 Please see "CHART: The breakeven iron ore prices for major miners in 2016," published June 7, 2016, by Business Insider Australia. 4 Please see "China Resources Quarterly, Southern spring ~ Northern autumn 2016," published by the Australian Department of Industry, Innovation and Science and Westpac, particularly this discussion on p. 4, "The real estate sector." 5 Please see "China August new loans well above expectations on mortgage boom," published by Reuters September 14, 2016. 6 Please see the OECD Economic Outlook, Volume 2016 Issue 2, Chapter 1, entitled "General Assessment of the Macroeconomic Situation," p. 44, under the sub-head "Rapid debt accumulation risks instability in EMEs." The IMF also expressed concern over rising debt levels supporting the real-estate boom in China, particularly in the larger cities, noting, "Credit and financial sector leverage continue to rise faster than GDP, and state-owned enterprises in sectors with excess capacity and real estate continue to absorb a major share of credit flow. The deviation of credit growth from its long-term trend, the so-called credit overhang--a key cross-country indicator of potential crisis--is estimated somewhere in the range of 22-27 percent of GDP..., which is very high by international comparison." Please see the IMF's Global Financial Stability Report for October 2016, "Fostering Stability in a Low-Growth, Low-Rate Era," p. 35, under the sub-heading "China: Growing Credit and Complexities." 7 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Special Report "Chinese Property Market: A Structural Downtrend Just Started," dated June 4, 2015 and "China Property Market Q&As," dated July 2, 2015, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Oil Production Cut, Trump Election Will Stoke Inflation Expectations," dated November 17, 2016 and "The Lithium Battery Supply Chain: Efficient Exposure To Electric-Vehicle Market," dated October 27, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 9 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Market Saturation Likely In Asia, If KSA - Russia Fail To Curb Oil Production," dated November 10, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Closed Trades

Whether OPEC's announcement of its intention to curtail production actually feeds through into meaningfully lower output next year remains to be seen, but at a minimum, supply discipline should put a floor under prices. Rather than expect the overall energy sector to break out of its lateral move relative to the broad market, we continue to recommend a targeted approach. On the downside, refiners will not receive any relief in feedstock prices, which should ensure that the gap between Brent and WTI prices remains non-existent. That is a strain on refining margins. Our model warns that there is little profit upside ahead. Instead, our preference is to maintain outsized exposure to the oil field services group. Increased E&P confidence that underlying commodity prices could drift toward the top end of their trading should boost drilling activity. The rig count has already troughed. The growth in OECD oil inventories has crested, which is consistent with a gradual rise in the former. We are underweight refiners, overweight oil field services, and neutral on the broad sector. bca.uses_in_2016_12_01_002_c1 bca.uses_in_2016_12_01_002_c1

Highlights Investors continue to overstate the constraints the Trump administration faces; Tax reform will happen, likely much sooner than the markets appreciate; Infrastructure spending will be modest, but will also face no constraints; Trump's de-globalization agenda - on both immigration and trade - faces few, if any, constraints; Book gains on long S&P 500 / short gold, long Japanese equities, long USD/JPY, and close long European versus global equities for a small loss. Maintain a long SMEs / short MNCs strategic outlook as a play on de-globalization. Feature "It used to be cars were made in Flint, and you couldn't drink the water in Mexico. Now, the cars are made in Mexico and you can't drink the water in Flint." - President-Elect Donald J. Trump, Flint, Michigan, September 14, 2016 Regular readers of BCA's Geopolitical Strategy know that our methodology emphasizes policymakers' constraints over their preferences. We abide by the simple maxim that preferences are optional and subject to constraints, while constraints are neither optional nor subject to preferences. President-elect Donald J. Trump is not unique. In the long term, his preferences will be cajoled and imprisoned by his constraints. However, investors may be overstating the impact of constraints in the short term. This is because Trump is a transformational - rather than merely transactional - leader whose election is a product of the yearning for significant change by the U.S. electorate.1 The key difference between the two leadership styles is that transformational leaders seek change by influencing and motivating their followers to break with convention. They make an appeal on normative and ideological grounds. Meanwhile, transactional leaders seek to maintain the status quo by satisfying their followers' basic needs. The latter use sticks and carrots, the former inspire. In the long term, even transformational leaders like Trump will be whipsawed by their material and constitutional constraints into the narrow tunnel of available options. But as we discuss in this Special Report, President-elect Trump will have a lot more room to maneuver than investors may think. That will be good for some assets, bad for others. Trump's Blue-Collar Base To understand the priorities of the Trump administration - as well his lack of political constraints - investors need to respect Trump's shock victory on November 8. Trump won the election because he was able to extend his "White Hype" strategy to the Midwest states of Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania (and came close to winning Minnesota) (Map 1).2 Map 1Electoral College Vote, Nov. 29, 2016 Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency To extend the Republican voting base into these traditionally "blue" states, Trump appealed to white blue-collar workers, many of whom voted for President Obama in 2012. Though he squeaked by with narrow vote-margins, he was not expected to be competitive in these states at all: Hillary Clinton did not visit Wisconsin once during her campaign (Chart 1). Trade was a chief concern of these disenchanted "Rust Belt" voters. Exit polls show that they agreed with Trump's message that globalization and neoliberal trade policies have sapped the U.S. of jobs, wages, and job security (Chart 2). Chart 1Hillary Failed To##br## Ride Obama's Coattails Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Chart 2Trump's Winning Constituency##br## Angry About Trade Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Infrastructure, and government spending more broadly, were also major concerns - Trump's election was effectively an "anti-austerity" vote. Throughout the campaign Trump showed himself to be indifferent to budget deficits and debt, at least relative to the GOP leadership of the past six years. Instead he shattered GOP orthodoxy by promising to avoid any cuts to entitlement spending and contravened the party's fiscal hawks by promising to spend $1 trillion (later $550 billion) on infrastructure, e.g. the "bad drinking water" problem referred to in the quote at the start of this report. By contrast, Trump paid less attention to tax reform. Yes, he promised to slash taxes, even after reducing the scope of his extravagant September 2015 tax cut proposal. But no, this was not the focus of his campaign and did not get him elected. Instead, it is an area of common ground between himself and the GOP, and it has been the party's main pursuit in recent years. No one knows what Trump is going to do when he takes office. His statements are famously all over the place and he often positions himself at the opposite sides of a policy issue at the same time, prompting us to label him America's first "Quantum Politician."3 His cabinet is only beginning to take shape. Therefore, his main agenda and priorities - traditionally outlined in the upcoming Inaugural Address on January 20 - remain inchoate at best. Nevertheless, trade protections and better infrastructure were core demands of Trump's blue-collar electoral coalition and we expect him to follow through with actions, not least because he needs these states for upcoming elections in 2018 and 2020. Bottom Line: Trump's personal policy preferences are shrouded in mystery. However, investors should assume that he will take the preferences of the Midwest blue-collar voters seriously. They delivered him the presidency. Tax Reform The main reason for the market's exuberance since the election - aside from a "relief rally" given that the sky has not fallen4 - has been the prospect of substantial tax cuts. With Republicans holding all levels of government - and Democrats unable to filibuster tax reform in the Senate due to the "reconciliation procedure"5 - investors are rightly optimistic that the U.S. will finally see significant reforms. We review the plan, investigate its constraints, and assess the impact below. The Plan Trump is asking for much bigger tax cuts than the Republican Party's major alternative, House Speaker Paul Ryan's "A Better Way" plan.6 Trump would slash the corporate tax rate to 15% for all businesses, with flow-through businesses (80% of all U.S. businesses) eligible to pay the 15% rate instead of being taxed under the individual income tax rate (as currently).7 The GOP, by contrast, would set the corporate rate at 20% and the flow-through business rate at 25%. Trump and the GOP agree that the individual income tax should be reduced from seven to three brackets, with the marginal rates at 12%, 25%, and 33%. This would cut the top marginal rate from 39.6% to 33%, but would also leave a significant number of Americans with an increase, or no change, to their marginal tax rate.8 Where Trump and the GOP differ is on how to handle deductions, the flow-through businesses, child tax credits, and other issues - with Trump generally more inclined toward government largesse. Another element of tax reform is the proposed repatriation tax on overseas corporate earnings. An estimated $2.6-$3 trillion is stashed "abroad" (often only in a legal sense), which enables companies to defer paying the corporate tax rate due upon repatriation. Trump is following in the footsteps of President Obama and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in attempting to collect these taxes - with the Republicans also broadly on board.9 Overall, Trump's plan would cut taxes and tax revenues much more aggressively than the GOP plan. Trump would see $1.3 trillion more in personal tax cuts and $1.7 trillion more in corporate taxes than the GOP plan over the coming decade (Chart 3). The country's debt-GDP ratio would grow by 25%, well above the GOP's 10-12% increase (Chart 4). Chart 3Trump Would Outdo##br## The GOP On Tax Cuts Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Chart 4Trump Would Outdo##br## The GOP On Debt Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency The Constraints We see no significant political or constitutional constraints facing the GOP and Trump. If we had to pick, we would assume that the ultimate deal will look a lot more like the GOP plan. The two sides will be able to hammer out a compromise for the following reasons: Given the reconciliation rules in the Senate, the Democrats cannot filibuster tax-cutting legislation. Both the Reagan and Bush administrations passed tax cuts in their first year in office - Reagan signed them into law in August, Bush in June. Trump, like Bush, has the advantage of GOP control of both houses of Congress. He and his party would have to fumble the ball very badly to fail on comprehensive tax reform in 2017. Republicans have been demanding tax reform since 2010 and have several "off-the-shelf" plans to draw from, including Ryan's plan. Staffers know the issues. Trump has also already reduced his original ambitions to meet them halfway. Since Trump's campaign did not focus on tax reform, he can afford to let the GOP take the lead on it - he will still get credit for the resulting deal and will expect GOP support on infrastructure, immigration, and trade in turn. The first constraint that does exist is complexity. Comprehensive tax reform has not occurred since 1986, under Reagan, because it is fiendishly tricky. This means the timing could be delayed - perhaps as late as the third quarter of 2017, despite the eagerness of both Congress and the White House for reform. The second constraint is one of priorities. Trump and the GOP have a busy agenda for the first half of 2017, with taxes, Obamacare, and Trump's infrastructure plan. Rumors suggest that Congress will use its first reconciliation bill to repeal Obamacare. But since they do not know what will replace the current law yet, it would make more sense to reverse the order and do tax reform first. This will be easier, again, because tax reform has been a major issue for Republicans for a decade. Third is the problem of permanence. Assuming the Republicans use reconciliation to pass their tax reform, they will not be allowed to increase the federal budget deficit beyond the ten-year time frame of the budget resolution. They will have to include a "sunset" clause on the tax cuts, as occurred with the Bush tax cuts in 2001, leaving them vulnerable to expiration under the next administration.10 The Impact What will a sweeping tax reform plan mean? Headline U.S. corporate taxes are higher than every other country in the OECD, so the U.S. corporate sector will ostensibly gain competitiveness (Chart 5). This factor, combined with repatriation and threats of protectionism against outsourcing multi-national corporates (MNCs), should lift corporate investment in the U.S. Chart 5U.S. Companies Will Get Competitive Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Reducing loopholes would broaden the corporate tax base, the key value of the reform from the perspective of revenues and the country's economic structure. Multinational corporations already pay a lower effective tax rate than the official 35% corporate rate, so the impact will depend on their current effective rate as well as the new rate. Trump's plan would only increase effective taxes for firms in the utilities sector, while the GOP plan could increase effective taxes for firms in finance, electronics, transportation, and leasing. In both cases, companies in construction, retail, agriculture, refining, and non-durable manufacturing stand to benefit the most (Chart 6). Chart 6Tax Cuts Benefit Some Sectors More Than Others Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency A key question is how flow-through businesses are treated: whether they get Trump's 15% or the GOP's 25%. In the latter case they would see a tax hike (from an average rate of 19%) and thereafter be punished relative to more capital-heavy "C" corporations. Trump is a "populist" insofar as his plan would support flow-through businesses. Bottom Line: The quickest and biggest impact of Trump's fiscal policies on GDP growth will come from his tax cuts. With the Republicans long preparing for tax reform, and fully controlling Congress, tax reform is all but a done deal - and probably by Q3 2017 at latest. The outstanding question is whether Trump's infrastructure spending will be included in tax reform and thus compound the positive fiscal impact in 2017, or be pushed off into 2018. Fiscal Spending Trump's proposed $550 billion in new infrastructure investment is as nebulous as many of his other promises. However, as outlined above, we believe that Trump's victory partly depended on this issue and investors should not ignore Trump's commitment to it. Constraints are overstated. The Plan Trump's first clear infrastructure proposal came from two of his special advisers, Wilbur Ross and Peter Navarro.11 They propose government tax credits for private entities who invest in infrastructure projects. They argue that $1 trillion in new infrastructure investment - the same number cited on Trump's campaign website as the country's estimated needs over the next decade - would require $167 billion in equity investment, which could then be leveraged. To raise these sums, they propose the government offer a tax credit equal to 82% of the equity amount. They contend that the plan would be deficit-neutral because payments for the government tax credit would be matched with tax revenues from the labor involved in construction and the corporate profits flowing from the projects, charged at Trump's 15% corporate rate. The other component of the Ross-Navarro plan consists in combining infrastructure financing with the tax repatriation plan - a common proposal in Washington. Companies that are repatriating their earnings at the lower 10% rate could thus invest in infrastructure projects and use the 82% tax credit on that investment to cover the cost of their repatriation taxes. If the Trump administration sticks with this proposal, it will require the GOP to include the infrastructure plan in the tax reform bill. Or, given the bipartisan support for both a new repatriation tax and building infrastructure, Trump could turn to the Democrats for a separate bill covering these two policies. However, the specifics of the Ross-Navarro plan can be chucked out the window at will. They were designed to win the election, not to bind the administration's hands. Already, Trump has reversed his stance on the possibility of a state-run infrastructure bank (one of Clinton's proposals) as a way of financing new projects. What matters is that Trump and his top advisors are enthralled by the idea of a populist or "big government"-style conservatism that takes advantage of historically low interest rates - the post-financial crisis "Keynesian" moment - to stimulate the economy and improve U.S. productivity in the long run.12 Trump's emphasis on this issue in his November 8 victory speech says it all. Thus Trump's infrastructure ambitions are likely to be prioritized and will certainly not be abandoned. Unless Trump drastically alters his handling of the issue on January 20 - which we consider highly unlikely - it should be considered a top priority. The Constraints What are the constraints? President Obama's stimulus plan passed in February 2009, immediately after taking office, but that was in the midst of a financial crisis. Now conditions are different. Infrastructure is popular, but the timing with the economic cycle is not perfect, and the fiscal hawks in the GOP will try to water down Trump's proposals. Our clients are particularly concerned that the Tea Party-linked Republicans in Congress will be a major political hurdle. We disagree. On the issue of funding, what is important for legislative passage is not whether the plan ends up being "deficit neutral" as promised, but whether it can be marketed as such. Key Republicans like Kevin Brady, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, have already admitted that some of the revenues from repatriated earnings will go toward infrastructure. Public-private partnerships will give Republicans a way of presenting the project as deficit-friendly. And it is true that interest rates are low for borrowers (at least for now), including state and local authorities - which account for the clear majority of infrastructure spending in the U.S. Political constraints are few. Public support for infrastructure is a no-brainer, opinion polls show that the public wants better infrastructure (Chart 7). It is also one of the least polarizing issues of all the issues in a recent Pew survey (Chart 8). Chart 7The 'Right' Kind Of ##br##Government Spending: Infrastructure Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Chart 8Infrastructure Is Not##br## A Partisan Issue Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Moreover, there is no reason to believe that modern Republican presidents are particularly fiscally austere - Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes were not (Chart 9). And Republican voters are not so fearful of big government when their party is at the helm as when they are in opposition (Chart 10). Election results show that voters consistently approve of about 70% of local transportation funding initiatives, which means they vote in favor of higher taxes to receive better infrastructure (Chart 11). Chart 9Fact: Republicans Run Bigger Budget Deficits bca.gps_sr_2016_11_30_c9 bca.gps_sr_2016_11_30_c9 Chart 10No Ruling Party Fears Big Government bca.gps_sr_2016_11_30_c10 bca.gps_sr_2016_11_30_c10 What about the Tea Party? It is true that fiscal conservatives in the GOP are skeptical of Trump's infrastructure ambitions. The Tea Party and Freedom Caucus make up about 60 combined votes. However, Trump's combination of Eisenhower big-spending Republicanism and populism won the election and has therefore written austerity's obituary. Furthermore, voters identifying with the Tea Party voted for Trump in the Republican primaries, according to exit polls (Chart 12). Hesitancy to support Trump on ideological grounds even caused the former Chairman of the Tea Party Caucus, Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), to lose his primary election to a more Trump-friendly challenger. Given that all members of the House of Representatives must run for re-election in 2018 - with campaigning starting in merely 18 months - they will dare not oppose Trump for fear of being Huelskamped themselves. Chart 11The 'Right' Kind Of Tax Hike: Paying For Roads Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Chart 12Trump Won The Tea Party Vote Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency The political winds against austerity were shifting even before Trump. In January 2015, the GOP-controlled Congress approved of "dynamic scoring," an accounting method that considers the holistic impact of budget measures - spending and/or tax cuts - on revenue and thus deficits.13 The GOP has also recently come close to readmitting "earmarks," legislative tags that direct funding to special interests in representatives' home districts. Earmarks were done away with in 2011, but they have crept back in different guises (Chart 13). Republican members of Congress can hear the gravy train and are scrambling to ensure they get on board. They want to be able to ride the new wave of spending all the way back to re-election in their home districts. Chart 13Pork-Barrel Prohibition Is Ending Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Finally, if Congress takes up an infrastructure-repatriation tax bill separately from the more partisan tax cuts, Trump may be able to offset any holdout fiscal hawks with support from Democrats. In late 2015, Democrats and Republicans voted together on the first highway funding bill in ten years, with large margins in both houses, easily overwhelming dissent from the Tea Party and Freedom Caucus. Vulnerable Democrats in the now "Trump Blue" states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Ohio will be particularly interested in crossing the aisle on any infrastructure spending legislation. The Impact What will be the size and impact of Trump's infrastructure spending? Currently his transition team says he will oversee $550 billion in new investments, albeit offering no details or timeframe. This would be 72% of Obama's 2009 five-year stimulus at a time when there is little or no output or unemployment gap. In other words, the plan is pro-cyclical stimulus that will likely end up generating "too much" growth at a time when inflation expectations are already rising and the output gap is closing. The downside could be a rate-hike induced recession in 12-18 months. In terms of its impact on debt levels, infrastructure spending is less of a concern. The federal share of that $550 billion - i.e. the size of the tax credit for private participants - is going to be much smaller. During the campaign Trump implied $1 trillion in new investments over ten years, but the federal tax credit would have been a "deficit neutral" $137 billion. Applying the same ratio, back of envelope, Trump now aims for a $75 billion tax credit for the $550 billion worth of projects. But there will also likely be other components to the plan, such as federal support for state and local debt-financed infrastructure. Thus the headline size of Trump's infrastructure plan is far bigger than the federal commitment. Still, investors should appreciate that despite its modest size, the plan marks a break from the austerity-focused past. Bottom Line: Trump's election signals an anti-austerity turn in U.S. politics from which the fiscal hawks in the GOP cannot hide. Trump will ultimately receive congressional support on infrastructure spending, possibly bipartisan, and this "Return of G" will mark an important inflection point in U.S. economic policy.14 Immigration Globalization is, broadly defined, the free movement of goods, services, capital, and people. Trump began his campaign in June 2015 with a blistering speech opposing illegal immigration. His anti-immigrant rhetoric ratcheted up from that point, but while the media focused on the alleged xenophobia of his comments, Trump's message was consistently focused on the economic downside of an "open borders" policy. Since the election, Trump's rhetoric on immigration has dramatically softened. The Plan There are two components of Trump's immigration plan as far as we can tell: deportation and border enforcement. On the first, Trump's primary goal is to terminate Obama's "two illegal executive amnesties," i.e. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA).15 This means he opposes two programs that are already frozen. In addition, he has pledged to deport 2-3 million undocumented immigrants, emphasizing criminals and drug offenders. This is comparable to Obama's 2.5 million deportations from 2009-15, the highest clip on record. We expect Trump to accelerate the pace of deportations, but it is by no means clear that he will do so, or do so dramatically. There is as yet no clear plan to deal with high-skilled immigrants, especially those arriving on H-1B non-immigrant visas authorizing temporary employment. Trump has made conflicting statements regarding the H-1B program, saying he wanted to keep attracting highly skilled workers to the U.S. but also criticizing the program specifically during a debate. Trump's pick for the attorney general, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, is a big opponent of the program. There is considerable evidence that the H-1B program hurts the wages of domestic workers, particularly in the tech sector.16 As for Trump's notorious "border wall," it is shaping up to be a change in degree, not kind. The Clinton administration's "deterrence through prevention" policy, beginning in 1994, and the Secure Fence Act of 2006, have led to extensive fencing and wall construction along the border over the past two decades. Trump will seek to fill gaps, reinforce border barriers, and probably erect better fences near population centers as more visible signs of his achievements. But he will not be building a Great Wall of Trump. The Constraints There are no major constitutional constraints on any of the proposals, since Trump is reversing the Obama administration's illegal non-enforcement of existing immigration law.17 The chief constraint Trump faces when it comes to increasing the pace of deportations and building enhanced walling and fencing is the cost. The threat to make Mexico provide all the funds is going to be watered down in negotiations.18 Trump could increase the Department of Homeland Security's budget, which slowed from 12% annual growth under Bush to 2.7% under Obama. Presumably congressional opposition would not be too virulent given the purpose. But spending on immigration enforcement already outpaces that of all other federal law enforcement agencies combined. A bigger constraint is whether, after the border is "normalized," Trump will follow through on his promise to make a "determination" on what to do with the non-criminal illegal immigrants. This language implies that he is ultimately amenable to comprehensive immigration reform and even a path to citizenship - a proposal that has already passed the Senate in an earlier form. To pass such a comprehensive reform bill, however, Trump will need to work with the Democrats in the Senate as they can and will filibuster any immigration reform bill that does not have a path towards some form of amnesty for the immigrants in the country. What of the timing? Deportations can begin promptly upon taking office - the agencies are already capable. Increasing border enforcement and structures will likely go into his first fiscal 2018 budget request - we expect the GOP Congress to be receptive. As for broader immigration reform, these will be the slowest to materialize, if ever. Previous GOP immigration reform laws passed after the midterm elections in 1986 and 1990, so 2018 may be a useful marker. The Impact On the margin, less immigration into the U.S. should raise domestic wages, particularly for the two sectors where low-skilled immigrants are most likely to be employed: agriculture and construction. Bottom Line: Trump's immigration policy is hardly revolutionary, despite his campaign focus on the issue. He has few constraints to his announced policies, but they are likely to be unimpressive in scope. There are three potential risks to our sanguine view. First, Trump decides to deport all the 11 million illegal migrants in the country, causing considerable political and social unrest. Second, he actually means what he says about Mexico paying for the wall. Third, he tries to end the H-B1 high-skilled temporary workers program. Reforming the overall immigration process - including a possible pathway to citizenship - is constrained by Democrats' control of the Senate and will therefore likely proceed on a longer timeframe (perhaps even after 2020). Trade Trump's trade protectionism is the main risk to markets and global risk assets. His victory represents a true break with the past seventy years of ever-greater globalization (Chart 14). We have expected the trend of de-globalization since, at least, 2014. However, we are surprised how quickly the issue became the electoral issue. Chart 14Globalization Peaked Before Trump Globalization Peaked Before Trump Globalization Peaked Before Trump Investors now have to re-price numerous assets for the de-globalization premium. The Plan Trump has threatened to name China a currency manipulator on day one in office, impose a 45% across-the-board tariff on Chinese goods, and a 35% tariff on Mexican goods. He has committed to canceling the U.S.'s biggest trade initiative in the twenty-first century, the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and he has threatened to renegotiate NAFTA and withdraw from the WTO, leaving U.S. tariffs with nothing but Smoot-Hawley to keep them tethered to earth. Thus Trump's victory threatens to become not only the chief symptom of "peak globalization"19 but also a great aggravator of it and cause of further de-globalization going forward (Chart 15). Chart 15De-Globalization To Continue bca.gps_sr_2016_11_30_c15 bca.gps_sr_2016_11_30_c15 There are signs that Trump may act on his rhetoric and enact a radical change in U.S. trade policy. Two of his top advisers, Dan DiMicco and Robert Lighthizer, are outspoken economic nationalists and "China bashers." DiMicco has dedicated his life to fighting Chinese mercantilism and believes that the U.S. and China are "already in a trade war; we [the U.S.] just haven't shown up yet."20 Yet there are also signs that Trump intends only to drive a hard bargain, not start a trade war. For instance, he says his first action will be to rip up the TPP, but this deal has not been ratified and was internationally controversial because it excluded China (as well as U.S. allies Korea, Thailand, and the Philippines). Moreover, while Trump says he will deem China a currency manipulator on day one in office, this is largely a symbolic act that entails no automatic, concrete punitive measures.21 Therefore Trump could take these two actions alone, or other symbolic ones, to prove that he is an economic patriot, and then settle down to "renegotiate" key trade relationships along the lines of the status quo. It is too soon to draw conclusions, but we do not think things will turn out as peachy as the best-case scenario. This is in large part due to the fact that the U.S. president has tremendous leeway on trade. The Constraints The U.S. president has few constraints when it comes to trade policy, for the following reasons:22 Delegated powers from Congress: Congress is the constitutional power that governs trade with foreign states. However, Congress passes laws that delegate authority to the executive branch to administer and enforce trade agreements and to exercise prerogative amid exigencies. Even when Congress approves a trade deal like NAFTA, it is the president who is empowered to lower tariffs - and therefore the president can issue a new proclamation raising them. The past century has produced a series of laws that give Trump considerable latitude - not only the right to impose a 15% tariff for up to 150 days, as in the Trade Act of 1974, but also unrestricted tariff and import quota powers during wartime or national emergencies, as in the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 (Table 1).23 A president's legal advisors are only too happy to use their imaginations. Nixon invoked the Korean War, which ended in 1952, as a justification for a 10% surcharge tariff on all dutiable goods in 1971, simply because the Korean state of emergency had never officially ended! Table 1Trump Faces Few Constraints On Trade Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency Executive power over foreign policy: The executive branch is the constitutional power that governs foreign relations. Since international economics are inseparable from foreign relations and national security, the president has prerogative over matters even remotely touching trade. Both Congress and the judicial branch will tend to defer to a president in exercising these powers as well - at least until a gross subversion of national interest occurs. And even then, it is not clear how the constitutional struggle would play out - the courts always bow to the executive on matters of national security. Wars do not have to be declared for wartime trade powers, so all the U.S.'s various military operations across the world provide fodder for Trump to invoke the Trading With The Enemy Act, giving him power to regulate all forms of trade and seize foreign assets. Time is on the executive's side: Even assuming that Congress or the Supreme Court move to oppose the executive, it will likely be too late to avoid serious ramifications and retaliation from abroad. Congress is unlikely to vote to overrule the president until the damage has already been done - especially given Trump's powers delegated from Congress.24 As for the courts, the executive could swamp them with justifications for its actions; the courts would have to deem the executive likely to lose every single one of these cases in order to issue a preliminary injunction against each of them and halt the president's orders. Any final Supreme Court ruling would take at least a year. International law would be neither speedy nor binding. The Impact Trump is deeply committed to a tougher trade stance, has few constraints, and his protectionism deeply resonated with key swing voters. We doubt he will settle for cosmetic changes and the establishment Republican "business as usual." This means China relations are a major risk, especially in the long run. We will expand on these tensions, which will become geopolitical, in an upcoming report. What happens if Trump pursues protectionism wholeheartedly? First, the good. On the margin, some trade protections could attract foreign companies to relocate to the U.S. and discourage American companies from outsourcing - boosting investment and wages. It could also help slow the decline of American manufacturing employment. A simple comparison with Europe and Japan shows that the decrease of manufacturing jobs has been more dramatic in the U.S., so policy may be able to conserve what is left (Chart 16). Second, the bad. All the developed countries have seen manufacturing jobs decrease, and not only because of globalization. Technological advancement has played a major role as well. You can block off foreign goods, but you cannot roll back the march of the automatons (Chart 17), as our colleagues at U.S. Investment Strategy recently pointed out.25 Trump's blue collar workers may realize, after four years of protectionism that jobs are not coming back while the WalMart bills are getting pricier. Who will they vote for after that realization sets in? Chart 16U.S. Manufacturing Decline##br## Sharper Than In Other DM U.S. Manufacturing Decline Sharper Than In Other DM U.S. Manufacturing Decline Sharper Than In Other DM Chart 17Reasons For Robots##br## To Replace Workers Reasons For Robots To Replace Workers Reasons For Robots To Replace Workers Third, the ugly. If the U.S. goes protectionist, it will pull the rug out from neoliberalism globally and provide cover for similar protectionist realignments around the world - retaliatory as well as copy-cat. A falling tide lowers all boats. Worse than that, the decline in trade, insofar as it forces countries to rely on domestic markets, pursue spheres of influence, and protect access to vital commodities, could spark military conflict. Germany and Japan both started World War II precisely because their autarkic fantasies required expansion and pre-emptive warfare. This would be the mercantilist future that we warned clients of earlier this year.26 None of this is a foregone conclusion. There is simply too little information to judge which way the Trump administration will go - and how fast. But the fact remains that on trade, more so than anything else, Trump will be unconstrained. Bottom Line: De-globalization is the major risk of the Trump presidency.27 How Trump handles relations with China in 2017 will be the key indicator of whether he aims to revolutionize U.S. trade policy to the detriment of global exports and growth. If he blows past the rule of law and imposes steep "retribution" tariffs or quotas right away, then fasten your seat belt. Investment Conclusions For several years we have warned clients that austerity is kaput.28 It was never politically sustainable in the post-Debt Supercycle, low -growth environment that followed the 2008 Great Recession. The pendulum is swinging hard the opposite way, with Trump's heavy-handed, somewhat haphazard approach, adding momentum. Once the U.S. moves against austerity, we expect policymakers in other countries to follow. In the near term, the carnage in long-dated Treasury markets may pause as investors overthink the constraints to "G." Bond yields have already moved quite a bit. Structurally, however, the 35-year bond bull market is over.29 We continue to recommend that clients play the 2-year/30-year Treasury curve steepener, a position that is in the black by 11.2 basis points since November 1. In the long term, Trump's anti-globalization policies will impact investors the most. More protectionism, less immigration, and dollar-bullish fiscal policies will all be negative for America's MNCs. Meanwhile, fiscal spending, a stronger USD, and corporate tax reform that benefits small and medium enterprises (SMEs) paying the high marginal tax rate will benefit Main Street. As such, the way to play de-globalization in the U.S. is to go long SMEs / short MNCs, a view that we will expand upon in an upcoming collaborative report with BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy. Beyond the U.S., de-globalization will favor domestic consumer-oriented sectors and countries and will imperil international export-oriented sectors and countries. We particularly fear for export-heavy emerging markets, which depend on globalization for both capital and market access. Developed markets should have an easier time transitioning into a more protectionist world. As such, we continue to recommend a structural overweight in DM versus EM. For the time being, we are booking gains on our long S&P 500 / short gold trade, for a gain of 11.53% since November 8, due to our concern that equities may have already priced-in the lifting of animal spirits but not the negatives of de-globalization. Near term risk also abounds for our high-beta positions such as our long Japanese equities trade (gain of 3.99% since initiation on September 26) and long USD/JPY (gain of 3.57%, same initiation day). We will book gains and look to reinitiate both at a later date, given that our positive view on Japan remains the same. We will also close our long European versus global equities view, for a small loss of 1.34%. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Transformative Vs. Transactional Leadership," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 In physics, the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - fundamental to quantum mechanics - supposes that the more precisely the position of a particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known. Trump does not merely "flip flop" on policy issues - as his opponent Secretary Hillary Clinton was often accused of doing - but literally embodies two opposing policy views at the same time. 4 #TrumpisnotLucifer. 5 Reconciliation is a legislative process in the U.S. Senate that limits debate on a budget bill to twenty hours, thus preventing the minority from using the filibuster to veto the process. The procedure has also been used to enact tax cuts. In both 2001 and 2003, the Republican-held Senate used the procedure to pass President George W. Bush's tax cuts. 6 Please see Paul Ryan, "A Better Way For Tax Reform," available at abetterway.speaker.gov. For analysis, please see Jim Nunns et al, "An Analysis of the House GOP Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center, September 16, 2016, available at www.taxpolicycenter.org. 7 A "flow-through" entity passes income on to the owners and/or investors. As such, the business can avoid double taxation, where both investors and the business are taxed. Only the investors and owners of a flow-through business are taxed on revenues. 8 Several groups would see no substantial tax cuts under the plan. Those making $15,000-$19,000 would see their tax rate increase from 10% to 12%. Those making $52,500-101,500 would see their rate stay the same at 25%, while those making $127,500-$200,500 would see their rate rise from 28% to 33%. Please see Jim Nunns et al, "An Analysis Of Donald Trump's Revised Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center, October 18, 2016, available at www.taxpolicycenter.org. 9 A favorable rate of 10% (4% for non-cash assets) will be applied to accumulated earnings prior to 2017, while future overseas earnings will be subject to the corporate tax rate of 15%. The Tax Policy Center projects that $148 billion worth of unpaid tax revenue can be collected through the "deemed" (mandatory) repatriation. 10 The Bush tax cuts were extended in the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, with some exceptions, like for the highest income groups. 11 Please see "Trump Versus Clinton On Infrastructure," October 27, 2016, available at peternavarro.com. The Trump campaign initially implied a decade-long total investment of $1 trillion "Trump Infrastructure Plan," with the government contributing a seed amount. The $1 trillion infrastructure-gap estimate comes from the National Association of Manufacturers, "Build to Win," dated 2016, available at www.donaldjtrump.com. The Trump team has reduced its total infrastructure investment goal to $550 billion, a number reaffirmed on Trump's White House transition website, www.greatagain.gov. 12 Please see Daniella Diaz, "Steve Bannon: 'Darkness is good,'" CNN, November 19, 2016, available at edition.cnn.com. Bannon, Trump's chief strategist, said: "Like (Andrew) Jackson's populism, we're going to build an entirely new political movement ... It's everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I'm the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. With negative interest rates throughout the world, it's the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Shipyards, iron works, get them all jacked up. We're just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution - conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement." 13 Dynamic-scoring, also known as macroeconomic modeling, is a favorite tool of Republican legislators when passing tax cut legislation. It allows them to cut taxes and then score the impact on the budget deficit holistically, taking into consideration the supposed pro-growth impact of the legislation. However, there is no reason why Republicans, under Trump, could not use the methodology for infrastructure spending as well. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Nuthin' But A G Thang," dated August 12, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 By these executive orders, the Obama administration sought to prioritize the deportation of "high-risk" illegal immigrants while delaying action on more sympathetic groups. However, only one program was actually implemented (DACA), and both ground to a halt when the Supreme Court ordered an injunction. The justices concurred with lower courts that halted the programs as a result of the burden they would place on state finances. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Immigration Wars: The Coming Battle For Skilled Migrants," dated March 13, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 The courts have already done the heavy lifting. Moreover the nullification of DACA only makes illegal immigrant children eligible for deportation, it does not necessitate that Trump actually deport them - that would require increasing the budget and capacity of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to cope with an additional four million deportees, all "low risk" and politically sympathetic. We doubt Trump will do this. 18 If Trump acts on his promise to make Mexico pay for the wall - a claim notably missing from his transition website greatagain.gov - then he may need to precipitate a foreign policy crisis (not to mention court opposition) through his own series of controversial executive orders. Alternatively, he could try to get Congress to amend the Patriot Act to allow the U.S. to extract payments from remittances from the U.S. to Mexico, but he would be at risk of a Senate filibuster. Both pose significant constraints. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization: All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see Lisa Reisman, "Nucor Provides Testimony To US House Ways And Means Committee On China Exchange Rate Policy," Metal Miner, September 16, 2010, available at www.agmetalminer.com. 21 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy, "China As A Currency Manipulator?" dated November 24, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 22 In what follows we are indebted to an excellent paper by Marcus Noland et al, "Assessing Trade Agendas In The US Presidential Campaign," Peterson Institute for International Economics, PIIE Briefing 16-6, dated September 2016, available at piie.com. 23 See in particular the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232b), the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 301), the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 (Section 5b), and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. 24 A Federal District Court and the Supreme Court ruled against Harry Truman's executive orders to seize steel mills during the Korean War, but Truman's lawyers did not provide a statutory basis for his actions - they simply argued that the constitution did not limit the president's powers! 25 Please see BCA U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Easier Fiscal, Tighter Money?," dated November 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Mercantilism Is Back," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 28 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Austerity Is Kaput," dated May 8, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 29 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com.