Global

Recommended Allocation Monthly Portfolio Update Monthly Portfolio Update The Meaning Of Trump Sudden large shocks in markets are rare. But the election of Donald Trump as U.S. President is one such. After a shock of this magnitude, markets tend initially to overreact, then correct, before settling on a new course. Market action since November 9th has caused many asset prices to overshoot short term. It is likely that U.S. bond yields, inflation expectations, the performance of bank and materials stocks, and the U.S. dollar (Chart 1) will correct over the next month or so, perhaps triggered by the Fed's likely rate hike on December 14th or simply by shifting expectations for Trump's economic policies. But what is the likely long-term course, which should set our asset allocation for the next 6 to 12 months? We think investors should take Trump at least partly at his word when he says he will enact tax cuts and increase infrastructure investment. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service sees few constraints on Trump from Congress in the short term.1 The OECD in its latest Economic Outlook has given its imprimatur, arguing that "a stronger fiscal policy response is needed," and estimating that U.S. fiscal stimulus could add 0.1 percentage point to global growth next year and 0.3 points in 2018.2 If such a policy boosted growth and inflation, it would be negative for bonds. The only question, with 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yields having already risen by almost 100 bps since July, is how much of this is priced in. In the long run, government bond yields are broadly correlated with nominal GDP growth (Chart 2). In H1 2016, U.S. nominal GDP growth was 2.7%, and for 2016 as a whole probably about 3.2%. If it picks up to 4-5% in 2017 (2.5-3% real, plus inflation of 1.5-2%), an additional rise of 50-100 bps in the 10-year yield would not be surprising (though ECB and BoJ asset purchases might somewhat limit the rise in yields). Moreover, growth was already accelerating before Trump's victory. The effects of 2015's commodity shock and industrial and profits recessions have passed, with U.S. Q3 GDP growth revised up to 3.2% and the Fed's NowCasting models suggesting 2.5%-3.6% for Q4. The Citi Economic Surprise Index has surprised on the upside in recent weeks both in the U.S. and Europe - though not in emerging markets (Chart 3). And the Q3 earnings season in the U.S. was well above expectations, with EPS coming in at +3.3% YoY (compared to a consensus forecast pre-results of -2.2%). Analysts' forecasts for 2017 EPS growth are a comparatively modest 11%. Chart 1Some Short-Term Overshoots bca.gaa_mu_2016_11_30_c1 bca.gaa_mu_2016_11_30_c1 Chart 2Bond Yields Relate To Nominal Growth bca.gaa_mu_2016_11_30_c2 bca.gaa_mu_2016_11_30_c2 Chart 3Growth Was Already Surprising On The Upside Growth Was Already Surprising On The Upside Growth Was Already Surprising On The Upside But whether this new world will be positive for equities is harder to answer. Trump's unpredictability raises policy uncertainty: how much emphasis, for example, will he put on trade protectionism or confrontational foreign policy? This should raise the risk premium. The Fed's response will also be key. Futures have now priced in the rate hike in December and (almost) the two further rate hikes in the Fed's dots for 2017 (Chart 4). But the market still sees the long-term equilibrium rate (as expressed in five-year five-year forwards) as only just over 2%, compared to the Fed's 2.9%. And, although Janet Yellen has suggested that the Fed will act only after Trump's policies take effect ("We will be watching the decisions that Congress makes and updating our economic outlook as the policy landscape becomes clearer," she said), if core PCE inflation continues to pick up in 2017 beyond the current 1.7% and a strong stimulus package is implemented, the Fed might accelerate its rate hikes. More worryingly, Trump's fundamental views on monetary policy are unknown: does he, as a businessman, like low rates, or will he listen to his "hard money" advisers who believe the Fed has been too lax? Since he can appoint six FOMC governors in his first year in office, he will be able to influence monetary policy. Too fast a rise in Fed rates would be negative for equities. On balance, in this environment we see equities outperforming bonds over the next 12 months. It is unusual for the stock-to-bond ratio to decline outside of a global recession (Chart 5) - and, with the extra boost from fiscal policy (with Trump possibly joined by Japan, the U.K., China and others), a recession is unlikely over our forecast horizon. Chart 4Market Has Priced In 2017 Fed Hikes - ##br##But Not The Long-Term bca.gaa_mu_2016_11_30_c4 bca.gaa_mu_2016_11_30_c4 Chart 5Stocks Don't Often ##br##Underperform Outside Recession bca.gaa_mu_2016_11_30_c5 bca.gaa_mu_2016_11_30_c5 Accordingly, we are raising our recommendation for global equities to overweight, and lowering bonds to underweight. The problem is timing: we recognize that there may be a better entry point over the next couple of months. Some investors may, therefore, want to implement the change gradually. In addition, some recent market moves are not fundamentally justified: for example, we cannot see how the materials sector would be a significant beneficiary from a Trump fiscal stimulus. We plan to make further detailed adjustments to our equity country and sector recommendations and bond-class recommendations in the next Quarterly Portfolio Update, to be published on December 15th. Currencies: Stronger U.S. growth and tighter monetary policy suggest that the USD will continue to appreciate. The dollar looks somewhat expensive but is still well below the peak of overvaluation at the end of previous bouts of strength in 1985 and 2002. The Bank of Japan's policy of capping the 10-year JGB yield at 0% has worked well (pushing the yen down by 12% against the dollar in the past two months) and, as rates elsewhere rise, this implies further long-run yen weakness. The euro is likely to weaken less, with eurozone growth recently surprising on the upside and the ECB therefore likely to reconsider the amount of asset purchases at some point next year, though probably not at its meeting on December 8th. Emerging market currencies continue to look particularly vulnerable. Equities: In common currency terms, U.S. equities are more attractive than European ones. In local currency terms, however, the call is closer since the strong dollar will depress U.S. earnings relative to those in Europe, and an acceleration of global economic growth should help the more cyclical eurozone stock market. On the other hand, Europe faces structural issues, such as the chronically poor profitability of its banking system, and political risk from a series of upcoming elections (starting with the Italian referendum on December 4th). We continue to like Japan (on a currency hedged basis) and expect that the BoJ's policy will be bolstered by government fiscal and employment policies. We remain underweight on emerging markets. They have always been vulnerable during periods of dollar strength, and political side-effects from their bout of economic weakness in 2011-5 are starting to spread, recently to Turkey, Malaysia, India, Brazil, Korea and South Africa. Fixed Income: The risk of tighter Fed policy and higher yields suggest investors should remain underweight duration. We have liked U.S. TIPS over nominal bonds all year and, with 10-year breakeven inflation still only at 1.8%, they remain attractive in the current environment. We reduced high-yield bonds to neutral on September 30th, on the grounds that investors were no longer being sufficiently compensated for default risk: they have subsequently given -3% return, while equities rallied. We recommend investment grade credits for those investors who need to pick up yield (Chart 6). Commodities: After the OPEC agreement on production cuts, we expect the oil price to move towards $55 in the first few months of 2017 as inventories are drawn down. Over the longer run the risk is to the upside as a dearth of new projects, following cancellations last year, will tighten the supply/demand balance. Metals prices have strengthened since Trump's victory, with the CRB Raw Industrials Index up sharply (Chart 7). This makes little sense. Trump's stimulus will be centered on tax, not infrastructure. China remains a far more important factor: the U.S. represented only 7% of global steel consumption in 2015, for example, compared to 43% for China. And China's recent stimulus is running out of steam. Chart 6Yield On Investment Grade Credits ##br##Still Attractive Yield On Investment Grade Credits Still Attractive Yield On Investment Grade Credits Still Attractive Chart 7Trump Shouldn't Have ##br##This Much Effect On Metals Prices bca.gaa_mu_2016_11_30_c7 bca.gaa_mu_2016_11_30_c7 Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report,"U.S. Election: Outcomes and Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see OECD Global Economic Outlook, November 2016, available at http://www.oecd.org/economy/outlook/economicoutlook.htm. Recommended Asset Allocation

The Tactical Asset Allocation model can provide investment recommendations which diverge from those outlined in our regular weekly publications. The model has a much shorter investment horizon - namely, one month - and thus attempts to capture very tactical opportunities. Meanwhile, our regular recommendations have a longer expected life, anywhere from 3-months to a year (or longer). This difference explains why the recommendations between the two publications can deviate from each other from time to time. Highlights In November, the model underperformed global equities and the S&P in USD and in local-currency terms. For December, the model reduced its allocation to cash and stocks and boosted its weighting in bonds (Chart 1). Within the equity portfolio, most of the decrease in allocation came at the expense of EM, Sweden, Netherlands, U.S., and New Zealand. The model increased its weighting in Swedish, French, U.K., and Canadian bonds. The risk index for stocks deteriorated in November, while the bond risk index improved significantly. Chart 1Model Weights bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c1 bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c1 Feature Performance In November, the recommended balanced portfolio lost 1.5% in local-currency terms and was down 3.4% in U.S. dollar terms (Chart 2). This compares with a gain of 1.3% for the global equity benchmark, and a 3.7% gain for the S&P 500 index. Given that the underlying model is structured in local-currency terms, we generally recommend that investors hedge their positions, though we do provide recommendations from time to time. The sharp bond selloff and weakness in EM equity markets both took a toll on the model's performance in November. Weights The model cut its allocation to stocks from 66% to 53%, and increased its bond weighting from 26% to 47%. The allocation to cash was brought down to zero from 8%, while commodities remain excluded from the portfolio (Table 1). The model trimmed its allocation to Latin American equities by 4 points, Sweden by 3 points, and the Netherlands by 3 points. Also, weightings were reduced in U.S., New Zealand, Spanish, and Emerging Asian stocks. In the fixed-income space, the allocation to Swedish paper was boosted by 12 points, France by 7 points, Canada by 5 points, the U.K. by 3 points, and Italy by 1 point. Allocation to New Zealand bonds was decreased by 6 points and U.S. Treasurys by 1 point. Chart 2Portfolio Total Returns bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c2 bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c2 Table 1Model Weights (As Of November 24, 2016) Tactical Asset Allocation And Market Indicators Tactical Asset Allocation And Market Indicators Currency Allocation Local currency-based indicators drive the construction of our model. As such, the performance of the model's portfolio should be compared with the local-currency global equity benchmark. The decision to hedge currency exposure should be made at the client's discretion, though from time to time, we do provide our recommendations. The dollar appreciated significantly in November following the U.S. presidential election. Our Dollar Capitulation Index spiked and is currently at levels that suggest the rally in the broad trade-weighted dollar could pause (Chart 3). Chart 3U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* And Capitulation bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c3 bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c3 Capital Market Indicators The momentum indicator for commodities has moved further into overbought territory, pushing up the overall risk index. This asset class remains excluded from the portfolio (Chart 4). The deterioration in the liquidity and momentum indicators has lifted the risk index for global equities to the highest level in over 2 years. Our model cut its weighting in equities for the fourth month in a row (Chart 5). Chart 4Commodity Index And Risk bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c4 bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c4 Chart 5Global Stock Market And Risk Global Stock Market And Risk Global Stock Market And Risk The risk index for U.S. stocks increased sharply in November. With stocks reaching new highs, the model trimmed its allocation to this bourse. The markets took note of the growth-positive aspects of Trump's policies, but seem complacent about the stronger dollar, higher interest rates, and the potential for trade protectionist policies (Chart 6). The risk index for euro area equities has ticked up slightly in November. However, unlike its U.S. peers, it remains in the low-risk zone. Above-trend growth could provide support for euro area equities. (Chart 7). Chart 6U.S. Stock Market And Risk bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c6 bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c6 Chart 7Euro Area Stock Market And Risk Euro Area Stock Market And Risk Euro Area Stock Market And Risk The risk index for Dutch equities ticked up slightly and the model has downgraded this asset. That said, the weighting in Dutch equities remains the highest among its euro area counterparts (Chart 8). Improvements in the value and momentum measures for Latin American stocks have been largely offset by a deteriorating liquidity reading. As a result, the risk index did not decline much after the selloff. The model decreased its allocation to this asset (Chart 9). Chart 8Dutch Stock Market And Risk bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c8 bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c8 Chart 9Latin American Stock Market And Risk bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c9 bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c9 Over the course of only a few months, the risk index for bonds has swung from an extremely high risk level to the low-risk zone. Momentum has been the primary driving force behind this move and currently suggests that yields could pull back in the near term (Chart 10). The risk index for U.S. Treasurys declined significantly in November. While the model used the latest selloff to boost its allocation to bonds, it preferred to add allocation to bond markets outside of Treasurys. (Chart 11). Chart 10Global Bond Yields And Risk bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c10 bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c10 Chart 11U.S. Bond Yields And Risk bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c11 bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c11 After the rise in yields, Canadian bonds are massively oversold based on our momentum measure. The extremely low-risk reading has prompted the model to allocate to this asset (Chart 12). German bonds are oversold, but the reading on the cyclical measure has become considerably more bund-unfriendly. The model opted not to include bunds in the overall boost to its bond allocation. (Chart 13). Chart 12Canadian Bond Yields And Risk bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c12 bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c12 Chart 13German Bond Yields And Risk bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c13 bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c13 The risk reading in French bonds is more favorable than for bunds. Apart from oversold momentum, the value reading has also improved. The model increased its allocation to French bonds (Chart 14). The cyclical component of the risk index for Swedish bonds keeps moving in a bond-bearish direction. But that is completely overshadowed by extremely oversold conditions. In fact, the overall risk index for Swedish bonds is the lowest within our bond universe. Much of the increase in overall bond allocation ended up in Swedish paper (Chart 15). Chart 14French Bond Yields And Risk bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c14 bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c14 Chart 15Swedish Bond Yields And Risk bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c15 bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c15 Following sharp gains, the 13-week momentum measure for the U.S. dollar has reached levels at which some consolidation may take place. But the recovery in the 40-week rate of change measure indicates that it would probably be a pause in the dollar bull market rather than a trend change. With the December rate hike baked in, the Fed's communication about the policy next year holds the key to the path of the dollar - in addition to the fiscal policy of the next administration (Chart 16). The Japanese yen has been a major victim of the dollar rally. The 13-week momentum measure is approaching levels that halted the yen weakening trend in 2013 and 2015. However, this time around, it is not coupled with the same signal from the 40-week rate of change measure. The BoJ is sticking to its easy monetary policy, and some additional support on the fiscal front could drag the yen lower, notwithstanding a possible hiatus in the short term. Short term the yen could benefit from an EM pullback (Chart 17). After the latest bout of depreciation, the euro seems poised for another attempt to break below 1.05. The 13-week and 40-week momentum measures do not preclude this from happening. However, it would probably take the ECB to reaffirm its dovish message to push EUR/USD technical indicators into more oversold territory (Chart 18). Chart 16U.S. Trade-Weighted Dollar* bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c16 bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c16 Chart 17Yen bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c17 bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c17 Chart 18Euro bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c18 bca.gis_taami_2016_11_25_c18 Miroslav Aradski, Senior Analyst miroslava@bcaresearch.com

Highlights The pace of globalization is slowing, reflecting the culmination of a decades-long process of integrating China and other emerging economies into the international trading system. Most commentators overstate the benefits of globalization, while glossing over the increasingly large distributional effects. A modest retreat from globalization would not irrevocably harm global growth, but a full-fledged trade war certainly would. Investors are underestimating the likelihood of disruptive trade measures from a Trump administration. Tactically underweight global equities. U.S. large cap tech stocks will suffer the most from a turn towards trade protectionism and from the curtailment of H-1B visa issuance under Trump's immigration plan. EM stocks could also come under pressure. Treasurys are oversold, but the structural trend for bond yields remains to the upside. The trade-weighted dollar could rally another 5% from current levels. And Take Your Damn Trump Hat With You If there is one sure way to get thrown out of a Davos party, it is by telling the assembled guests that globalization is not all that it is cracked up to be. After all, don't all cultured people know that globalization has made the world vastly richer? Well, maybe it has, but the evidence is not nearly as clear-cut as most people might imagine. Twenty years ago, the consensus among economists and policymakers was that international capital mobility should be strongly encouraged. Poor countries had a myriad of profitable investment opportunities, but lacked the savings to finance them, so the argument went. The solution, they were told, was to borrow from wealthier countries, which had a surfeit of savings. In the early 1990s, everything seemed to be going to plan. Emerging markets were running large current account deficits, using the proceeds from capital inflows to finance all sorts of investment projects. And then the Peso Crisis struck. And then the Asian Crisis. And just as quickly as the money came in, it came straight out. The result was mass defaults and depressed economies. Since then, most emerging economies have been trying to maintain current account surpluses - exactly the opposite of what theory would predict. Not to worry, the experts reassured us. What happened in emerging markets could not happen to developed economies with their strong institutions and sophisticated methods for allocating capital. The global financial crisis and later, the European sovereign debt crisis, put these claims to shame. Faced with this reality, the IMF published an official report in 2012 acknowledging that "rapid capital inflow surges or disruptive outflows can create policy challenges." It concluded that "there is ... no presumption that full liberalization is an appropriate goal for all countries at all times."1 This was a stunning about-face for an institution that, among other things, had sharply criticized Malaysia for imposing capital controls in 1998. Diminishing Returns To Globalization In contrast to capital account liberalization, the case for free trade in goods and services stands on sturdier ground. That said, proponents of free trade tend to overstate the benefits. As Paul Krugman has noted, the widely-used Eaton-Kortum model suggests that only about 5% of the increase in global GDP since 1990 can be attributed to higher trade flows.2 Moreover, it appears that the benefits to middle class workers in advanced economies from globalization have fallen over time. This is partly because trade liberalization, like most aspects of economic life, is subject to diminishing returns. Chart 1 shows that each succeeding round of trade liberalization has resulted in ever-smaller declines in average tariff rates. With tariffs on most tradeable goods now close to zero in the U.S. and most other advanced economies, there is less scope to liberalize trade further. As a result, proposed trade deals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) have focused on harmonizing business regulations and expanding patent and copyright protections. To call these deals "free trade agreements" is a stretch. Chart 1Tariffs Have Little Room To Decline Further bca.gis_wr_2016_11_25_c1 bca.gis_wr_2016_11_25_c1 Granted, many "invisible" barriers continue to stymie trade. John Helliwell has documented that a typical firm in Toronto generates roughly ten times as much sales from customers in Vancouver as it does from a similarly-sized, equidistant city in the U.S. such as Seattle.3 As it turns out, differences in legal systems and labor market institutions across countries, as well as differing social networks, can be as important an obstacle to trade flows as tariffs and quotas. But think about what this implies: If globalization were the key to economic development, then Canada, as a small economy situated next to a much larger neighbour, could prosper by dismantling these massive invisible trade barriers. However, we know that this proposition cannot be true: Canada is already a very rich economy, so any further trade liberalization would only boost incomes at the margin. What's Behind The Trade Slowdown? The analysis above helps put the much-discussed slowdown in global trade into context (Chart 2). As the IMF concluded in its most recent World Economic Outlook, while much of the deceleration in trade growth is attributable to cyclical factors, structural considerations also loom large.4 In particular, the boost to global trade over the past few decades stemming from the collapse of communism, the progressive elimination of most trade barriers, and the decision by most developing economies to abandon import-substitution policies appears to have run its course (Chart 3). In addition, the regional disaggregation of the global supply chain is slowing. These days, motor vehicle parts are shipped across national borders many times over before the final product rolls off the assembly line. The manufacturing process can only be broken down so much before diminishing returns set in. Chart 2Global Trade ##br##Growth Is Slowing Global Trade Growth Is Slowing Global Trade Growth Is Slowing Chart 3The Low-Hanging Fruits Of ##br##Globalization Have Been Picked bca.gis_wr_2016_11_25_c3 bca.gis_wr_2016_11_25_c3 Productivity gains in the global shipping industry are also moderating. As Marc Levinson argued in his book "The Box," the widespread adoption of containerization in the 1970s completely revolutionized the logistics and transportation industry. As a consequence, the days when thousands of longshoremen toiled in the great ports of Baltimore and Long Beach are long gone. Nowadays, huge cranes move containers off ships and place them into waiting trucks or trains. To the extent that there are still technological advances on the horizon - think self-driving trucks - these are likely to reduce intranational transport costs more than international costs. This could result in even slower trade growth by encouraging onshoring. Trade And Income Distribution Chart 4China's Rise Came Partly At ##br##The Expense Of U.S. Rust Belt Workers bca.gis_wr_2016_11_25_c4 bca.gis_wr_2016_11_25_c4 As every first-year economics student learns, David Ricardo's Theory of Comparative Advantage predicts that real wages will rise when countries specialize in the production of goods that they can manufacture relatively well. Students who stick around (and manage to stay awake) for second-year economics might learn about the Heckscher-Ohlin model. This model qualifies Ricardo's findings. Yes, free trade raises average real wages, but there can be large distributional effects. In particular, low-skilled workers could actually suffer a decline in real wages when rich countries increase trade with poorer countries. As trade ties between advanced and developing countries have grown, these distributional issues have become more important. David Autor has documented that increasing Chinese imports have had a sizable negative effect on manufacturing employment in the U.S. (Chart 4).5 It is thus not surprising that voters in Rust Belt states were especially receptive to Donald Trump's protectionist rhetoric. A Tale Of Two Globalizations: China Versus Mexico Most economists agree that trade liberalization has disproportionately benefited developing economies. Nevertheless, there too the benefits are often overstated. China, of course, is frequently cited as an example of a country that has prospered by integrating itself into the global economy. But what about Mexico? It also made a massive push to liberalize trade starting in the mid-1980s, which culminated in NAFTA in 1994. As a consequence, the ratio of Mexican exports-to-GDP rose from 13% in 1994 to 35% at present. Yet, as Chart 5 shows, GDP-per-hour worked has actually declined relative to the U.S. over this period. One key reason why China benefited more from globalization than Mexico is that China had a much better educated workforce. This allowed it to quickly absorb technological know-how from the rest of the world, setting the stage for the spectacular growth of its own domestic industries. Sadly, when it comes to human capital, China is more the exception than the rule across developing economies (Chart 6). Chart 5Trade Liberalization Has Not ##br##Improved Mexico's Relative Productivity bca.gis_wr_2016_11_25_c5 bca.gis_wr_2016_11_25_c5 Chart 6Educational Achievement ##br##In Emerging Economies: China Stands Out The Elusive Gains From Globalization The Elusive Gains From Globalization Noble... And Not So Noble Lies To be clear, the discussion above should not be interpreted as arguing that globalization is bad for growth. Trade openness does matter for economic development. However, other things, such as the level of human capital and the quality of domestic economic institutions, matter even more. How can one reconcile this view with the near-apocalyptic terms in which many commentators discuss the anti-globalization sentiment sweeping across many developed economies? Let me suggest two explanations: one noble, one less so. The noble explanation goes beyond economics. Proponents of trade liberalization often argue that the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act was a leading cause of the Great Depression. On purely economic grounds, this argument makes little sense. Exports accounted for less than 6% of U.S. GDP in 1929. While trade volumes did fall rapidly between 1929 and 1932, this was mainly the result of the economic slump, rather than the cause of it. In fact, trade volumes actually fell more in the immediate aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis (Chart 7). Yet, from a political perspective, the importance of Smoot-Hawley is hard to deny. At a time when Nazi Germany was on the rise, the U.S. and its allies were squabbling over trade issues. As such, the main problem with Smooth-Hawley was not that it pushed the U.S. into a Depression, but that it sabotaged diplomatic coordination at a time when it was most needed. One suspects that something similar underlies much of the angst over Trump's trade policies. The Global Trade Alert, currently the most comprehensive database for all types of trade-related measures imposed since the global financial crisis, shows an increase in protectionist measures over the last few years (Chart 8). The risk is that this trend will accelerate after Donald Trump is sworn in as President. Chart 7Global Trade Fell More ##br##During The Great Recession The Elusive Gains From Globalization The Elusive Gains From Globalization Chart 8Protectionist Measures ##br##Are On The Rise The Elusive Gains From Globalization The Elusive Gains From Globalization Considering that globalization ran into diminishing returns some time ago, a modest unwinding of globalization would probably not have the calamitous impact that many fear. However, just like a plane that fails to fly sufficiently fast will fall to the ground, a "modest unwind" may prove difficult to achieve in practice. Globalization, in other words, may be approaching stall speed. And given the large number of issues that require global cooperation - terrorism, migration, climate change - that is a risk which requires attention. Money Talks If that were all to the story, it would be easy to forgive those who overstate the economic benefits from globalization in order to preserve the political ones. One suspects, however, that there may also be a self-serving motive at work. The integration of millions of workers from China and other developing economies into the global labor market has put downward pressure on wages, boosting profit margins in the process. Not surprisingly, CEOs, hedge fund managers, and other titans of industry have benefited greatly from this development. Chart 9 shows that most of the increase in income equality since 1980 has occurred not at the 99th percentile, but at the 99.99th percentile and higher. It would be naïve to think that the colossal gains that some have enjoyed from globalization would not color what they say on the subject. Chart 9The (Really) Rich Got Richer The Elusive Gains From Globalization The Elusive Gains From Globalization Investment Conclusions U.S. equities have been in rally mode since the election. Many aspects of Trump's agenda are good for stocks - corporate tax cuts, deregulation, and fiscal stimulus, just to name a few. These factors make us somewhat constructive on equities over a long-term horizon. Chart 10Tech Stocks Are Heavily ##br##Exposed To Globalism The Elusive Gains From Globalization The Elusive Gains From Globalization Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that Trump's anti-globalization rhetoric represents a direct threat to corporate earnings. While some of Trump's protectionist proposals will undoubtedly be watered down, investors are underestimating the likelihood of disruptive trade measures. Unlike on most issues where he has flip-flopped repeatedly, Trump has consistently espoused a mercantilist view on trade since the 1980s. He is also the sort of person that strives to reward his supporters while disparaging those who slight him. Rust Belt voters awarded Trump the presidency. Their loyalty will not be forgotten. This means the stock market's honeymoon with Donald Trump may not last much longer. We remain tactically cautious global equities and are expressing that view by shorting the NASDAQ 100 futures. Globally-exposed large cap tech stocks will suffer the most from a turn towards trade protectionism and from the curtailment of H1-B visa issuance under Trump's immigration plan (Chart 10). Emerging market equities are also likely to feel the heat from rising protectionist sentiment in developed economies. A stronger dollar will only add to EM woes by putting downward pressure on commodity prices and making it more expensive for EM borrowers to service dollar-denominated loans. As we discussed in "A Trump Victory Would Be Bullish For The Dollar" and "Three Controversial Calls: Trump Will Win, And The Dollar Will Rally," the three key elements of Trump's policy agenda - fiscal stimulus, tighter immigration controls, and higher tariffs - are all inflationary, and hence are likely to prompt the Fed to raise rates more than it otherwise would.6 Higher U.S. rates, in turn, will keep the greenback well bid. We expect the real trade-weighted dollar to strengthen another 5% from current levels. The flipside of a stronger dollar is increasing monetary policy divergence between the U.S. and the rest of the world. U.S. bond yields have risen significantly since the election. Tactically, we would not be adding to short duration positions at current levels. Structurally, however, the 35-year bond bull market is over. As we discussed in our latest Strategy Outlook,7 weak potential GDP growth is eroding excess capacity around the world, which is bad news for bonds. Population aging could also shift from being bullish to bearish for bonds, as more people retire and begin to draw down their savings. Meanwhile, central banks are looking for ever more creative ways to boost inflation, while the populist wave is forcing governments to abandon austerity measures. Lastly, and most relevant to this week's discussion, globalization - an inherently deflationary force - is in retreat. This, too, suggests that the longer-term risks to inflation are to the upside. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "The Liberalization And Management Of Capital Flows: An Institutional View," IMF Executive Summary, November 14, 2012. 2 Paul Krugman, "The Gains From Hyperglobalization (Wonkish)," The New York Times, October 1, 2013. 3 John F. Helliwell and Lawrence L. Schembri, "Borders, Common Currencies, Trade And Welfare: What Can We Learn From The Evidence?" Bank of Canada Review, Spring 2005. 4 Please see "Global Trade: What's behind the Slowdown?" in "Subdued Demand: Symptoms and Remedies," IMF World Economic Outlook (October 2016). 5 David Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon Hanson, "The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects Of Import Competition In The United States," The American Economic Review, Vol. 103, No. 6, (2013): pp. 2121-2168. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Trump Victory Would Be Bullish For The Dollar," dated June 3, 2016, and Special Report, "Three (New) Controversial Calls," dated September 30, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook Fourth Quarter 2016: Supply Constraints Resurface," dated October 7, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Feature Happy Thanksgiving to all our U.S. clients. We wish you the best the holiday has to offer, as you share blessings with friends and family. In this holiday-shortened week, we are publishing a joint report with our colleagues at BCA's Energy Sector Strategy (NRG) service. We succinctly examine the pros and cons of the debate over whether OPEC will or will not agree to and uphold a *real* production cut, as it has promised, at its much-anticipated meeting on November 30. Disagreement on the likely outcome of the meeting runs high. In late September, OPEC announced an agreement in principle to cut oil production at the formal November meeting to a level of 32.5-33.0 MMb/d. This would represent a 500,000-750,000 b/d reduction from August production levels, and an 830,000-1,330,000 b/d reduction from the IEA's latest OPEC production estimate for October of 33.83 MMb/d. In addition, non-OPEC behemoth Russia has signaled a potential willingness to contribute its own production freeze or cut to the agreement in an effort to support higher oil prices. Chart 1With A 1 MMb/d Cut, ##br##Draws Would Be Greater bca.ces_wr_2016_11_24_c1 bca.ces_wr_2016_11_24_c1 There are compelling arguments to be made both supporting the likelihood of a production cut as well as for being skeptical that such an agreement will be reached and adhered to. Even within BCA, there is disagreement. This service, the Commodity & Energy Strategy (CES), which sets the BCA house view on oil prices, pegs the odds at greater than 50% that there will be a meaningful cut of 1 MMb/d+, anchored by large cut pledges from OPEC's leader, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and Russia. The NRG team, dissents; they think it is more likely that no deal is reached, and if a deal is announced, it will not be adhered to. Regardless of whether there is an announced agreement to cut production or not, both CES and NRG expect KSA's production to decline by 400,000-500,000 b/d between August and December according to KSA's normal seasonal management of production levels; we would not include this expected seasonal reduction in the calculation of a *real* cut. In our analysis on Chart 1, we include a *real* cut of 1MMB/d below the normal seasonality of KSA's production, which lasts for six months. In H2 2017, we assume the cut is dissolved and the market also receives an extra 200,000 b/d of price-incentivized production from the U.S. shales. How To Bet On A Cut, The Out-Of-Consensus Call Chart 2Without A Cut,##br## Inventories Still Will Be Drawn In 2017 bca.ces_wr_2016_11_24_c2 bca.ces_wr_2016_11_24_c2 CES's view for a cut (established November 3) was significantly out-of-consensus until recent chatter from OPEC increased the perception that an agreement could be reached. Still, there remains significant doubt a freeze or cut can be accomplished. Without a cut, NRG and CES share a constructive outlook for oil markets heading towards steepening deficits during 2017 (Chart 2). Note: BCA's estimates show a tighter oil market than the EIA's estimates: Our Q3 2016 production estimates are lower than the EIA's by ~300,000 b/d due to differences in our assessments in Brazilian, Russian and Chinese production; our Q3 2016 consumption estimate is higher than the EIA due to our higher assessment of U.S. summer-time demand (the EIA has consistently underestimated U.S. demand over the past few years). A production cut coupled with a natural tightening in the market brought about by the price-induced supply destruction over the past 18 months would make 2017 inventory draws even greater, lifting oil prices higher, and providing even greater upward support to our favorite investment recommendations (Chart 1). Below we outline the investment recommendations that would benefit from an OPEC cut, spanning individual equities, ETFs, and commodity calls: Direct Commodity Investment: CES recommends two pair trades on oil contracts and call options. Long February 2017 $50/bbl Brent Calls vs. short February 2017 $55/bbl Brent Calls to play the spike in oil prices that would come from a successful OPEC cut, which was recommended November 3 and was up 50.41% as of Tuesday's close. Long August 2017 WTI contract vs. short November 2017 WTI contract to play an expected flattening of the forward curve, which also was recommended November 3 and it up 48.61% as of Tuesday's close. Oil Producers: NRG recommends overweight-rated Permian oil producers EOG, PXD, FANG and PE, which will be leaders in expanding production into an improving oil price market. Service Companies: NRG recommends overweight-rated completion-oriented services companies HAL, SLB and SLCA, which will benefit most from increased U.S. shale spending. Equity-Backed ETFs: NRG recommends overweight-rated ETFs XLE, FRAK, and OIH as vehicles that provide more diversified investment exposure to higher oil prices and oilfield service activity than individual equities. Oil-Backed ETF. Tactically buying the U.S. Oil Fund ETF (USO) would provide good direct exposure to a quick oil price surge. However, USO should not be held as a longer-term investment because the inherent cost of continually rolling contracts consistently erodes USO's value versus the equity-backed ETFs XLE and OIH. This longer-term underperformance informs NRG's underweight rating on USO. Risks To Our Views: Oil and natural gas prices that differ materially from our forecasts, possibly due to slower-than-expected global economic growth and/or greater than expected supply growth. Poor operational execution and/or changes to regulatory restrictions could negatively impact the financial and stock performance of our recommendations. A week ahead of the OPEC meeting, in the wake of recently recovering production in Libya and Nigeria, and amid campaigning by Iran and Iraq to be excluded from participation in the cuts, it is impossible to know for certain how the complicated politics of OPEC and Russia will play out. Below we outline the competing objectives and risks that will be in play. Case Against A Cut Undeniably, a cut in production, particularly a coordinated cut where several countries share the burden of restricting production, would raise oil prices and enhance 2017 oil export revenues for all OPEC producers. However, that near-term benefit for pricing and revenue has been obvious for the past two years, and yet neither KSA nor Russia has been willing to cut production, feeling the potential to lose longer-term market share outweighed the immediate revenue benefits of a cut. The hazard of a price-increasing production cut, is that the higher oil price would essentially subsidize non-OPEC competitors with higher cash flows, and would simultaneously bolster the confidence of capital markets that OPEC will support prices at a floor of $50, reducing the risk of future investments. These two effects would jointly encourage increased capital investment into establishing new production, especially by the fast-acting U.S. shale producers, whose rampant investment and production growth from 2010-2015 was, by far, the leading contributor to the 2015-2016 oversupply of oil. Encouraging a resurgence of drilling and production would certainly lead to faster production growth from the U.S. shales in 2017-2018, allowing those producers to grow market share under the umbrella of OPEC's production sacrifices that created the higher prices. OPEC has just endured a lot of economic pain through the oil price decline. The economic purpose of this pain was to starve global producers of operational cash flow and dissuade the inflow of new capital, thus choking off the reinvestment required to continue to grow oil production. By and large, this goal has been achieved, with U.S. shale producers slashing capital expenditures by 65% from 2014 to 2016, and the International Oil Companies (IOCs) cutting capital expenditures by 40% over the same period. As a result, after the substantial surge in global oil production in 2014-2015 that created the current over-supply, the capital starvation caused by low oil prices will result in essentially no global production growth in either 2017 or 2018, allowing for demand growth to erode the oversupply of production during 2016, and to eat into the overstocked inventories of crude during 2017-2018. KSA has created fear and uncertainty throughout global producers and capital markets by steadfastly refusing to use its production-management powers to support a floor under oil prices. We are skeptical that KSA will ultimately agree to reverse this strategy, by now establishing a price floor. Such a reversal would undermine the profound market-share message KSA has delivered to competitors (at the cost of great financial pain), and weaken its perceived resolve to allow oil prices to be set by the market. As such, the NRG team believes KSA will not agree to cut production beyond the already-expected seasonal reduction in production, and that this position will scuttle September's tacit agreement to cut production at the official meeting next week. Such a scenario would be fairly similar to how KSA undermined the production-freeze discussions in Doha in April, by insisting other OPEC members - Iran, in particular - share in the production limitations in order to engender KSA's support; a condition that other members were unwilling to accept. The Case For A Cut The case to expect a cut agreement acknowledges that such a cut would subsidize competitors and diminish the impression of KSA's resolve and/or ability to out-last competitors through an oil price down-cycle. The case for a cut concludes that the benefits of higher 2017 oil prices simply outweigh these market share and reputational costs. The benefits that OPEC and Russia would receive are: Critical Need For Higher Revenue. If KSA and Russia each cut 2017 production by 500,000 below current expectations, and oil prices jumped $10/bbl as a result, KSA's 2017 oil export revenues would increase by close to $17.5 billion, and Russia's would increase by almost $8.25 billion. If the financial pain endured by these countries is substantially greater than NRG has estimated, this near-term revenue lift could be more critical than we appreciate, overwhelming the reputational and longer-term market-share losses resulting from the reversal of policy. Borrowing capacity for each country also would increase, as a result of higher revenues. With both states seeking to tap international debt and equity markets, this increased revenue would increase their borrowing capacity. Higher Value For Asset Sales. KSA is preparing to IPO Saudi Aramco. Bolstering the spirits of capital markets with higher oil prices would be expected to increase the proceeds received from this equity sale, increase the market value of the company, reduce debt-service costs, and improve access to debt markets, which KSA and Saudi Aramco are both likely to tap more frequently in the future as the country tries to diversify the economy away from oil. Similarly, two weeks ago, Russia signed a decree to sell a 19.5% stake in Rosneft by the end of 2016. An immediate oil price strengthening and messaging that KSA and Russia would support a pricing floor would inflate the value of this sale, given the high correlation between Brent crude oil prices and Rosneft's equity price. Production Stability Not As Strong As It Seems. Russia's production levels in 2016 have been surprisingly strong, exceeding our expectations. The collapse of the Russian Ruble has allowed for continued internal investment despite the substantial reduction to dollar-denominated oil revenues. Still, it is likely that Russian producers are pulling very hard on their fields, over-producing the optimal level in an effort to scratch out higher revenues. Such over-production is not sustainable ad infinitum, and Russia may know that its fields need a rest in 2017 anyhow, so a 4-5% production cut is ultimately not much of a sacrifice. Make Room For Libya & Nigeria. Both Libya and Nigeria are trying to overcome substantial civil obstacles to allow production to increase back towards oilfield capabilities. If these problems were solved, we estimate Libya could increase production by 400,000-600,000 b/d while Nigeria could add 200,000-300,000 b/d. If KSA, OPEC, and Russia believe these countries will be able to re-establish shut-in production, they may conclude a production cut is necessary to make room for the growth, and to keep prices from collapsing. Entrenching U.S. Shale As The Marginal Barrel: If KSA and Russia can agree to a 1 MMb/d cut, U.S. shale-oil producers would be the first to take advantage of expected higher prices, given the fast-response nature of this production. This actually would work to the advantage of KSA and Russia and other low-cost producers in and outside OPEC, by firmly entrenching U.S. shale oil as the marginal barrel for the world market. On the global cost curve, shale sits in the middle some $30 to $40/bbl above KSA and Russia, which means that, as long as the global market is pricing to shale economics at the margin, these mega-producers earn economic rents on their production. In order to retain those rents, KSA and Russia will have to find a way to keep shale on the margin - i.e., regulate their production so that prices do not rise too quickly and encourage more expensive output to come on line. For KSA and Russia, it is better to climb the shale cost curve than to encourage the next tranche of production - such as Canadian oil sands - to come on to the market too quickly, or to further incentivize electric vehicles and conservation with run-away price increases, with too-sharp a production cut. Allowing prices to trade through a $65 - $75/bbl range or higher 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 other "lumpy," expensive production that does not turn off quickly once it is developed (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. Global Reinvestment Needs To Be Re-Stimulated. Stimulating non-OPEC reinvestment with higher oil prices and increased price-floor confidence may actually be needed in the not-too-distant future. IOCs have barely started to show the negative production ramifications of their 40% cuts to capex; cuts which will grow deeper in 2018. We expect these production declines to show up increasingly over the next four years, and there is not much the IOCs can do to stop it, since their mega-project investments generally require 3-5 years from the time that spending decisions are made until first oil is produced. 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. To orchestrate a softer landing, to prevent oil prices from spiking too high due to a shortage of production, to head-off an acceleration in the pursuit of alternative fuels and/or the recessionary impact of an oil price spike, KSA may actually want to accelerate the re-start of global investment. Bottom Line: There are strongly credible and well-reasoned arguments that support the expectations for a successful establishment of a production cut from OPEC and Russia, as well as to doubt that such an agreement will be achieved (and adhered to) amid the political and economic competition between OPEC members and against non-OPEC producers. A successful agreement to cut production in excess of 1 MMb/d, as CES believes is likely, would be the more out-of-consensus call, with substantially bullish implications for oil prices and for our oil-levered investment strategy and stock recommendations. Even without a production cut, the NRG service remains strongly constructive on the investment strengths of high-quality Permian oil producers and the completion-oriented service companies that will benefit from increased U.S. shale spending. If a production cut is achieved, our investment cases become even stronger, as the U.S. shale producers and service companies would be the greatest beneficiaries of an upward step-change in oil prices. Matt Conlan, Vice President Energy Sector Strategy mattconlan@bcaresearchny.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com SOFTS Dairy: Moderate Upside In 2017H1 Dairy prices may have another 5%-10% upside over next three to six months, based on tightening supply in the global dairy market. China will become more important in the global dairy market. The country's dairy imports will continue heading north. Downside risks include elevated global dairy product inventory, a supply boost from major exporters, and a continuing strengthening dollar. We have been cautiously bullish on global dairy market since last October.1 Since then, the Global Dairy Trade (GDT) All-Products Price Index, which is widely used as a benchmark price for the market, has rallied over 50% in the past seven months off its November - March lows (Chart 3, panel 1). Chart 3Dairy: Tactically Bullish bca.ces_wr_2016_11_24_c3 bca.ces_wr_2016_11_24_c3 Now the question is: will the rally continue? A review of what had happened in 2015 and so far this year may be a good start of our analysis. A Terrible 2015 The GDT index tumbled to the lowest level on record in early August 2015. A sharply drop in Chinese dairy imports; the Russian import ban on dairy products; robust supply growth across major dairy producing countries; and the EU's decision to scrap its production quotas created a perfect storm for the global dairy market last year - resulting in an extremely oversupplied market, stock builds and depressed dairy prices (Chart 3, panels 2, 3 and 4). An Improving 2016 Fundamentals have improved since April, as major dairy exporting countries responded to low dairy prices, while Chinese dairy imports revived. Fonterra, the world's biggest dairy exporter, and Murray Goulburn, Australian's biggest dairy company, both announced retrospective price cuts in April to dairy farmers in New Zealand and Australia, which hit both countries' dairy industries hard. Many farmers exited the dairy business, given their production costs were well above farm-gate milk prices. As a result, dairy farmers In New Zealand have cut the national dairy cow herd size by 3.3% yoy in 2015 and then a further 1.5% in 2016, based on USDA data. In Australia, dairy farmers have sent more cows into slaughterhouse as well. According to Dairy Australia, in the past 12 months to August 2016, 109,102 head were sold, an increase of 33% on the previous year. New Zealand and Australia are the world's largest and the fourth largest dairy exporters, respectively. In June, one month before the start of the new season (July 2016 to June 2017), farm-gate milk prices set by major dairy processors in Australia were still much lower than most dairy farmers' production costs, further damaging the country's dairy production outlook for the 2016/17 season. In July, August and September, Australian milk production fell sharply for three consecutive months, with a yoy contraction of 10.3%, 9.3%, and 10.2%, respectively. In July, the European Commission funded a €150 million program to pay farmers to cut their milk production. At the same time, the region also intervened with a stock purchase program and a private-storage aid scheme to help remove excess supply from the market. The EU region is the world's second biggest exporter. Its production increase due to the removal of its quota system was one main reason for last year's price drop. The recent supportive policy has worked well - the region's milk volumes decreased in September for the third consecutive month. In the meantime, Chinese dairy imports have rebounded 9.7% yoy for the first nine months of this year, a significant improvement from last year's 44.4% contraction over the same period. China is the world biggest dairy importer, accounting for 51% of global fluid milk imports, and 40% of dry, whole-milk powder imports (Chart 4, panel 1). Chart 4China Needs More Dairy Imports bca.ces_wr_2016_11_24_c4 bca.ces_wr_2016_11_24_c4 In comparison, the number of Chinese cow herds only accounts for 6% of global total cows for milk production, which is clearly far from meeting its domestic demand (Chart 4, panel 2). Early this year the country loosened up the "one-child" policy, and now allows "two-kids" in a family, starting this year. This will increase the country's baby formula's demand. The country's dairy product intake per capita is still far below Asian peers like Japan and Korea. Growing family wealth and increasing demand for healthy dairy food will continue boosting the dairy consumption in China. Due to the limited pasture land in the country for raising cows, we expect China's dairy imports will continue heading north. What about the price outlook in the remainder of 2016 and 2017? Most of the positive factors aforementioned are still in place. In the near term, we do not see significant supply increase. Despite the 61% price rally in the GDT price index over the past seven months, most of the price increase still has not passed to farm-gate milk prices in major producing countries (except New Zealand). Hence, for the remainder of 2016 and 2017H1, we expect prices will be prone to the upside. Pullbacks are always possible. But overall we still expect another 5% to 10% upside over next three to six months for the GDT price index. Beyond 2017H1, the price outlook is less clear. If prices either go sideways or up, milk production in major producing countries should eventually recover. For now, we hold a neutral view for dairy prices in 2017H2. Downside Risks Chart 5Downside Risks bca.ces_wr_2016_11_24_c5 bca.ces_wr_2016_11_24_c5 First, global dairy stockpiles are much higher than previous years (Chart 5, panel 1). According to the European Commission, at the end of September, around 428 thousand metric tons (kt) of skimmed-milk powder (SMP) was in public intervention stocks, while another 73 kt SMP was in private storage. In addition, there also is about 90 kt butter and 19 kt cheese stored privately. As the EU still is aiming to cut milk production to boost dairy prices, we believe the odds of an unexpected release from storage in a fast and massive manner is low. The release will likely be gradual. Second, much of New Zealand's milk production is dependent on weather conditions, which have improved from mid-August. Moreover, Fonterra increased its farm-gate milk price to $6 per kgMS (kilogram milk solid) from $5.25 per kgMS last week, which was the third increase over the past four months. Since August, farm-gate milk price in New Zealand has already been up 41% and well above the country's production cost. A combination of both factors may boost the country's milk production more than the market expected. In this case, prices could decline in 2017H1. Third, if the U.S. dollar continues strengthening versus the RMB and other major exporters' currencies, this will tend to discourage purchases from China and encourage sales from New Zealand, the EU and Australia, which will be negative to dairy prices (Chart 5, panel 2). We will monitor these risks closely. Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com 1 please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report for softs section "Oil Markets Pricing In $20/Bbl Downside," dated October 1, 2015, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Investment Views And Themes Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices And Plays Reference Table Closed Trades

Highlights As western society has become increasingly ethnically diverse, identity politics have flourished. Technological developments have facilitated this trend by giving like-minded people the opportunity to live in their own social bubbles. The U.S. median voter is moving to the left, while the median European voter may be set to move rightward. The "Great Transatlantic Political Convergence" is afoot. Structurally favor European over U.S. stocks. Trump's victory means more fiscal stimulus and less regulation, but could also lead to a stronger dollar and a rising threat of protectionism. Feature Lessons From Papua New Guinea As far as first jobs out of college go, one could do worse than being asked to fly first class to various tropical islands around the world. Such was my luck when I joined the IMF 16 years ago. After a brief stint in the Caribbean division, I began to cover the South Pacific, first working as the desk economist for Papua New Guinea. Papua New Guinea is about as close to a Stone Age society as one will find on earth. It has a long history of violence. If two strangers meet while trekking through the mountainous terrain, the custom is to begin the conversation by listing one's relatives until a match is found. Without a common ancestor, there is little reason not to kill the other guy. Due to the country's long history of cannibalism, a portion of the population has developed a genetic resistance to Mad Cow Disease, which is spread through the consumption of infectious prions contained within the brain and other body parts. Like many societies, Papua New Guinea is highly tribal. Not unrelatedly, it is also one of the most corrupt. I once asked a local friend of mine why this was so. His response was both disheartening and revealing. The people did not want to send honest leaders to Parliament, he explained. They preferred to elect someone from their own tribe who would use his influence to extract as much wealth as possible, with the understanding that a portion of the booty would be shared with fellow tribe members. There were no philosophical differences between members of Parliament. It was simply a question of whose team you were on. What makes Papua New Guinea's political system interesting is not that it is unique, but that it is the norm. Politics in most countries is about identity, not ideology. And now the U.S. and much of Europe are moving in that direction. The Return Of Identity Politics If one looks past the vitriol, one of the most striking features of the U.S. presidential campaign was the lack of disagreement between Trump and Clinton over a wide range of substantive issues. Both candidates campaigned on increasing infrastructure spending. Both pledged not to cut sacred entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. Both played up the other's Wall Street connections. Neither championed an aggressively interventionist foreign policy, with Trump, if anything, moving to the left of Clinton on the issue. Where the gulf between the two candidates was most apparent was over classic identity issues, the chief of which was immigration. Young people often assume that the Left has always supported freer immigration policy. Not so. It wasn't that long ago that Bernie Sanders described "open borders" as a "Koch Brothers idea." In 2000, The New York Times penned an editorial opposing efforts to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants on the grounds that it would depress working class wages.1 Why did things change? It wasn't because voting preferences shifted all that much. As Chart 1 shows, Hispanics have preferred Democrats over Republicans by roughly the same 30-to-40 percentage-point margin for the past 40 years. What changed was that the Hispanic share of all eligible voters rose from 4% in 1980 to 13% today, and is expected to increase to 18% in 2032 (Chart 2). For the Democrats, the allure of millions of new supporters has been simply too good to pass up. Chart 1Voting Preferences By Ethnicity ##br##In Presidential Elections Voting Preferences By Ethnicity In Presidential Elections Voting Preferences By Ethnicity In Presidential Elections Chart 2The Eligible Voters Of The Past,##br##Present, And Future The Future Of Western Democracy: Back To Blood The Future Of Western Democracy: Back To Blood For the Republicans, the transformation of the U.S. into a more ethnically diverse society has led to an existential crisis of sorts. Many top Republican officials, ever focused on the next election campaign, have sought to reach out to Hispanic voters, often by talking up the prospect of passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill. The fact that open borders means lower wages for less-skilled workers has also ensured a steady flow of campaign donations into party coffers from a variety of business interests who rely on cheap labor.2 In contrast, a large chunk of the Republican base has opposed any effort to increase the size of a voting bloc that historically favored the other party, especially if such efforts lead to lower wages. Nationalism Versus Globalism Chart 3The Huddled Masses Keep Coming The Huddled Masses Keep Coming The Huddled Masses Keep Coming The U.S. has a long history of successfully integrating immigrants. Consider the once prominent Catholic/Protestant split, which was driven in large measure by the overwhelming tendency for Irish Americans to vote Democrat. Richard Nixon won 63% of the white Protestant vote in 1960, but still lost the election due to the fact that 78% of Catholics voted for John F. Kennedy.3 By the late 1960s, the Catholic/Protestant split began to recede, to the point where few people are now aware that it ever existed. There is a good chance that the current immigration wave will prove to be no different. That being said, full integration can take a long time - the Irish, for example, overwhelmingly favored the Democrats for more than a century. Three other things complicate the picture. First, the current wave is much larger than any previous one (Chart 3). Second, it is much more ethnically, racially, and religiously diverse. Third, and perhaps most importantly, it is coming at a time when government policy has moved away from fostering assimilation towards encouraging multiculturalism. As multiculturalism has gained ascendency, the traditional glue that held countries together - nationalism - has frayed. For many, this has been a welcome development. Nationalism produced two world wars and countless other bloody conflicts. Much better, it is argued, to replace squabbling nation states with regional institutions such as the European Union, or better yet, global bodies such as the United Nations. The problem is that it is very difficult to get people to expand their circle of loyalty by decree. Thomas Friedman famously asked in 2002: "Is Iraq the way it is today because Saddam Hussein is the way he is? Or is Saddam Hussein the way he is because Iraq is the way it is?"4 We now know that the answer was the latter. From this perspective, the rise of religious fundamentalism in the Middle East is a natural reaction to the vacuum created by the collapse of pan-Arab nationalism. Many of today's leaders have a lot of trouble seeing this point. For them, globalism is a natural creed. What they miss is that they themselves have formed a unique subculture that makes this possible. Today's cosmopolitan elite attend the same schools, read the same books, enjoy the same movies, eat at the same restaurants, and in most cases, can easily converse in the same language: English. They are as much at home on the streets of Manhattan as they are on the streets of London and Hong Kong. However, put them in Cynthiana, Kentucky and they become a fish out of water. In short, they are multicultural only in the narrow ethnic sense of the word. In all other respects, they are the same tribe. Political Polarization Is Growing Chart 4Inequality Breeds Polarization Inequality Breeds Polarization Inequality Breeds Polarization This leads us to the crux of the problem. Today's political elites have been trying to subvert nationalist feelings without offering the masses a sufficiently attractive alternative. This has allowed once-dormant tribal cleavages to make a comeback. Technology has exacerbated this trend. When I came to Canada as a young refugee in 1979, there were just a handful of television networks to choose from, all of which were more or less the same. Today, there are hundreds of channels and countless websites. Social media has become ubiquitous. While refreshing in many respects, this trend has allowed people to live in their own social bubbles, leading to the fraying of the cultural bonds that hold society together. In some cases, it has facilitated the radicalization of impressionable youth, often with dire consequences. The polarization in the cultural realm has been mirrored in the political arena.5 According to political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, polarization in Congress is currently at its highest level since World War II (Chart 4). Their research shows that the liberal-conservative dimension explains approximately 93% of all roll-call voting choices and that the two parties are drifting further apart on this crucial dimension. Meanwhile, a 2014 Pew Research study documented that the middle ground between Republican and Democratic voters is breaking apart (Chart 5). This has led to growing mutual distrust. Chart 6 shows that 45% of Republicans and 41% of Democrats now regard the other party as a threat to the nation's well-being. Chart 5U.S. Political Polarization: Growing Apart The Future Of Western Democracy: Back To Blood The Future Of Western Democracy: Back To Blood Chart 6Increasing Animosity The Future Of Western Democracy: Back To Blood The Future Of Western Democracy: Back To Blood Gerrymandering, or "redistricting," as it is euphemistically called, has made things worse. Of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, only about 56 are truly competitive (Chart 7). For most incumbents, the threat is not from the other party, but from their own. As former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor learned the hard way when he lost to primary challenger Dave Brat in 2014, failing to tow the ideological line can carry a heavy price. Needless to say, such a system discourages bipartisan cooperation. Chart 7Gerrymandering Reduces Competitive Seats Gerrymandering Reduces Competitive Seats Gerrymandering Reduces Competitive Seats Trump And The Markets After a brief selloff, risk assets have rallied hard on the heels of Trump's victory. As we discussed in greater detail last week,6 a Trump administration will mean more fiscal stimulus - chiefly in the form of lower taxes and increased infrastructure and defense expenditures - as well as a softer line on energy and financial sector regulation. Republicans are also likely to push for greater private-sector involvement in health care. Equity investors should not rejoice too much, however. Trump's saber rattling over trade issues is bad news for many multinational companies. In addition, larger budget deficits are likely to prompt the Fed to raise rates more aggressively. This will push up bond yields, reducing the relative attractiveness of stocks. Higher rates will also put upward pressure on the dollar. The real broad trade-weighted dollar has appreciated by 3% since the election and 4% since we published "Three New Controversial Calls: Trump Will Win And The Dollar Will Rally" on September 30th.7 We expect the dollar to rise by another 7% from current levels. Chart 8Immigrants Want More Government Services The Future Of Western Democracy: Back To Blood The Future Of Western Democracy: Back To Blood A Leftward Shift In The U.S. Median Voter Perhaps more worrisome, as my colleague Marko Papic discussed in a recent report, Trump's victory signals that America's political center is moving to the left.8 The Republican Party is likely to become increasingly populist. Pro-business Democratic candidates such as Hillary Clinton could also turn out to be a dying breed. The future may belong more to politicians such as Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown. As Wayne Gretzky likes to say, we need to look at where the puck is going, not where it has been. As noted above, this trend partly reflects demographic factors. Immigrants tend to favor redistributionist policies (Chart 8). As such, it is not surprising that California, a once solid Republican state, has become reliably Democratic. In this sense, the transformation of the U.S. electorate has parallels with the extension of the voting franchise to women in 1920. Economists John Lott and Larry Kenny have shown that this led to a substantial leftward shift in political outcomes.9 Ethnic voting preferences, however, are only one part of the story, and perhaps not even the most important part. As a larger share of the general population approaches retirement, resistance to cutting Social Security and Medicare will increase. To pay for these programs, taxes will rise. In addition, slower productivity growth and high levels of income inequality will make voters less enthusiastic about capitalism. The fact that all of this is happening in the aftermath of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression will only serve to sour free-market sentiment. The Great Transatlantic Political Convergence There are many commonalities in political trends between Europe and the United States, but also a number of critical differences. Unlike those in the U.S., European immigrants still represent a small fraction of the electorate. Their integration into labor markets is also much worse, especially in European countries with generous welfare systems (Chart 9 and Chart 10). This suggests that public support for lavish welfare programs may begin to wane, particularly in northern Europe. As Chart 11 shows, this is already happening in the U.K. Chart 9Low Levels Of Immigrant ##br##Labor Participation In Parts Of Europe The Future Of Western Democracy: Back To Blood The Future Of Western Democracy: Back To Blood Chart 10Immigration Is Straining Generous ##br##European Welfare States The Future Of Western Democracy: Back To Blood The Future Of Western Democracy: Back To Blood Chart 11British Attitudes Towards Welfare ##br##Recipients Have Hardened British Attitudes Towards Welfare Recipients Have Hardened British Attitudes Towards Welfare Recipients Have Hardened Other forces will also lead to a partial rollback of the European welfare state.10 The euro crisis brought home the lesson that countries with high levels of public debt are especially vulnerable to speculative attacks when they no longer have their own printing press. Going forward, euro area governments will continue trying to pay back debt in order to keep the bond vigilantes at bay. In an environment of high capital and labor mobility, fiscal tightening is likely to come more from spending cuts than tax hikes. The failure of France's "millionaire tax" to raise significant new revenue illustrates this point. The loss of an independent monetary policy that comes with having a common currency will also make it more difficult for euro area states to maintain generous welfare programs. If a country cannot respond to an adverse economic shock by cutting rates or devaluing its currency, it must perform an "internal devaluation" instead. However, successful internal devaluations require a high degree of wage and price flexibility. Generous unemployment insurance programs, high minimum wages, and strong unions are anathema to that. This is bad news for many European workers, but good news for European corporate interests. The net effect of all these changes is that European politics are likely to move to the right, while U.S. politics will move to the left. The Great Transatlantic Political Convergence is afoot. This suggests that European equities should outperform their U.S. counterparts over the long haul. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 "Hasty Call For Amnesty," The New York Times, February 22, 2000. 2 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, "The Immigration Debate: What It Means For Investors," dated February 27, 2014, available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 3 Michael Barone, "Race, Ethnicity, And Politics In American History," in Beyond the Color Line: New Perspectives on Race and Ethnicity in America, Hoover Institution Press (2002): pp. 343-358. 4 Thomas L. Friedman, "Iraq Without Saddam," The New York Times, September 1, 2002. 5 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes And Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Trumpenproletariat Strikes Back," dated November 11, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three (New) Controversial Calls," dated September 30, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 John R. Lott and Larry Kenny, "Did Women's Suffrage Change The Size And Scope Of Government?," Journal Of Political Economy, Vol. 107: 6 (part 1), (December 1999): pp. 1163-1198. 10 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The End Of Europe's Welfare State," dated June 26, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends* Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights Tighter global oil markets resulting from the production cut we expect to be announced November 30 at OPEC's Vienna meeting, along with fiscal stimulus from the incoming Trump administration in the U.S., will continue to stoke inflation expectations. We believe gold is well suited for hedging investors' medium-term inflation exposure, given its sensitivity to 5-year/5-year CPI swaps in the U.S. and eurozone. If the Fed decides to get out ahead of this expected pick-up in inflation and inflation expectations by raising rates aggressively next year, we would expect any increase in gold prices - and oil prices, for that matter - to be challenged. For OPEC and non-OPEC producers, a larger production cut may be required to offset a stronger USD next year. Near term, we still like upside oil exposure, given our expectation that production will be cut. Energy: Overweight. We remain long Brent call spreads expiring at year-end, and long WTI front-to-back spreads in 2017H2, in anticipation of an oil-production cut. Base Metals: Neutral. We expect nickel to outperform zinc in 2017. Precious Metals: Neutral. We are long gold at $1,227/oz after our buy-stop was elected on November 11. We are including a 5% stop-loss for this position. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Our long Mar/17 wheat vs. beans order was filled on November 14. We still look to go long corn vs. sugar. Feature Chart of the WeekBrent, WTI Curves Will Flatten, ##br##Then Backwardate Following Oil-Production Cut bca.ces_wr_2016_11_17_c1 bca.ces_wr_2016_11_17_c1 Continuing production increases from sundry sources outside OPEC, which the International Energy Agency estimates will lift output almost 500k b/d in 2017, are turning the heat up on the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia to agree a production cut at the Cartel's meeting in Vienna later this month. It's either that or risk another downdraft that takes prices closer to the bottom of our long-standing $40-to-$65/bbl price range that defines U.S. shale-oil economics. The unexpected strength in production growth outside OPEC likely will require KSA and Russia to come up with a production cut that exceeds the 1mm b/d we projected earlier this month would be required to lift prices into the mid-$50s/bbl range. On the back of the expected cuts, we recommended getting long a February 2017 Brent call spread - long the $50/bbl strike vs. short the $55/bbl strike at $1.21/bbl. As of Tuesday's close, when we mark our positions to market every week, the position was up 9.09%. Reduced output from KSA and Russia - and, most likely, Gulf allies of KSA - will force refiners globally to draw down crude in storage, and for refined product inventories to draw as well. This will lift the forward curves for Brent and WTI futures (Chart of the Week). We expect oil prices will increase by approximately $10/bbl, following the joint cuts of 500k b/d each we expect KSA and Russia, which will be announced November 30. This also will lift 3-year forward WTI futures prices, which, as we showed in previous research, share a common trend with 5y5y CPI swaps. As stocks continue to draw next year, we expect the forward Brent and WTI curves to flatten, and, in 2017H2, to backwardate - that is to say, prompt-delivery prices will trade above the price of oil delivered in the future. For this reason, we are long August 2017 WTI futures vs. short November 2017 WTI futures, expecting the price difference between the two, which favors the deferred contract at present (i.e., a contango curve), to flip in favor of the Aug/17 contract. Chart 2Longer-dated WTI Futures, ##br##Inflation Expectations Rising bca.ces_wr_2016_11_17_c2 bca.ces_wr_2016_11_17_c2 Fiscal Stimulus Expected in the U.S. The election of Donald J. Trump as the 45th president of the U.S. likely will usher in significant fiscal stimulus beginning next year, particularly as Republicans now control the Presidency and Congress for the first time since 2005 - 06, when George W. Bush was president. Trump campaigned on a promise of significant fiscal stimulus, which likely will, among other things, stoke inflation expectations as money starts to flow to infrastructure projects and tax cuts toward the end of next year. Even before Trump's election 5-year/5-year (5y5y) CPI swaps were ticking higher, as oil markets rebalanced and started to discount the drawdown in global inventories this year and next (Chart 2). As the outlines of the Trump administration's fiscal policy take shape and money starts to flow to infrastructure projects, we expect inflation expectations to continue to rise. In previous research, we showed 5y5y CPI swaps and 3-year forward WTI futures are cointegrated, meaning they follow the same long-term trend. Indeed, we can specify 5y5y CPI swaps in the U.S. and eurozone directly as a function of 3-year forward WTI futures.1 Gold Will Lift With Rising Inflation Expectations... In the post-Global Financial Crisis (GFC) markets, gold prices have shared a common trend with U.S. CPI 5y5y swaps and real interest rates, which we show in a new model (Chart 3A, top panel).2 Using this specification, we find a 1% increase in the U.S. 5y5y CPI swaps increases gold prices by slightly more than 9%. Similarly, we find a 1% increase in EMU 5y5y CPI swaps increases gold prices by slightly more than 10% (Chart 3B, top panel).3 Of course, investors always can go straight to Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS) for inflation protection, given the evolution of the respective CPIs in the U.S. and eurozone drives returns for these securities (Chart 4). However, we believe gold gives investors higher leverage to actual inflation and expected inflation. Chart 3AGold Prices Ticking Higher With ##br##U.S. CPI Inflation Expectations Gold Prices Ticking Higher With U.S. CPI Inflation Expectations Gold Prices Ticking Higher With U.S. CPI Inflation Expectations Chart 3BEMU Inflation Expectations ##br##Vs. 3-year Forward WTI bca.ces_wr_2016_11_17_c3b bca.ces_wr_2016_11_17_c3b Chart 4Inflation Expectations And TIPS ##br##Are Highly Correlated, As Well Inflation Expectations And TIPS Are Highly Correlated, As Well Inflation Expectations And TIPS Are Highly Correlated, As Well ...But The USD's Evolution Matters, Too The combination of tighter oil markets and fiscal stimulus in the U.S. will continue to push inflation and inflation expectations higher. The Fed will not sit idly by and just watch inflation expectations move higher next year. Indeed, prior to the election, we expected two rate hikes next year, following a likely rate increase at the FOMC's meeting next month. With expectations of a tightening oil market, and a fresh round of fiscal stimulus from the incoming Trump administration, the odds of an even stronger USD increase. We had been expecting the USD will appreciate 10% over the next year or so, as a result of the upcoming December rate hike and two additional hikes next year. This could change, since, as, our Foreign Exchange Strategy service noted, "Trump's electoral victory only re-enforces our bullish stance on the dollar."4 A stronger USD, all else equal, is bearish for commodities generally, since it raises the cost of dollar-denominated commodities ex-U.S., and lowers the costs of commodity producers in local-currency terms. The former effect depresses demand at the margin, while the latter raises supply at the margin. Both effects would combine to reduce oil prices at the margin (Chart 5). This would, in turn, lower inflation expectations, which would feed into lower gold prices (Chart 6). Chart 5A Stronger USD Would Be Bearish For Oil bca.ces_wr_2016_11_17_c5 bca.ces_wr_2016_11_17_c5 Chart 6And Gold Prices As It Would Lower Inflation Expectations bca.ces_wr_2016_11_17_c6 bca.ces_wr_2016_11_17_c6 Our FX view, is complicated by the possibility the Fed might want to run a "high-pressure economy" next year, and the potential for additional Chinese fiscal stimulus going into the 19th Communist Party Congress next fall. If both the U.S. and China deploy significant fiscal stimulus next year, the growth in these economies could overwhelm the negative effects of a stronger USD, and industrial commodities - chiefly base metals, iron ore and steel - could rally as demand picks up. Oil demand also would be expected to pick up as a result of the combined fiscal stimulus coming out of the U.S. and China, both from infrastructure build-outs and income growth. KSA - Russia Oil-Production Cut Gets Complicated These considerations will complicate the calculus of KSA and Russia and their respective oil-producing allies as the November 30 OPEC meeting in Vienna draws near. If the Fed moves to get out ahead of increasing inflation expectations by adding another rate hike or two next year, oil prices will encounter a significant headwind. OPEC and non-OPEC producers could very well find themselves back at the bargaining table negotiating additional cuts, as prices come under pressure next year from higher U.S. interest rates. It is too early to act on any speculation regarding fiscal policy in the U.S. or China next year. However, given our expectation for an oil-production cut announcement later this month at OPEC's Vienna meeting, we are confident staying long the Brent $50/$55 call spread, and the long Jul/17 vs. short Nov/17 WTI spread position we recommended earlier this month. As greater clarity emerges on U.S. and Chinese fiscal policy going into next year, we will update our assessments. Bottom Line: We expect global oil markets to tighten as KSA and Russia engineer a production cut, which will be announced at OPEC's Vienna meeting later this month. Fiscal stimulus from the incoming Trump administration in the U.S., and possible fiscal stimulus in China next year could put a bid under commodities. However, if the Fed gets out ahead of the expected pick-up in inflation and inflation expectations by raising rates aggressively next year, any increase in commodity prices - oil and gold, in particular - will be challenged. KSA and Russia could find themselves back at the bargaining table, negotiating yet another production cut to offset a stronger USD. That said, we are retaining our upside oil exposure via a Brent $50/$55 call spread expiring at the end of this year, and our long Jul/17 WTI vs. short Nov/17 WTI futures, which will go into the money as the forward curve flattens and then goes into a backwardation. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com BASE METALS China Commodity Focus: Base Metals Nickel: A Good Buy, Especially Versus Zinc Chart 7Nickel: More Upside Ahead Nickel: More Upside Ahead Nickel: More Upside Ahead We are bullish on nickel prices, both tactically and strategically. Its supply deficit is likely to widen on rising stainless steel demand and falling nickel ore supply in 2017. China will continue to increase its refined nickel imports to meet strong domestic stainless steel production growth. We remain strategically bearish zinc even though our short Dec/17 LME zinc position got stopped out at $2500/MT with a 4% loss. We expect nickel to outperform zinc considerably in 2017. We recommend buying Dec/17 LME nickel contract versus Dec/17 LME zinc contract at 4.3 (current level: 4.38). If the order gets filled, we suggest putting a stop-loss level for the ratio at 4.15. Nickel prices have gone up over 50% since bottoming in February (Chart 7, panel 1). The global nickel supply deficit reached a record high of 75 thousand metric tons (kt) for the first eight months of this year, based on the World Bureau of Metal Statistics (WBMS) data (Chart 7, panel 2). More upside for nickel in 2017 On the supply side, the outlook is not promising in 2017. Global nickel ore and refined nickel production fell 5.2% and 1.1% yoy for the first eight months of this year, respectively, according to the WBMS data (Chart 7, panel 3). The newly elected Philippine government is clearly aiming for "responsible mining," and has been highly restrictive on domestic nickel mining activities, actions that likely will reduce the country's nickel ore production in 2017. The Philippines became the world's biggest nickel ore producer and exporter after Indonesia banned nickel ore exports in January 2014. The Philippines has implemented a national audit on domestic mines from July to September and has halted 10 mines for their environmental violations since July. Eight of them are nickel producers, which account for about 10% of the country's total nickel output. In late September, the government further declared that 12 more mines (mostly nickel) were recommended for suspension, and 18 firms are also subject to a further review. Stringent policy oversight will be the on-going theme for Philippine mines. We expect more suspensions in the country next year. There is no sign the export ban will be removed by the Indonesian government. Since Indonesia banned nickel ore exports in January 2014, the country's nickel ore output has declined 84% from 2013 to 2015. This occurred even though smelters were built locally, which will allow more nickel ore output in Indonesia. However, the incremental Indonesian output is unlikely to make up for the global nickel ore shortage next year. Global nickel demand is on the rise again (Chart 7, panel 4). According to the International Stainless Steel Forum (ISSF), global stainless steel production grew by 11.5% in 2016Q2 from only 3.7% yoy in 2016Q1. Comparatively, in 2015, the growth was a negative 0.3%. Due to fiscal and monetary stimulus in China this year, we expect continued growth in global stainless steel production in 2017. Why China Is Important To Global Nickel Markets China is the world's biggest nickel producer, consumer and importer. Its primary effect on nickel prices is through refined nickel imports. It also influences global stainless steel prices through stainless steel exports. In comparison to the global supply deficit of 75 kt, the deficit in China widened to 346 kt for the first eight months of this year - the highest physical shortage ever (Chart 8, panel 1). China has driven the global growth of both refined nickel production and nickel consumption since 2010 (Chart 8, panels 2 and 3). During the first eight months of this year, Chinese nickel production dropped sharply to 40.5 kt, nearly three times the global nickel output loss of 13.6 kt. For the same period, China's nickel demand growth accounted for 67% of global growth. In addition, the country produces about 53% of global stainless steel and exports about 10% of domestic-made stainless steel products to the rest of world (Chart 8, panel 4). Clearly, China is extremely important to both the global stainless steel and nickel markets. China Needs To Import More Nickel in 2017 Looking forward, China is likely to continue increasing its nickel imports to meet a growing domestic supply deficit (Chart 9, panel 1). The country's ore imports have been declining because of Indonesia's ban since 2014, and further dropped this year on the Philippine's suspensions (Chart 9, panel 2). Scarcer ore supply drove down Chinese refined nickel and nickel pig iron (NPI) output every year for the past three consecutive years (including this year). Chart 8China: A Key Factor For Nickel Market China: A Key Factor For Nickel Market China: A Key Factor For Nickel Market Chart 9Chinese Nickel Imports Are Set To Rise bca.ces_wr_2016_11_17_c9 bca.ces_wr_2016_11_17_c9 Prior to 2014, China imported nickel ores from Indonesia to produce NPI, which is used in its domestic stainless steel production. In 2013, only 20% of domestic nickel demand was met by unwrought nickel imports. After 2014, China's higher nickel ore imports from the Philippines were not able to make up the import losses from Indonesia (Chart 9, panel 3). As a result, in 2015, the percentage of domestic nickel demand met by unwrought nickel imports jumped to 47%. Furthermore, for the first eight months of this year, imports accounted for 57% of Chinese demand. Before the Indonesian ban in 2014, Chinese stainless steel producers and NPI producers built up mammoth nickel ore inventories for their stainless steel ore NPI production (Chart 9, panel 4). Now, Chinese laterite ore inventories are much lower than three years ago. Plus, most of the inventories likely are low nickel-content Philippines ore. Besides the tight ore inventory, China's stainless-steel output is accelerating. According to Beijing Antaike Information Development Co., a state-backed research firm, for the first nine months of 2016, Chinese nickel-based stainless steel output grew 11.3% yoy, a much stronger growth rate than the 4% seen during the same period last year. Given falling domestic nickel output and increasing nickel demand from the stainless steel sector, China seems to have no other choice but to import more refined nickel or NPI from overseas. Downside Risks Nickel prices could fall sharply in the near term if massive LME inventories are released to the global market. After all, global nickel inventories currently are at a high level of more than 350 kt, which is more than enough to meet the supply deficit of 75 kt (Chart 10, panel 1). However, as prices are still at the very low end of the range over the past 13 years, we believe that the odds of a massive, sudden inventory release is small. Inventory holders will be hesitant to sell their precious inventory too quickly, therefore the inventory release will likely be gradual, especially given the continuing export ban in Indonesia and a likely increase in the suspension of mines in the Philippines. In the longer term, if Indonesian refined nickel output continues growing at the pace registered in the past two years, the global nickel supply deficit may be much less than the market expects (Chart 10, panel 2). In that scenario, nickel prices will also fall. Due to power supply shortages, poor infrastructure and funding problems, many of the smelters and stainless steel plants' development have got delayed, so we believe these problems will continue to be headwinds for Indonesian nickel output growth. A five-million capacity stainless steel project, funded by three Chinese companies, potentially making Indonesia the world's second biggest stainless steel producer, will only be in production by 2018. Therefore, we believe next year is still a good window for a further rally in nickel prices. In addition, global stainless steel output may weaken again after this year's stimulus from China runs out of steam, which will also weigh on nickel prices (Chart 10, panel 3). We will monitor these risks closely. Investment strategy We expect nickel to outperform zinc considerably in 2017. Nickel has underperformed zinc massively since 2010 with the nickel/zinc price ratio tumbling to a 17-year low (Chart 11, panel 1). Chart 10Downside Risks To Watch bca.ces_wr_2016_11_17_c10 bca.ces_wr_2016_11_17_c10 Chart 11Nickel Likely To Outperform Zinc In 2017 bca.ces_wr_2016_11_17_c11 bca.ces_wr_2016_11_17_c11 Even though our short Dec/17 LME zinc position was stopped out at $2500/MT with a 4% loss due to the short-term turbulence, we remain strategically bearish zinc, as we expect supply to rise in 2017 (Chart 11, panel 2).5 Given our assessments of the nickel and zinc markets, we recommend buying Dec/17 LME nickel contract versus Dec/17 LME zinc contract at 4.3 (current level: 4.38) (Chart 11, panel 3). If the order gets filled, we suggest putting a stop-loss level for the ratio at 4.15. Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com 1 Our updated estimates of the cointegrating regressions for U.S. and eurozone 5y5y CPI swaps indicate 3-year forward WTI futures explain close to 87% of the U.S. swap levels and 82% of the eurozone swaps, in the post-GFC period (January 2010 to present). Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Inflation Expectations Will Lift As Oil Rebalances," dated March 31, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 We also found that, over a longer period encompassing pre-GFC markets, gold prices shared a common trend with U.S. 5y5y CPI swaps, as well. Indeed, the evolution of 5y5y CPI swaps explained 84% of gold's price from 2004, when the 5y5y CPI swap time series begins, to present. 3 Previously, we estimated a gold model using the Fed's core PCE and the St. Louis Fed's 5y5y U.S. TIPS inflation index and found a 1% increase in the core PCE translates to a 4% increase in gold prices. Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "A 'High-Pressure Economy' Would Be Bullish For Gold," dated October 20, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report "Reaganomics 2.0?," dated November 11, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report for zinc section "The Lithium Battery Supply Chain: Efficient Exposure To Electric-Vehicle Market," dated October 27, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Closed Trades

Highlights The U.S. accounts for 18% of Chinese exports, while China accounts for only 8% of American overseas sales, which puts China at a disadvantage in a full-blown trade war. However, China has become an increasingly important export destination of American companies in recent years, while the significance of the U.S. in China's total trade peaked in the late 1990s. The case of China U.S. steel trade dispute suggests that unless the U.S. imposes punitive tariffs on imports from all countries, picking on China will only shift American demand to other more expensive alternatives, while the benefits to American domestic producers will be questionable, let alone American consumers. A more inward-looking U.S. administration certainly bodes poorly for international trade and globalization. However, the role of China should not be underestimated. Potential protectionist threats from the U.S. will likely generate a mutual desire among China and other economies to work more closely. Feature Global financial markets have gradually been coming to terms with the concept of President Donald Trump. Interestingly, U.S. equity market participants appear to be cheering on a potentially sizable fiscal spending package under the new administration, which has boosted industrial sector stocks over the past week. Markets in Asia, particularly Chinese H shares, however, have been less upbeat and have focused more on a possible protectionism backlash emanating from the U.S. under the new leadership. Tough talk on China has featured in every U.S. presidential campaign going back to Nixon reaching out to China in the early 1970s - from Jimmy Carter's strong condemnation of Nixon-Kissinger's "immoral" secret diplomacy of "ass kissing" the Chinese, to Bill Clinton's harsh warnings to the "butchers of Beijing", to repeated pledges by Obama in the 2008 campaign to label China as a "currency manipulator" - all of which signaled an immediate confrontation. Once in office, however, all candidates significantly softened their rhetoric, as government policies require much more realistic and thoughtful discussion, negotiation and compromise. Furthermore, given the huge importance of trade for both economies, a full-fledged trade war between the U.S. and China would risk the growth recession and enormous financial volatility around the globe, a lose-lose outcome hardly conceivable to anyone, no matter how much chest-thumping and aggrandizing is involved. To be sure, the threat of protectionism should not be downplayed. It appears clear that president-elect Trump will be less accommodative to free trade than his predecessors, which is confirmed by his choice of Mr. Dan Dimicco, a former CEO of an American steelmaker and an outspoken critic of U.S. trade policy, particularly with China, to head his trade transition team. However, it is unpredictable at the moment what specific measures he would take to be able to assess potential consequences. It is therefore more useful to take a step back and look at the big picture of trade relations between the two countries. China-U.S. Bilateral Trade Chinese sales to the U.S. far outnumber its purchases, leading to an ever-growing trade surplus in China's favor (Chart 1). In fact, the U.S. accounts for over half of China's total trade surplus - a key piece of evidence supporting some American politicians' accusation of China's purported currency manipulation and unfair trade practices. The U.S. accounts for 18% of Chinese exports, while China accounts for only 8% of American overseas sales, which puts China at a disadvantage in a full-blown trade war. Underneath, however, China has become an increasingly important export destination of American companies in recent years, while the significance of the U.S. as part of China's total trade peaked in the late 1990s (Chart 2). The share of U.S.-bound Chinese exports has remained roughly unchanged since the global financial crisis, and down significantly from pre-crisis levels. Chinese sales to the U.S. in recent years have been largely in line with overall export growth. On the contrary, American shipments to China have increased sharply as a share of total exports. Over the past five years, China has accounted for almost 20% of the net increase in U.S. exports, far outpacing any other American trade partner. Chart 1U.S.-China##br## Bilateral Trade U.S.-China Bilateral Trade U.S.-China Bilateral Trade Chart 2China Depends More ##br##On The U.S. Than Vice Versa China Depends More On The U.S. Than Vice Versa China Depends More On The U.S. Than Vice Versa Conventional wisdom holds that protectionist policies will be of more benefit to those countries running deficits in bilateral trade. However, a trade war with China would also remove the biggest source of marginal demand for American goods, which would be met with strong domestic resistance. Anti-Dumping And China's Trade Performance China is no stranger to anti-dumping measures in global trade. The country accounts for 30% of all anti-dumping actions initiated by World Trade Organization (WTO) members in recent years, even though Chinese products account for only about 14% of total global goods exports. China has not been regarded as a "market economy" by major developed countries, making it an easier target for punitive tariffs and other barriers under WTO rules. A case in point is steel products, which remain center stage in the ongoing trade dispute between China and the U.S. President George W. Bush in 2002 imposed tariffs of up to 30% on a broad range of Chinese steel products, while the Obama administration further upped the ante with various product-specific punitive measures during his tenor. These measures have dramatically changed steel trade for both countries: From the U.S. side, total American steel imports have remained largely range-bound in the past 20 years, but Chinese steel products have had a dramatic rollercoaster ride (Chart 3). Punitive tariffs led to a collapse of Chinese steel in the U.S. market, accounting for a mere 3% of total U.S. steel imports, down from a peak of almost 20% in 2008. However, the losses to Chinese steelmakers have simply been filled by other exporting countries. For example, U.S. steel imports from Brazil have roared back to historical high levels as Chinese products plummeted (Chart 3, bottom panel). On the Chinese side, Chinese steel products suffered huge market share losses in the U.S., but the country's total steel exports have continued to make new record highs, as it has dramatically expanded sales to other markets, particularly developing countries (Chart 4). The U.S. currently accounts for about 1% of total Chinese steel exports, down from about 10% at the peak, while Vietnam has rapidly replaced the U.S. as a key market for Chinese steelmakers to expand overseas sales. Chart 3China In U.S. Steel Imports China In U.S. Steel Imports China In U.S. Steel Imports Chart 4U.S. In Chinese Steel Exports U.S. In Chinese Steel Exports U.S. In Chinese Steel Exports Moreover, the punitive measures imposed by the U.S. have pushed Chinese steelmakers into higher value-added products. The top panel of Chart 5 shows the average price of American steel imports from China was roughly comparable to U.S. steel purchases from other developing countries in the late 1990s, while Germany and Japanese steelmakers traditionally occupied the higher-priced segments. The situation has shifted quickly in the past two decades: The unit price of Chinese steel sales in the U.S. has risen rapidly relatively to their peers, increasingly challenging producers in more advanced countries. Other emerging countries have filled the space left by China and remained at the lower end of the spectrum. Similarly, on the Chinese side, the average price of Chinese steel exports to the U.S. has increased sharply in recent years relative to other major markets, particularly developing countries (Chart 5, bottom panel). Currently, the average price of China's steel products exported to the U.S. is far higher than to other countries - almost triple that to other emerging countries. This confirms that Chinese steelmakers have been moving up the value-added ladder in the U.S. market, but have been "dumping" cheaper products to other developing countries. The important point here is that the punitive tariffs have indeed significantly reduced Chinese sales to the U.S., but other steel-producing countries have simply "stolen" China's lunch. By the same token, unless the U.S. imposes punitive tariffs on imports from all countries, picking on China will only shift American demand to other more expensive alternatives, while the benefits to American domestic producers will be questionable, let alone American consumers. Moreover, President Trump may still target Chinese steel products as a highly symbolic gesture to show his toughened stance on China and to keep his campaign trail promises of reviving rust-belt states - the relevance of which, however, has diminished dramatically, as steel products now account for only a tiny fraction of total trade between these two countries (Chart 6). Chart 5Chinese Steelmakers##br## Are Moving Up The Value Chain Chinese Steelmakers Are Moving Up The Value Chain Chinese Steelmakers Are Moving Up The Value Chain Chart 6Steel Is No Longer ##br##Relevant For China-U.S. Trade China-U.S. Trade Relations: The Big Picture China-U.S. Trade Relations: The Big Picture U.S. And China In Global Trade A more inward-looking U.S. administration certainly bodes poorly for international trade and globalization. However, the role of China should not be underestimated. For tradable goods, it is well known that China has long surpassed the U.S. as the world top exporter. For imports of goods, the U.S. is still bigger, but the gap has narrowed dramatically (Chart 7). China has already become a bigger market than the U.S. for a growing list of countries, particularly commodities producers and China's Asian neighbors. What is much less known is that Chinese imports of services just this year also surpassed that of the U.S., marking an important milestone in China's global reach and influence (Chart 8). Moreover, China's exports of services are much smaller, leaving a deficit almost as large as U.S. service surpluses with the rest of the world. Chart 7U.S. And China##br## In Global Trade Of Goods U.S. And China In Global Trade Of Goods U.S. And China In Global Trade Of Goods Chart 8China Surpassed##br##The U.S. In Service Imports China Surpassed The U.S. In Service Imports China Surpassed The U.S. In Service Imports In a world starving for growth, China remains a bright spot. Potential protectionist threats from the U.S. will likely generate a mutual desire among China and other economies to work more closely. China will inevitably continue to explore bilateral and multilateral free-trade agreements (FTA) with its main trade partners. China currently has 19 FTAs under construction, among which 14 agreements have been signed and implemented. Together, FTAs cover an increasingly bigger share of Chinese exports, higher than Chinese sales to the U.S. (Chart 9). Chart 9China Sells More To FTA##br## Countries Than To The U.S. China Sells More To FTA Countries Than To The U.S. China Sells More To FTA Countries Than To The U.S. Meanwhile, China will likely take a more active role in negotiating the "Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)" - an ambitious multilateral agreement on trade and investments that covers almost half of the world population and output. On the other hand, the outlook of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) under President Trump has become more uncertain, which may also push other emerging countries to participate in China-initiated trade deals. If President Trump indeed turns more inward, the center of global trade will further shift toward China. A Word On The RMB And Industrial Stocks The RMB has continued to drift lower against the greenback in recent days, which still reflects the dollar's broad strength rather than RMB weakness. In fact, the trade-weighted RMB has strengthened notably (Chart 10). Conspiracy theories abound that China may engineer a flash-crash of the RMB before President Trump takes office to "preempt" any protectionist pressures. This scenario certainly cannot be ruled out, but it is highly unlikely in our view, as it may further intensify trade tensions between the two countries, making Trump's trade policy on China even less predictable. In short, we maintain the view that the near-term RMB outlook is entirely dictated by the movement of the dollar, and that the Chinese authorities should be able to maintain exchange rate stability, as discussed in recent reports.1 Turning to the stock market, Chinese industrial stocks have not joined the sharp post-Trump rally of their U.S. counterparts, likely a reflection of investors' conviction that protectionism in the U.S. may benefit domestic firms at the expense of foreign entities, particularly Chinese firms. (Chart 11). However, similar to almost all other major sectors, the profitability of Chinese industrial names is almost identical to their American peers, but they are trading at hefty discounts based on conventional valuation indicators, reflecting a much larger risk premium in Chinese stocks. For now, we remain on the sidelines with respect to Chinese stocks due to developing global uncertainty, as discussed in detail last week.2 Beyond near-term tactical consideration, we expect Chinese shares to resume their uptrend both in absolute terms and against EM and global benchmarks. Chart 10The RMB Remains Stable##br## In Trade-Weighted Terms The RMB Remains Stable In Trade-Weighted Terms The RMB Remains Stable In Trade-Weighted Terms Chart 11Industrial Stocks:##br## Spot The Differences Industrial Stocks: Spot The Differences Industrial Stocks: Spot The Differences Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The RMB's Near-Term Dilemma And Long-Term Ambition", dated October 20, 2016, and "Greater China Currencies: An Overview", dated November 3, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Chinese Stocks: Between Domestic Improvement And External Uncertainty", dated November 10, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Trump won by stealing votes from Democrats in the Midwest. His victory implies a national shift to the left on economic policy. Checks and balances on Trump are not substantial in the short term. U.S. political polarization will continue. Trump is good for the USD, bad for bonds, neutral for equities. Favor SMEs over MNCs. Close long alternative energy / short coal. Feature "Most Americans do not find themselves actually alienated from their fellow Americans or truly fearful if the other party wins power. Unlike in Bosnia, Northern Ireland or Rwanda, competition for power in the U.S. remains largely a debate between people who can work together once the election is over." — Newt Gingrich, January 2, 2001 Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (and a potential Secretary of State pick), was asked on NBC's Meet the Press two days before the U.S. election whether he still thought that "competition for power in the U.S. remains largely a debate between people who can work together once the election is over." Gingrich made the original statement in January 2001, merely weeks after one of the most contentious presidential elections in U.S. history was resolved by the Supreme Court. Gingrich's answer in 2016? "I think, tragically, we have drifted into an environment where ... it will be a continuing fight for who controls the country." Despite an extraordinary victory - a revolution really - by Donald J. Trump, the fact of the matter remains that the U.S. is a polarized country between Republican and Democratic voters. As of publication time of this report, Trump lost the popular vote to Secretary Hillary Clinton. His is a narrower victory than either the epic Richard Nixon win in 1968 or George W. Bush squeaker in 2000. Over the next two years, the only thing that matters for the markets is that the U.S. has a unified government behind a Republican president-elect and a GOP-controlled Congress. We discuss the investment implications of this scenario below and caution clients to not over-despair. On the other hand, we also see this election as more evidence that America remains a deeply polarized country where identity politics continue to play a key role. What concerns us is that these identity politics appear to transcend the country's many cultural, ethical, political, and economic commonalities. Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are fusing into almost ethnic-like groupings. To bring it back to Gingrich's quote at the top, that would suggest that the U.S. is no longer that much different from Bosnia or Northern Ireland.1 Election Post-Mortem Chart II-1Election Polls Usually ##br##Miss By A Few Points De-Globalization De-Globalization Donald Trump has won an upset over Hillary Clinton, but his campaign was not as much of a long-shot as the consensus believed. U.S. presidential polls have frequently missed the final tally by +/- 3% of the vote, which was precisely the end result of the 2016 election (Chart II-1). Therefore, as we pointed out in our last missive on the election, Trump's victory was not a "wild mathematical oddity."2 Why Did Trump Win The White House? Where Trump really did beat expectations was in the Midwest, and Wisconsin in particular. He ended up outperforming the poll-of-polls by a near-incredible 10%!3 His victories in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania were well within the range of expectations. For example, the last poll-of-polls had Trump leading in both Florida (by a narrow 0.2%) and Ohio (by a solid 3.5%), whereas Clinton was up in Pennsylvania by the slightest of margins (just 1.9% lead). He ended up exceeding poll expectations in all three (by 2% in Florida, 6% in Ohio, and 3% in Pennsylvania), but not by the same wild margin as in Wisconsin. When all is said and done, Trump won the 2016 election by stealing votes away from the Democrats in the traditionally "blue" Midwest states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. This was a far more significant result than his resounding victories in Ohio (which Obama won in 2012) or Florida (where Obama won only narrowly in 2012). Our colleague Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist of the Global Investment Strategy, correctly forecast that Trump would be competitive in all three Midwest states back in September 2015! We highly encourage our clients to read his "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," as it is one of the best geopolitical calls made by BCA in recent history.4 As Peter had originally thought, Trump cleaned up the white, less-educated, male vote in all of the three crucial Midwest states. He won 68% of this vote in Michigan, 71% in Pennsylvania, and 69% in Wisconsin. To do so, Trump campaigned as an unorthodox Republican, appealing to the blue-collar white voter by blaming globalization for their job losses and low wages, and by refusing to accept Republican orthodoxy on fiscal austerity or entitlement spending. Instead, Trump promised to outspend Clinton and protect entitlements at their current levels. This mix of an outsider, anti-establishment, image combined with a left-of-center economic message allowed Trump to win an extraordinary number of former Obama voters. Exit polls showed that Obama had a positive image in all three Midwest states, including with Trump voters! For example, 30% of Trump voters in Michigan approved of the job Obama was doing as president, 25% in Pennsylvania, and 27% in Wisconsin. That's between a quarter and a third of eventual people who cast their vote for Trump. These are the voters that Republicans lost in 2012 because they nominated a former private equity "corporate raider" Mitt Romney as their candidate. Romney had famously argued in a 2008 New York Times op-ed that he would have "Let Detroit go bankrupt." Obama repeatedly attacked Romney during the 2011-2012 campaign on this point. Back in late 2011, we suspected that this message, and this message alone, would win President Obama his re-election.5 Why is the issue of the Midwest Obama voters so important? Because investors have to know precisely why Donald Trump won the election. It wasn't his messages on immigration, law and order, race relations, and especially not the tax cuts he added to his message late in the game. It was his left-of-center policy position on trade and fiscal spending. Trump is beholden to his voters on these policies, particularly in the Midwest states that won him the election. Final word on race. Donald Trump actually improved on Mitt Romney's performance with African-American and Hispanic voters (Table II-1). This was a surprise, given his often racially-charged rhetoric. Meanwhile, Trump failed to improve on the white voter turnout (as percent of overall electorate) or on Romney's performance with white voters in terms of the share of the vote. To be clear, Republicans are still in the proverbial hole with minority voters and are yet to match George Bush's performance in 2004. But with 70% of the U.S. electorate still white in 2016, this did not matter. Table II-1Exit Polls: Trump's Win Was Not Merely About Race De-Globalization De-Globalization Congress: No Gridlock Ahead Republicans exceeded their expectations in the Senate, losing only one seat (Illinois) to Democrats. This means that the GOP control of the Senate will remain quite comfortable and is likely to grow in the 2018 mid-term elections when the Democrats have to defend 25 of 33 seats. Of the 25 Senate seats they will defend, five are in hostile territory: North Dakota, West Virginia, Ohio, Montana, and Missouri. In addition, Florida is always a tough contest. Republicans, on the other hand, have only one Senate seat that will require defense in a Democrat-leaning state: Nevada (and in that case, it will be a Republican incumbent contesting the race). Their other seven seats are all in Republican voting states. As such, expect Republicans to hold on to the Senate well into the 2020 general election. In the House of Representatives, the GOP will retain its comfortable majority. The Tea Party affiliated caucuses (Tea Party Caucus and the House Freedom Caucus) performed well in the election. The Tea Party Caucus members won 35 seats out of 38 they contested and the House Freedom Caucus won 34 seats out of 37 it contested. The race to watch now is for the Speaker of the House position. Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the incumbent House, is likely to contest the election again and win. Even though his support for Donald Trump was lukewarm, we expect Republicans to unify the party behind Trump and Ryan. A challenge from the right could emerge, but we doubt it will materialize given Trump's victory. The campaign for the election will begin immediately, with Republicans selecting their candidate by December (the official election will be in the first week of January, but it is a formality as Republicans hold the majority). Bottom Line: Trump's victory was largely the product of former Obama voters in the Midwest switching to the GOP candidate. This happened because of Trump's unorthodox, left-of-center, message. Trump will have a friendly Congress to work with for the next four years. How friendly? That question will determine the investment significance of the Trump presidency. Investment Relevance Of A United Government Most clients we have spoken to over the past several months believe that Donald Trump will be constrained on economic policies by a right-leaning Congress. His more ambitious fiscal spending plans - such as the $550 billion infrastructure plan and $150 billion net defense spending plan - will therefore be either "dead on arrival" in Congress, or will be significantly watered down by the legislature. Focus will instead shift to tax cuts and traditional Republican policies. We could not disagree more. GOP is not fiscally conservative: There is no empirical evidence that the GOP is actually fiscally conservative. First, the track record of the Bush and Reagan administrations do not support the adage that Republicans keep fiscal spending in check when they are in power (Chart II-2). Second, Republican voters themselves only want "small government" when the Democrats are in charge of the White House (Chart II-3). When a Republican President is in charge, Republicans forget their "small government" leanings. Chart II-2Republicans Are Not ##br##Fiscally Responsible Republicans Are Not Fiscally Responsible Republicans Are Not Fiscally Responsible Chart II-3Big Government Is Only ##br##A Problem For Opposition bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s2_c3 bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s2_c3 Presidents get their way: Over the past 28 years, each new president has generally succeeded in passing their signature items. Congress can block some but probably not all of president's plans. Clinton, Bush, and Obama each began with their own party controlling the legislature, which gave an early advantage that was later reversed in their second term. Clinton lost on healthcare, but achieved bipartisan welfare reform. For Obama, legislative obstructionism halted various initiatives, but his core objectives were either already met (healthcare), not reliant on Congress (foreign policy), or achieved through compromise after his reelection (expiration of Bush tax cuts for upper income levels). Median voter has moved to the left: Donald Trump won both the GOP primary and the general election by preaching an unorthodox, left-of-center sermon. He understood correctly that the American voter preferences on economic policies have moved away from Republican laissez-faire orthodoxies.6 Yes, he is also calling for significant lowering of both income and corporate tax rates. However, tax cuts were never a focal point of his campaign, and he only introduced the policy later in the race when he was trying to get traditional Republicans on board with his campaign. Newsflash: traditional Republicans did not get Trump over the hump, Obama voters in the Midwest did! Investors should make no mistake, the key pillars of Trump's campaign are de-globalization, higher fiscal spending, and protecting entitlements at current levels. And he will pursue all three with GOP allies in Congress. What are the investment implications of this policy mix? USD: More government spending, marginally less global trade, and pressure on multi-national corporations (MNCs) to scale back their global operations should be positive for inflation. If growth surprises to the upside due to fiscal spending, it will allow the Fed to hike more than the current 57 bps expected by the market by the end of 2018. Given easy monetary stance of central banks around the world, and lack of significant fiscal stimulus elsewhere, economic growth surprise in the U.S. should be positive for the dollar in the long term. At the moment, the market is reacting to the Trump victory with ambivalence on the USD. In fact, the dollar suffered as Trump's probability of victory rose in late October. We believe that this is a temporary reaction. We see both Trump's fiscal and trade policies as bullish. BCA's currency strategist Mathieu Savary believes that the dollar could therefore move in a bifurcated fashion in the near term. On the one hand, the dollar could rise against EM currencies and commodity producers, but suffer - or remain flat - against DM currencies such as the EUR, CHF, and JPY.7 Bonds: More inflation and growth should also mean that the bond selloff continues. In addition, if our view on globalization is correct, then the deflationary effects of the last three decades should begin to reverse over the next several years. BCA thesis that we are at the "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market" should therefore remain cogent.8 As one of our "Trump hedges," our colleague Rob Robis, Chief Strategist of the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy, suggested a 2-year / 30-year Treasury curve steepener. This hedge is now up 18.7 bps and we suggest clients continue to hold it. Fed policy: Trump's statements about monetary policy have been inconsistent. Early on in his campaign he described himself as "a low interest rate guy", but he has more recently become critical of current Federal Reserve policy - and Fed Chair Janet Yellen in particular - claiming that while higher interest rates are justified, the Fed is keeping them low for "political reasons." What seems certain is that Janet Yellen will be replaced as Fed Chair when her term expires in February 2018. Yellen is unlikely to resign of her own volition before then and it would be legally difficult for the President to remove a sitting Fed Chair prior to the end of her term. But Trump will get the opportunity to re-shape the composition of the Fed's Board of Governors as soon as he is sworn in. There are currently two empty seats on the Board need to be filled and given that many of Trump's economic advisers have "hard money" leanings, it is very likely that both appointments will go to inflation hawks. Equities: In terms of equities, Trump will be a source of uncertainty for U.S. stocks as the market deals with the unknown of his presidency. In addition, markets tend to not like united government in the U.S. as it raises the specter of big policy moves (Table II-2). However, Trump should be positive for sectors that sold off in anticipation of a Clinton victory, such as healthcare and financials. We also suspect that he will continue the outperformance of defense stocks, although that would have been the case with Clinton as well. Table II-2Election: Industry Implications De-Globalization De-Globalization In the long term, Trump's proposal for major corporate tax cuts should be good for U.S. equities. However, we are not entirely sure that this is the case. First, the effective corporate tax rate in the U.S. is already at its multi-decade lows (Chart II-4). As such, any corporate tax reform that lowers the marginal rate will not really affect the effective rate. Why does this matter? Because major corporations already have low effective tax rates. Any lowering of the marginal rate will therefore benefit the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and the domestic oriented S&P 500 corporations. If corporate tax reform also includes closing loopholes that benefit the major multi-national corporations (MNCs), then Trump's policy will not necessarily benefit all firms in the U.S. equally. Chart II-4How Low Can It Go? bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s2_c4 bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s2_c4 Investors have to keep in mind that Trump has not run a pro-corporate campaign. He has accused American manufacturing firms of taking jobs outside the U.S. and tech companies of skirting taxes. It is not clear to us that his corporate tax reform will therefore necessarily be a boon for the stock market. In the long term, we like to play Trump's populist message by favoring America's SMEs over MNCs. If we are ultimately correct on the USD and growth, then export-oriented S&P 500 companies should suffer in the face of a USD bull market and marginally less globalization. Meanwhile, lowering of the marginal corporate tax rate will benefit the SMEs that do not get the benefit of K-street lobbyist negotiated tax loopholes. Global Assets: The global asset to watch over the next several weeks is the USD/RMB cross. China is forced by domestic economic conditions to continue to slowly depreciate its currency. We have expected this since 2015, which is why we have shorted the RMB via 12-month non-deliverable forwards (NDF). Risk to global assets, particularly EM currencies and equities, would be that Beijing decides to depreciate the RMB before Trump is inaugurated on January 20. This could re-visit the late 2015 panic over China, particularly the narrative that it is exporting deflation. Our view is that even if China does not undertake such actions over the next two months, Sino-American tensions are set to escalate. It is much easier for Trump to fulfill his de-globalization policies with China - a geopolitical rival with which the U.S. has no free trade agreement - than with NAFTA trade partners Canada and Mexico. This will only deepen geopolitical tensions between the two major global powers, which has been our secular view since 2011. Finally, a quick note on the Mexican peso. The Mexican peso has already collapsed half of its value in the past 18 months and we believe the trade is overdone. Investors have used the currency cross as a way to articulate Trump's victory probability. It is no longer cogent. We believe that the U.S. will focus on trade relations with China under a Trump presidency, rather than NAFTA trade partners. Our Emerging Markets Strategy believes that it is time to consider going long MXN versus other EM currencies, such as ZAR and BRL. Investors should also watch carefully the Cabinet appointments that Trump makes over the next two months. Since Carter's administration, cabinet announcements have occurred in early to mid-December. Almost all of these appointments were confirmed on Inauguration Day (usually January 20 of the year after election, including in 2017) or shortly thereafter. Only one major nomination since Carter was disapproved. These appointments will tell us how willing Trump is to reach to traditional Republicans who have served on previous administrations. We suspect that he will go with picks that will execute his fiscal, trade, and tax policies. Bottom Line: After the dust settles over the next several weeks, we suspect that Trump will signal that he intends to pursue his fiscal, trade, immigration, and tax policies. These will be, in the long term, positive for the USD, negative for bonds (including Munis, which will lose their tax-break appeal if income taxes are reduced), and likely neutral for equities. Within the equity space, Trump will be positive for U.S. SMEs and negative for MNCs. This means being long S&P 600 over S&P 100. Lastly, close our long alternative energy / short coal trade for a loss of -26.8%. Constraints: Don't Bet On Them Domestically, the American president can take significant action without congressional support through executive directives. Lincoln raised an army and navy by proclamation and freed the slaves; Franklin Roosevelt interned the Japanese; Truman tried to seize steel factories to keep production up during the Korean War. Truman's case is almost the only one of a major executive order being rebuffed by the Supreme Court. The Reagan and Clinton administrations have shown that a president thwarted by a divided or adverse congress will often use executive directives to achieve policy aims and satisfy particular interest groups and sectors. Though the number of executive orders has gone down in recent administrations (Chart II-5), the economic significance has increased along with the size and penetration of the bureaucracy (Chart II-6). The economic impact of executive orders is always debatable, but the key point is that the president's word tends to carry the day.9 Chart II-5Rule By Decree De-Globalization De-Globalization Chart II-6Executive Branch Is Growing De-Globalization De-Globalization Trade is a major area where Trump would have considerable sway. He has repeatedly signaled his intention to restrict American openness to international trade. The U.S. president can revoke international treaties solely on their own authority. Congressionally approved agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) cannot be revoked by the president, but Trump could obstruct its ongoing implementation.10 He would also have considerable powers to levy tariffs, as Nixon showed with his 10% "surcharge" on most imports in 1971.11 Bottom Line: Presidential authority is formidable in the areas Trump has made the focus of his campaign: immigration and trade. Without a two-thirds majority in Congress to override him, or an activist federal court, Trump would be able to enact significant policies simply by issuing orders to his subordinates in the executive branch. Long-Term Implications: Polarization In The U.S. Does the Republican control of Congress and the White House signal that polarization in America will subside? We began this analysis by focusing on the investment implications when Republicans control the three houses of the American government. But long-term implications of polarization will not dissipate. Investors may overstate the importance of a Republican-controlled government and thus understate the relevance of continued polarization. We doubt that Donald Trump is a uniting figure who can transcend America's polarized politics, especially given his weak popular mandate (he lost the popular vote as Bush did in 2000) and the sub-50% vote share. And, our favorite chart of the year remains the same: both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have entered the history books as the most disliked presidential candidates ever on the day of the election (Chart II-7). Chart II-7Clinton And Trump Are Making (The Wrong Kind Of) History De-Globalization De-Globalization According to empirical work by political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, polarization in Congress is at its highest level since World War II (Chart II-8). Their research shows that the liberal-conservative dimension explains approximately 93% of all roll-call voting choices and that the two parties are drifting further apart on this crucial dimension.12 Chart II-8The Widening Ideological Gulf In The U.S. Congress De-Globalization De-Globalization Meanwhile, a 2014 Pew Research study has shown that Republicans and Democrats are moving further to the right and left, respectively. Chart II-9 shows the distribution of Republicans and Democrats on a 10-item scale of political values across the last three decades. In addition, "very unfavorable" views of the opposing party have skyrocketed since 2004 (Chart II-10), with 45% of Republicans and 41% of Democrats now seeing the other party as a "threat to the nation's well-being"! Chart II-9U.S. Political Polarization: Growing Apart De-Globalization De-Globalization Chart II-10Live And Let Die De-Globalization De-Globalization Much ink has been spilled trying to explain the mounting polarization in America.13 Our view remains that politics in a democracy operates on its own supply-demand dynamic. If there was no demand for polarized politics, especially at the congressional level, American politicians would not be so eager to supply it. We believe that five main factors - in our subjective order of importance - explain polarization in the U.S. today: Income Inequality And Immobility The increase in political polarization parallels rising income inequality in the U.S. (Chart II-11). The U.S. is a clear and distant outlier on both factors compared to its OECD peers (Chart II-12). However, Americans are not being divided neatly along income levels. This is because Republicans and Democrats disagree on how to fix income inequality. For Donald Trump voters, the solutions are to put up barriers to free trade and immigration while reducing income taxes for all income levels. For Hillary Clinton voters, it means more taxes on the wealthy and large corporations, while putting up some trade barriers and expanding entitlements. This means that the correlation between polarization and income inequality is misleading as there is no causality. Rather, rising income inequality, especially when combined with a low-growth environment, shifts the political narrative from the "politics of plenty" towards "politics of scarcity." It hardens interest and identity groups and makes them less generous towards the "other." Chart II-11Inequality Breeds Polarization Inequality Breeds Polarization Inequality Breeds Polarization Chart II-12Opportunity And Income: Americans Are Outliers De-Globalization De-Globalization Generational Warfare The political age gap is increasing (Chart II-13). This remains the case following the 2016 election, with 55% Millennials (18-29 year olds) having voted for Hillary Clinton. The problem for older voters, who tend to identify far more with the Republican Party, is that the Millennials are already the largest voting bloc in America (Chart II-14). And as Millennial voters start increasing their turnout, and as Baby Boomers naturally decline, the urgency to vote for Republican policymakers' increases. Chart II-13The Age Gap In American Politics The Age Gap In American Politics The Age Gap In American Politics Chart II-14Millennials Are The Biggest Bloc Millennials Are The Biggest Bloc Millennials Are The Biggest Bloc Geographical Segregation Noted political scientist Robert Putnam first cautioned that increasing geographic segregation into clusters of like-minded communities was leading to rising polarization.14 This explains, in large part, how liberal elites have completely missed the rise of Donald Trump. Left-leaning Americans tend to live in a left-leaning community. They share their morning cup-of-Joe with Liberals and rarely mix with the plebs supporting Trump. And of course vice-versa. University of Toronto professors Richard Florida and Charlotta Mellander have more recently shown in their "Segregated City" research that "America's cities and metropolitan areas have cleaved into clusters of wealth, college education, and highly-paid knowledge-based occupations."15 Their research shows that American neighborhoods are increasingly made up of people of the same income level, across all metropolitan areas. Florida and Mellander also show that educational and occupational segregation follows economic segregation. Meanwhile, the same research shows that Canada's most segregated metropolitan area, Montreal, would be the 227th most segregated city if it were in the U.S.! This form of geographic social distance fosters increasing polarization by allowing voters to remain aloof of their fellow Americans, their plight, needs, and concerns. The extreme urban-rural divide of the 2016 election confirms this thesis. Immigration Chart II-15Racial Composition Is Changing De-Globalization De-Globalization Much as with income inequality, there is a close correlation between political polarization and immigration. The U.S. is on its way to becoming a minority-majority country, with the percent of the white population expected to dip below 50% in 2045 (Chart II-15). Hispanic and Asian populations are expected to continue rising for the rest of the century. For many Americans facing the pernicious effects of low-growth, high debt, and elevated income inequality, the rising impact of immigration is anathema. Not only is the country changing its ethnic and cultural make-up, but the incoming immigrants tend to be less educated and thus lower-income than the median American. They therefore favor - or will favor, when they can vote - redistributive policies. Many Americans feel - fairly or unfairly - that the costs of these policies will have to be shouldered by white middle-class taxpayers, who are not wealthy enough to be indifferent to tax increases, and may be unskillful enough to face competition from immigrants. There is also a security component to the rising concern about immigration. Although Muslims are only 1% of the U.S. population, many voters perceive radical Islam to be a vital security threat to the nation. As such, immigration and radical Islamic terrorism are seen as close bedfellows. Media Polarization The 2016 election has been particularly devastating for mainstream media. According to the latest Gallup poll, only 32% of Americans trust the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly." This is the lowest level in Gallup polling history. The decline is particularly concentrated among Independent and Republican respondents (Chart II-16). With mainstream media falling out of favor for many Americans, voters are turning towards social media and the Internet. Facebook is now as important for political news coverage as local TV for Americans who get their news from the Internet (Chart II-17). Chart II-16A War Of Words bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s2_c16 bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s2_c16 Chart II-17New Sources Of News Not Always Credible De-Globalization De-Globalization The problem with getting your news coverage from Facebook is that it often means getting news coverage from "fake" sources. A recent experiment by BuzzFeed showed that three big right-wing Facebook pages published false or misleading information 38% of the time while three large left-wing pages did so in nearly 20% of posts.16 The Internet allows voters to self-select what ideological lens colors their daily intake of information and it transcends geography. Two American families, living next to each other in the same neighborhood, can literally perceive reality from completely different perspectives by customizing their sources of information. Chart II-18Gerrymandering ##br##Reduces Competitive Seats bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s2_c18 bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s2_c18 In addition to these five factors, one should also reaffirm the role of redistricting, or "gerrymandering." Over the last two decades, both the Democrats and Republicans (but mainly the latter) have redrawn geographical boundaries to create "ideologically pure" electoral districts. Of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, only about 56 are truly competitive (Chart II-18). This improves job security for incumbent politicians and legislative-seat security for the party; but it also discourages legislators from reaching across the ideological aisle in order to ensure re-election. Instead, the main electoral challenge now comes from the member's own party during the primary election. For Republicans, this means that the challenge is most often coming from a candidate that is further to the right. Incumbent GOP politicians in Congress therefore have an incentive to maintain highly conservative records lest a challenge from the far-right emerges in a primary election. Given that the frequency of elections is high in the House of Representatives (every two years), legislators cannot take even a short break from partisanship. Redistricting deepens polarization, therefore, by changing the political calculus for legislators facing ideologically pure electorates in their home districts. Bottom Line: Polarization in the U.S. is a product of structural factors that are here to stay. Trump's narrow victory will in no way change that. But How Much Worse? Political polarization is not new. Older readers will remember 1968, when social unrest over the Vietnam War was at its height. Richard Nixon barely got over the finish line that year, beating Vice-President Hubert Humphrey by around 500,000 votes.17 Another contested election in a contested era. Chart II-19Party Is The Chief Source Of Identity De-Globalization De-Globalization Our concern is that the Republican and Democrat "labels" - or perhaps conservative and liberal labels - appear to be ossifying. For example, Pew Research showed in 2012 that the difference between Americans on 48 values is the greatest between Republicans and Democrats. This has not always been the case, as Chart II-19 shows. We suspect that the data would be even starker today, especially after the divisive 2016 campaign that has bordered on hysterical. This means that "Republican" and "Democrat" labels have become real and almost "sectarian" in nature. In fact, one's values are now determined more by one's party identification than race, education, income, religiosity, or gender! This is incredible, given America's history of racial and religious divisions. Why is this happening? We suspect that the shift in urgency and tone is motivated at least in part by the changing demographics of America. Two demographic groups that identify the most with the Republican Party - Baby Boomers and rural or suburban white voters - are in a structural decline (the first in absolute terms and the second in relative terms). Both see the writing on the political wall. Given America's democratic system of government, their declining numbers (or, in the case of suburban whites, declining majorities) will mean significant future policy decisions that go against their preferences. America is set to become more left-leaning, favor more redistribution, and become less culturally homogenous. Not only are Millennials more socially liberal and economically left-leaning, but they are also "browner" than the rest of the U.S. As we pointed out early this year, 2016 was an election that the GOP could reasonably attempt to win by appealing exclusively to white and older voters. The "White Hype" strategy was mathematically cogent ... at least in 2016.18 It will get a lot more difficult to pursue this strategy in 2020 and beyond. Not impossible, but difficult. We suspect that conservative voters know this. As such, there was an urgency this year to lock-in structural changes to key policies before it is too late. Donald Trump may have been a flawed messenger for many voters, but it did not matter. The clock is ticking for a large segment of America and therefore Trump was an acceptable vehicle of their fears and anger. Bottom Line: Polarization in the U.S. is likely to increase. Two key Republican/conservative constituencies - Baby Boomers and rural or suburban white voters - are backed into the corner by demographic trends. But it also means that a left counter-revolution is just around the corner. And we doubt that the Democratic Party will chose as centrist of a candidate the next time around. Final Thoughts: What Have We Learned Chart II-20Credit No Longer Hides Stagnant Income Credit No Longer Hides Stagnant Income Credit No Longer Hides Stagnant Income 1. Economics trump PC: Civil rights remain a major category of the American public's policy concerns. However, the Democratic Party's prioritization of social issues on the margins of the civil rights debate has not galvanized voters in the face of persistent negative attitudes about the economy. More specifically, the surge in cheap credit since 2000 that covered up the steady decline of wages as a share of GDP has ended, leaving households exposed to deleveraging and reduced purchasing power (Chart II-20). American households have lost patience with the slow, grinding pace of economic recovery, they reject the debt consequences of low inflation with deflationary tail risks, and they resent disappointed expectations in terms of job security and quality. Concerns about certain social preferences - as opposed to basic rights - pale in comparison to these economic grievances. 2. Polls are OK, but beware the quant models that use them: On two grave political decisions this year, in two advanced markets with the "best" quality of polling, political modeling turned out to be grossly erroneous. To be fair, the polls themselves prior to both Brexit and the U.S. election were within a margin of error. However, quantitative models relying on these polls were overconfident, leading investors to ignore the risks of a non-consensus outcome. As we warned in mid-October - with Clinton ahead with a robust lead - the problem with quantitative political models is that they rely on polling data for their input.19 To iron-out the noise of an occasional bad poll, political analysts aggregate the polls to create a "poll-of-polls." But combining polls is mathematically the same as combining bad mortgages into securities. The philosophy behind the methodology is that each individual object (mortgage or poll) may be flawed, but if you get enough of them together, the problems will all average out and you have a very low risk of something bad happening. Well, something bad did happen. The quantitative models were massively wrong! We tried to avoid this problem by heavily modifying our polls-based-model with structural factors. Many of these structural variables - economic context, political momentum, Obama's approval rating - actually did not favor Clinton. Our model therefore consistently gave Donald Trump between 35-45% probability of winning the election, on average three and four times higher than other popular quant models. This caused us to warn clients that our view on the election was extremely cautious and recommend hedges. In fact, Donald Trump had 41% chance of winning the race on election night, according to the last iteration of our model, a very high probability.20 3. Professor Lichtman was right: Political science professor Allan Lichtman has once again accurately called the election - for the ninth time. The result on Nov. 8 strongly supports his life's work that presidential elections in the United States are popular referendums on the incumbent party of the last four years. Structural factors undid the Democrats (Table II-3), and none of the campaign rhetoric, cross-country barnstorming, or "horse race" polling mattered a whit. The Republicans had momentum from previous midterm elections, Clinton had suffered a strong challenge in her primary, the Obama administration's achievements over the past four years were negligible (the Affordable Care Act passed in his first term). These factors, along with the political cycle itself, favored the Republicans. Trump's lack of charisma did not negate the structural support for a change of ruling party. Investors should take note: no amount of mathematical horsepower, big data, or Silicon Valley acumen was able to beat the qualitative, informed, contemplative work of a single historian. Table II-3Lichtman's Thirteen Keys To The White House* De-Globalization De-Globalization 4. Non-linearity of politics: Lichtman's method calls attention to the danger of linear assumptions and quantitative modeling in attempting the art of political prediction. Big data and quantitative econometric and polling models have notched up key failures this year. They cannot make subjective judgments regarding whether a president has had a major foreign policy success or failure or a major policy innovation - on all three of those counts, the Democrats failed from 2012-16. There really is no way to quantify political risk because human and social organizations often experience paradigm shifts that are characterized by non-linearity. Newtonian Laws will always work on planet earth and as such we are not concerned about what will happen to us if we board an airplane. Laws of physics will not simply stop working while we are mid-air. However, social interactions and political narratives do experience paradigm shifts. We have identified several since 2011: geopolitical multipolarity, de-globalization, end of laissez-faire consensus, end of Chimerica, and global loss of confidence in elites and institutions.21 5. No country is immune to decaying institutions: The United States has, with few exceptions, the oldest written constitution among major states, and it ensures checks and balances. But recent decades have shown that the executive branch has expanded its power at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches. Moreover, executives have responded to major crisis - like the September 11 attacks and the 2008 financial crisis - with policy responses that were formulated haphazardly, ideologically divisive, and difficult to implement: the Iraq War and the Affordable Care Act. The result is that the jarring events that have blindsided America over the past sixteen years have resulted in wasted political capital and deeper polarization. The failure of institutions has opened the way for political parties to pursue short-term gains at the expense of their "partners" across the aisle, and to bend and manipulate procedural rules to achieve ends that cannot be achieved through consensus and compromise. 6. U.S. is shifting leftward when it comes to markets: Inequality and social immobility have, with Trump's election, entered the conservative agenda, after having long sat on the liberals' list of concerns. The shift in white blue-collar Midwestern voters toward Trump reflects the fact that voters are non-partisan in demanding what they want: they want to retain their existing rights, privileges, and entitlements, and to expand their wages and social protections. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Except that it is better armed. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "U.S. Election: Trump's Arrested Development," dated November 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 However, Wisconsin polling was rather poor as most pollsters assumed that it was a shoe-in for Democrats. One problem with polling in Midwest states is that they were, other than Pennsylvania and Ohio, assumed to be safe Democratic states. Note for example the extremely tight result in Minnesota and the absolute dearth of polling out of that state throughout the last several months. 4 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. General Elections And Scenarios: Implications," dated July 11, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It," dated November 4, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Only a two-thirds majority of Congress, or a ruling by a federal court, can undo an executive action, and that is exceedingly rare. The real check on executive orders is the rotation of office: a president can undo with the stroke of a pen whatever his predecessor enacted. Congress has the power of the purse, but it is sporadic in its oversight and has challenged less than 5% of executive orders, even though those orders often re-direct the way the executive branch uses funds Congress has allocated. More often, Congress votes to codify executive orders rather than nullify them. 10 Trump is not alone in calling for renegotiating or even abandoning NAFTA. Clinton called for renegotiation in 2008, and Senator Bernie Sanders has done so in 2016. 11 In Proclamation 4074, dated August 15, 1971, Nixon suspended all previous presidential proclamations implementing trade agreements insofar as was required to impose a new 10% surcharge on all dutiable goods entering the United States. He justified it in domestic law by invoking the president's authority and previous congressional acts authorizing the president to act on behalf of Congress with regard to trade agreement negotiation and implementation (including tariff levels). He justified the proclamation in international law by referring to international allowances during balance-of-payments emergencies. 12 The "primary dimension" of Chart II-8 is represented by the x-axis and is the liberal-conservative spectrum on the basic role of the government in the economy. The "second dimension" (y-axis) depends on the era and is picking up regional differences on a number of social issues such as the civil rights movement (which famously split Democrats between northern Liberals and southern Dixiecrats). 13 We have penned two such efforts ourselves. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Polarization In America: Transient Or Structural Risk?," dated October 9, 2013, and "A House Divided Cannot Stand: America's Polarization," dated July 11, 2012," available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone. New York: Simon and Schuster. 15 Please see Martin Prosperity Institute, "Segregated City," dated February 23, 2015, available at martinprosperity.org. 16 Please see BuzzFeedNews, "Hyperpartisan Facebook Pages Are Publishing False And Misleading Information At An Alarming Rate," dated October 20, 2016, available at buzzfeed.com. 17 Nonetheless, due to the third-party candidate George Wallace carrying the then traditionally-Democratic South, Nixon managed to win the Electoral College in a landslide. 18 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "You've Been Trumped!," dated October 21, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 For comparison, Steph Curry, the greatest three-point shooter in basketball history, and a two-time NBA MVP, has a career three-point shooting average of 44%. With that average, he is encouraged to take every three-pointer he can by his team. In other words, despite being less than 50%, this is a very high percentage. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategy Outlook 2015 - Paradigm Shifts," dated January 21, 2015, and "Strategy Outlook 2016 - Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlight Growth perked up in the major economies in October, and the manufacturing recession appears to have passed without event. The October employment report testified to the underlying health of the U.S. economy and clears the way for a rate hike at the FOMC's December meeting. Markets are skeptical that December's hike will be the first in a series, opening the door for a dollar rally while the Fed moves to meet its projected timetable. Unconvinced that global growth is about to accelerate in a meaningful way, and concerned about the ripple effects of a stronger dollar, we maintain the defensive bias in our model portfolios. Feature October was a good month for growth, as highlighted by broadly encouraging data across the major developed economies. U.S. GDP had its best print in two years in the third quarter, and European PMIs, firmly ensconced above 50, point to Eurozone growth around 1.5%. The plunge in sterling appears to have sheltered the U.K. from the worst effects of Brexit, even if it has triggered some unease about inflation. Japan remains hobbled, but our Global Investment Strategy service argues that reduced fiscal drag and a weaker yen will boost growth. The October employment data painted a portrait of a vibrant U.S. labor market. Job gains remained steady while the broad U-6 measure of unemployment, including discouraged job seekers and those working part time who would prefer to be working full time, fell by two ticks to a new post-crisis low (Chart 1). Consistent with the shrinking pool of idled workers, average hourly earnings surged, notching their biggest year-over-year gains of the expansion. The pickup in wages rekindled hopes of a virtuous circle linking hiring, wages, consumption, capex and more hiring. Chart 1The Supply Of Idled Workers Is Shrinking The Supply Of Idled Workers Is Shrinking The Supply Of Idled Workers Is Shrinking One GDP print does not make a trend, of course, and the hoped-for inflection point has remained out of reach throughout the post-crisis period (Chart 2 and Chart 3). Aggregate demand remains mushy even if it is improving. Forward-looking markets typically take their cues from direction rather than level, and punk post-crisis growth certainly hasn't hurt U.S. equities. The valuation backdrop has become much less hospitable, however, and the Fed appears less inclined to spike the punch bowl with its most potent fuel. The unsettled picture could make for a bumpy U.S. equity ride, especially if markets have become overly complacent about the pace of rate hikes. Chart 2The Post-Crisis Inflection: Ever In Sight... bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_09_001_c2 bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_09_001_c2 Chart 3...But Always Out Of Reach bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_09_001_c3 bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_09_001_c3 Economic Growth In The U.S. And Beyond What matters most to markets, a metric's current position (level), or its path (direction)? Favoring direction is generally a reliable stock market rule of thumb, though it's not always easy to recognize in real time. The key challenge for investors today is determining if the recent improvements are short-lived wiggles or a true inflection point. It would be helpful to know if extraordinary policy measures can boost organic growth or if they will simply redistribute it via exchange-rate adjustments. Measures of global trade are inconclusive. While things look much better in hubs like Korea and Taiwan (Chart 4), aggregate global trade volume is still mired in a one-step-forward, one-step-back pattern around the zero line (Chart 5). Isolated improvements in a handful of economies against a flat global backdrop highlight that a broad rebound has yet to take hold. Signs of life in individual countries should not be written off - it is promising that Korean and Taiwanese exports have staged their rebounds despite steady exchange-rate gains - but overall global export activity remains at a level more commonly associated with recessions than quickening expansions. Chart 4Some Exporters Are Stirring... Some Exporters Are Stirring... Some Exporters Are Stirring... Chart 5...But Aggregate Trade Is Stagnant ...But Aggregate Trade Is Stagnant ...But Aggregate Trade Is Stagnant Global PMI data are more broadly encouraging. Major-economy manufacturing PMIs are at levels consistent with decent growth and are sending a message, echoed by G7 industrial production (Chart 6), that the manufacturing recession is over. Although manufacturing typically accounts for less than a third of major-economy activity, its cyclicality helps it punch above its weight, and industrial slowdowns have the potential to trigger recessions. This time around, manufacturing failed to heat up enough to induce a broader slowdown and reliable recession signals are quiet (Chart 7). Chart 6The End Of The Manufacturing Recession The End Of The Manufacturing Recession The End Of The Manufacturing Recession Chart 7No Recession In Sight No Recession In Sight No Recession In Sight The October employment situation report was solidly encouraging. The U.S. labor market has found firm footing. Job gains have been remarkably steady, and our employment model projects they will persist, even if at a slightly slower pace (Chart 8). Both the average hourly earnings series and the Atlanta Fed's wage tracker show that rank-and-file workers are finally capturing some real income gains (Chart 9). Chart 8When The Economy Tests NAIRU... bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_09_001_c8 bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_09_001_c8 Chart 9...Wages Get A Boost bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_09_001_c9 bca.bcasr_sr_2016_11_09_001_c9 Third Quarter Earnings Season S&P 500 operating earnings present another level/direction dichotomy. Per Standard & Poor's projections,1 trailing four-quarter operating earnings will finish the quarter 11% below their 3Q14 high-water mark (Chart 10, top). But the direction is as strong as the level is weak. Not only does this quarter mark the first year-over-year earnings gain since 3Q14, it is the second strongest since the pace of earnings growth normalized in 2012 (Chart 10, bottom). Chart 10Breaking Out Of The Earnings Recession Breaking Out Of The Earnings Recession Breaking Out Of The Earnings Recession Margins widened and earnings grew broadly across sectors without a clear cyclical or defensive theme. Rate sensitives achieved the strongest top-line growth, but endured margin contraction (Chart 11). Looking ahead, margins seem more likely to contract than expand in the coming quarters, given building wage pressures. On the other hand, an end to the sharp declines in Energy earnings will remove a drag that has weighed on S&P 500 results for several quarters. Chart 11Margins' Last Gasp? Spotlight On U.S. Equities Spotlight On U.S. Equities Margins' seeming inability to defy budding wage gains makes it unclear exactly how investors should position themselves, but the outlook for the dollar could provide some insight. Multinationals are prominent among the S&P 500's largest constituents, and since 2011, the broad trade-weighted dollar index has exhibited a robust negative correlation with S&P 500 earnings. Peak acceleration in the dollar has led earnings troughs by a quarter or two and earnings growth has quickened when the dollar has consolidated or retraced its gains (Chart 12). In a rising-dollar environment, U.S. firms competing globally face the unpalatable choice of protecting their margins and ceding share, or ceding share to defend their margins. Chart 12Strong Dollar, Weak Earnings Strong Dollar, Weak Earnings Strong Dollar, Weak Earnings Fed Policy: The Known Unknown Chart 13Markets Are Sleeping On The Fed Markets Are Sleeping On The Fed Markets Are Sleeping On The Fed The Fed has evinced a clear desire to hike rates, and investors know that it will be withdrawing accommodation at the edges. But the terminal fed funds rate for this cycle, and the pace at which the FOMC approaches it, are unknown. Market expectations, as implied by OIS2 contracts, reveal that investors have become complacent about the pace of hikes. While the consensus expects a quarter-point hike at the FOMC's December meeting, money markets are discounting just an 11% chance of a second 25-bps hike by the end of October 2017 (Chart 13, top panel), and a 75% chance of a second hike by the end of October 2018 (Chart 13, bottom panel). The Fed's dot-plot rate hike forecasts have been laughably off the mark, and to this point investors have tuned them out to their benefit. The preconditions for a progression of hikes seem to be coming together, however, as labor slack disappears, wage pressures emerge and the output gap steadily narrows. Every FOMC voter or regional Fed president who's stepped within range of an open microphone the last few weeks has gone out of his or her way to endorse the notion that two 2017 rate hikes are reasonable, and those with a more hawkish bent appear to be comfortable with three. Viewed beside the data and the guidance, markets seem to be in denial. Currency exchange rates are subject to multiple cross-currents, but policy rate differentials have taken a leading role since the dollar's surge began in the second half of 2014. Some Fed hikes are already baked into the EUR-USD and USD-JPY crosses, but the implied expectation that it could take two years for the FOMC to lift the fed funds rate by 50 bps suggests that the path of least resistance for the dollar is up. The implications for global equity positioning point to favoring Europe- and Japan-based multinationals (on a currency-hedged basis) over their U.S. counterparts. They also argue for caution around emerging market assets, as a stronger dollar is a drag on commodity prices, makes it more difficult for domestic borrowers to service dollar-denominated debt, and imperils the supply of external capital that helps fund fiscal deficits. Investment Implications Putting it all together, we continue to favor a defensive stance. Real rates haven't budged during the post-Brexit sovereign yield backup (Chart 14, top panel), which has entirely been a function of less depressed term premiums (Chart 14, middle panel) and varying increases in inflation expectations (Chart 14, bottom panel). We are not yet convinced that the quickening in growth measures is anything other than one more of the false dawns that have been a regular feature of the last several years. We also see the uncertainty accompanying the Fed's turn away from accommodation at the margin as carrying considerable potential for disruption. It seems overly optimistic to think that policy makers will be able to shift course without causing at least a hiccup or two. With the S&P 500 trading at an elevated forward multiple (Chart 15), U.S. equities have little if any cushion against disappointment. Chart 14Bonds Aren't Pricing In Better Growth Bonds Aren't Pricing In Better Growth Bonds Aren't Pricing In Better Growth Chart 15Little Cushion Against Disappointment Little Cushion Against Disappointment Little Cushion Against Disappointment Maintaining a defensive portfolio bias is consistent with our qualms about growth and the potential for policy hiccups. We attribute cyclical sectors' outperformance relative to defensive sectors to technical rather than fundamental factors. Cyclicals had become oversold relative to defensives, as had emerging markets, at a time when the dollar needed to take a break from its upward sprint. We view the whole commodity/cyclical/EM complex as participating in a countertrend rally. We are vigilant, however, and we are asking ourselves where we could be getting it wrong even more frequently than usual. Many of the defensive spaces we currently favor have been bid up to levels where they would not seem to have any cushion at all. It is not comforting to invest on the basis of overshoots that are expected to become even more extended, but that is life with TINA in the ZIRP/NIRP era. Our model portfolios have underperformed over their first four weeks thanks to our income hybrids' underperformance versus plain-vanilla fixed income and defensives' underperformance versus cyclicals, but we think they will enhance the overall portfolios' risk-adjusted return profiles over time. The lack of a credible recession threat argues for maintaining our underweight in plain-vanilla fixed income products, but uncomfortably tight high-yield spreads have us concentrating our spread product exposure in the investment-grade space. We maintain our (currency-hedged) equity tilts toward Europe and Japan, and away from the U.S., largely on our expectations for ongoing dollar strength. That view also informs our allocations to mid- and small-cap U.S. equities, which are more domestically focused than their large- and mega-cap counterparts. Our Fed view underpins our dollar expectations, and any change in our policy take would result in portfolio changes. We will undertake a comprehensive view of our model portfolios in December, once they have two months of performance under their belts. Postscript: Dewey Defeats Truman Global ETF Strategy has a cyclical, not a tactical, orientation. Our process is directed toward catching cyclical moves and we avoid the chasing-our-own-tail spiral of trying to handicap short-term wiggles. As a result, when this report went to press Tuesday afternoon, we looked through the election and rejected tweaking our portfolios to position for any particular outcome. While we were surprised by the results of the election, our U.S. portfolios' domestic orientation, and the generally defensive cast to all of our portfolios, should help insulate them from any incremental volatility that may ensue over the rest of the year. The immediate market reaction soundly rejected our stance on the course of Fed rate hikes, but we think investors may change their tune given more time to reflect. We think it is far from certain that the Fed will tear up its playbook. Upheaval in the financial markets could well stay the FOMC's hand in December, but the first half hour of New York trading suggests that the potential for upheaval was rather overhyped. We do not see why the election results would have any impact on the labor market and the creeping upward pressure on wages. Markets are said to hate uncertainty and the actions of a Trump administration are surely harder to predict than the actions of a Clinton administration. We are not going to become traders, but we will be more vigilant over the two-plus months before the Inauguration and the first weeks of the new administration. We will adopt a more tactical orientation if conditions warrant, but we are not acting hastily now. We expect that there will be a lot of head fakes before markets find their true course. Doug Peta, Vice President Global ETF Strategy dougp@bcaresearch.com 1 With 84% of S&P 500 constituents having reported through November 3rd, Standard & Poor's projected year-over-year growth in operating earnings of nearly 14%. 2 Overnight index swaps (OIS) are our preferred vehicle for deriving rate hike expectations because they represent contracts between real-life market participants and are thus more reliable than survey measures.

Highlights De-globalization is accelerating. Europe is holding together, with populism in check. China power consolidation reflects extreme risks. Brexit is more likely, not less, after court ruling. Feature Chart I-1America Has Soured On Globalization De-Globalization De-Globalization The world woke up on Wednesday to President-elect Donald J. Trump. It will take time for the markets to digest the new regime in Washington D.C., but something tells us that it will not be business-as-usual over the next four years. We give our post-mortem assessment in the enclosed In Focus Special Report, starting on page 28. The divisive campaign reached epic lows in decorum and polarization, but both candidates did have one major thing in common: They shared a negative view of globalization, representing a paradigm shift in geopolitics and macroeconomics. Investors often take policymakers to be agents of political supply. Political rhetoric is taken seriously, analyzed, and its implications for various assets are discussed with confidence. But this approach gets the causality all wrong. Politicians are merely supplying what the political marketplace is demanding. In those terms, Donald Trump was not an agent of change. He was merely a product of his environment. So what is the American median voter demanding? Judging by the success of Donald Trump - and Senator Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary race - the answer is less free trade, more government spending, and a promise to keep entitlement spending at current, largely unsustainable levels. Americans empirically support globalization at a lower level than the average of advanced, emerging, or developing economies (Chart I-1). What is the problem with globalization? In our 2014 report titled "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," we argued that globalization was under assault due to three dynamics:1 Deflation is politically pernicious: Globalization was one of the greatest supply-side shocks in recent history and thus exerted a strong deflationary force (Chart I-2). A persistently low growth environment that flirts with deflation is unacceptable for the majority of the population in advanced economies. Citizens have already experienced a combination of wage suppression and debt escalation. And while globalization produced disinflationary forces on the price of labor and tradeable goods, it has done little to check the rising costs of education, health care, child care, and housing (Chart I-3), which cannot be outsourced to China or Mexico. Chart I-2Globalization Was A Major Supply-Side Shock Globalization Was A Major Supply-Side Shock Globalization Was A Major Supply-Side Shock Chart I-3You Can't Ship Daycare To China bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s1_c3 bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s1_c3 The death of the Debt Supercycle: The 2008 Great Recession shifted the demand curve inward. BCA coined the "debt supercycle" framework in the 1970s to characterize the overarching trend of rising debt in a world where political leaders, with the Great Depression and Second World War in the back of their mind, continually resorted to reflationary policies to overcome each new recession. However, the 2008 economic shock permanently shifted household preferences in the West, reducing demand by turning consumers into savers (Chart I-4A and Chart I-4B). This contributes to the global savings glut and reinforces the deflationary environment. Chart I-4AGlobal Demand Engine ... bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s1_c4a bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s1_c4a Chart I-4B...Is Not Coming Back bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s1_c4b bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s1_c4b Multipolarity: Global leadership by a dominant superpower can overcome ideological challenges and demand deficiencies by providing a consumer of last resort. In game-theory terms, such a global hegemon acts as an exogenous coordinator, turning a non-cooperative game into a cooperative one. But in today's world, geopolitical and economic power is becoming more diffuse. We know from history that intense competition between a number of leading nations imperils globalization (Chart I-5). This is particularly the case in a low-growth environment. Geopolitical and economic multipolarity increase market risk premiums. Chart I-5Multipolarity Imperils Globalization Multipolarity Imperils Globalization Multipolarity Imperils Globalization These factors imperiled globalization well before Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, and Nigel Farage came to dominate the news flow in 2016. The macroeconomic and geopolitical context guaranteed that anti-globalization rhetoric would prove successful at the ballot box. Chart I-6Sino-American Macroeconomic Symbiosis Ended##br## In 2008 Sino-American Symbiosis Is Over Sino-American Symbiosis Is Over Sino-American Symbiosis Is Over In addition to these structural challenges to globalization, the next U.S. administration will also have to handle the increasingly complex Sino-American relationship. The future of the post-Bretton Woods macroeconomic and geopolitical system will be decided by these two great powers. And we fear that both economic and geopolitical tensions will worsen.2 China and the U.S. are no longer in a symbiotic relationship. The close embrace between U.S. household leverage and Chinese export-led growth is over (Chart I-6). Today the Chinese economy is domestically driven, with government stimulus and skyrocketing leverage playing a much more important role than external demand. Chinese policymakers have a choice. They can double down on globalization and use competition and creative destruction to drive up productivity growth - moving the economy up the value chain. Or, they can use protectionism - particularly non-tariff barriers to trade - to defend their domestic market from competition.3 We expect that they will do the latter, especially in an environment where anti-globalization rhetoric is rising in the West. The problem with this choice, however, is that it breaks up the post-1979 quid-pro-quo between Washington and Beijing. The "quid" was the Chinese entry into global trade (including the WTO in 2001), which the U.S. supported; the "quo" was that Beijing would open up its economy as it became wealthy. Today, 45% of China's population is middle class, which makes China potentially the world's second largest market after the EU. If China decides not to share its middle class with the rest of the world, then the world will quickly move towards mercantilism.4 What should investors expect in a world that has less globalization, more populism, and rising Sino-American tensions? We think there are five structural investment themes afoot: Chart I-7Globalization And MNCs: A Tight Embrace bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s1_c7 bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s1_c7 Inflation is back: Globalization has been one of the most important pillars of a multi-decade deflationary era. If it is imperiled, political capital will swing from capitalists to the owners of labor. Sovereign bonds are not pricing in this paradigm shift, which is why investors should position themselves for the "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market."5 We are long German 10-year CPI swaps as a strategic play on this theme. USD strength: The market got the USD wrong. Trump is not bad for the greenback. More government spending and higher inflation will allow U.S. monetary policy to be tighter than that of its global peers. Furthermore, U.S. policymakers will not look to arrest the dollar bull market. "Main street" loves a strong dollar, particularly U.S. households and consumers. King Dollar will be the righteous agent of plebeian retribution against the patrician corporations used to getting their way on Capitol Hill. And finally, more geopolitical risk will mean more safe haven demand. RMB weakness: China needs to depreciate its currency in order to ease domestic monetary policy and is therefore constrained by its slowing and over-leveraged economy. But in doing so, it will export deflation and ensure that a trade war with the U.S. ensues. In addition, China's EM peers will suffer as their competitiveness vis-à-vis their main export market - China - declines. We expect that China will hasten its ongoing turn towards protectionism itself. This means that if investors want to take advantage of China's rise, they should buy Chinese companies, not the foreign firms looking to grab a share of China's middle-class market. Long defense stocks: Global multipolarity is correlated with armed conflict. We have played this theme by being long U.S. defense / short aerospace equities. Our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou, Chief Strategist of BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy, recommends investors initiate a structural overweight in the global defense index.6 Long SMEs / Short MNCs: A world with marginally less free trade, and marginally more populism, will favor domestically oriented sectors. Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the U.S., for example. Multinational corporations (MNCs) have particularly benefited from free trade and laissez faire economics. The relationship between globalization and S&P 500 operating earnings has been tight for the past 50 years (Chart I-7). Not anymore. In the new environment, investors will want to be long domestically-oriented sectors and economies against externally-oriented ones. These are structural themes supported by structural trends. We would have recommended these five investment themes irrespective of who won the U.S. election. In this Monthly Report, we focus on leadership races around the world. Our In Focus section gives a post-mortem on the U.S. presidential election. The rest of this Global Overview focuses on upcoming elections in Europe (as well as the December 4 Italian constitutional referendum) and the impending Chinese leadership rotation in 2017. We also give our two cents on recent developments related to Brexit in the U.K. Europe: Election Fever Continues Chart I-8Italian Referendum: Likely A 'No' Italian Referendum: Likely A "No" Italian Referendum: Likely A "No" The Netherlands, France, Germany, and potentially, Italy could all hold elections over the next 12 months, a recipe for market volatility. These four countries are part of the EMU-5 and account for 71% of the currency union's GDP and 66% of its population. Should investors expect a paradigm shift? We think the answer is yes, but surprisingly, not towards more Euroskepticism. Our view is that continental Europe - unlike its Anglo-Saxon peers, the U.K. and the U.S. - is actually moving marginally towards the center.7 The median voter in Europe is not becoming more Euroskeptic and even appears to support modest, pro-business, structural reforms! Wait... what? Indeed. Read on. Italy The constitutional referendum being held on December 4 remains too close to call, although we suspect that it will fail (Chart I-8). However, we doubt very much that the defeat of the government's position will initiate a sequence of events that takes Italy out of the euro area. As we argued in a recent Special Report titled "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," Italian policymakers are using Euroskepticism to extract concessions from Europe. But Italy is structurally constrained from exiting European institutions because of its bifurcated economy.8 Moreover, a failed referendum outcome is not a strategic risk to Europe: Euro support: Italians continue to support euro area membership, albeit at a lower level than in the past (Chart I-9). As such, the Euroskeptic Five Star Movement (M5S) has political reasons to become less opposed to euro area membership, as its anti-establishment peers have done in Greece, Portugal, and Spain. Bicameralism: If the constitutional referendum fails, then the Senate will remain a fully empowered chamber in the Italian Parliament. Given Italy's complicated electoral laws, M5S will be unable to capture both houses in Italy's notoriously bicameral legislative body, unless it does very well in the next election. But M5S has consistently trailed the incumbent, pro-establishment Democratic Party (PD) in the polls (Chart I-10). Sequence: As Diagram I-1 shows, the contingent probability of the December constitutional referendum leading to an Italian exit from the euro area is 1.2%. Chart I-9Italy & Euro: OK (For Now) bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s1_c9 bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s1_c9 Chart I-10Italy: Euroskeptics Peaking? bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s1_c10 bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s1_c10 Diagram I-1From Referendum To Referendum: Contingent Probability Of Italy ##br##Leaving The Euro Area Following The Constitutional Referendum Vote De-Globalization De-Globalization Investors should not translate our sanguine view into a positive view of Italy. As we outlined in the above-cited Special Report, we remain skeptical that Italy can improve its potential growth rate by boosting productivity. But there is a big leap between more-of-the-same in Italy and a euro area collapse. The Netherlands The anti-establishment and Euroskeptic Party for Freedom (PVV) is set to perform poorly in the upcoming March 15 Dutch election. Polls suggest that it will roughly repeat its 10% performance from the 2012 election (Chart I-11). This is extremely disappointing given its polling earlier in the year. PVV's support has collapsed recently, most likely the result of the immigration crisis abating (Chart I-12) and the Brexit referendum in June. Many Dutch may be interested in casting a protest vote against the establishment, but a large majority still support euro area membership (Chart I-13). As such, they are put off by the vociferous Euroskepticism represented by the PVV. Chart I-11The Netherlands: Euroskeptics Collapsing bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s1_c11 bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s1_c11 Chart I-12Read Our Chart: Migration Crisis Is Over bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s1_c12 bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s1_c12 Chart I-13The Netherlands & Euro: Love Affair bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s1_c13 bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s1_c13 The Netherlands is a very important euro area member state. Its economy is large enough that its views matter, despite its small population. Euroskepticism in the Netherlands is notable, but it does not mean that the country's leadership will contemplate a referendum on membership. More likely, the establishment will seek to counter the populist PVV by becoming stricter on immigration and looser on budget discipline. Investors can live with both. France The French election is a two-round affair that will be held on April 23 and May 7. The key question is who will win the November 20 primary of the center-right party, Les Républicains, formerly known as the Union for a Popular Movement. According to the latest polls, former Prime Minister (1995-1997) Alain Juppé is set to win the primary over former President Nicolas Sarkozy (Chart I-14). Who is Alain Juppé? The 70-year old has been the mayor of Bordeaux since 2006, but he is better remembered for the failed social welfare reforms (the Juppé Plan) that caused epic strikes in France back in 1995. He is pro-euro, pro-EU, and pro-economic reforms. In other words, he is everything that Brexit and Trump/Sanders/Corbyn are not. According to the latest polls, Juppé is a heavy favorite against the anti-establishment candidate Marine Le Pen (Chart I-15). This is unsurprising as Le Pen's popularity peaked in 2013, as we have been stressing to clients for years (Chart I-16). Chart I-14Please Google Alain Juppe... bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s1_c14 bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s1_c14 Chart I-15...The Next President Of France De-Globalization De-Globalization Chart I-16Le Pen's Popularity In A Secular Decline bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s1_c16 bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s1_c16 Why has Le Pen struggled to gain traction in an era of terrorism, migration crises, and the success of anti-establishment peers such as Brexiters and Donald Trump? There are two major reasons. First, she continues to oppose France's membership in the euro area, despite very large support levels for the common currency in the country (Chart I-17). Second, she is holding together a coalition of northern and southern National Front (FN) members. This coalition pins together a diverse group. Northern right-wing FN members are more akin to their Dutch peers, or the "alt-right" movement in the U.S. They are anti-globalization, anti-political correctness (PC), and anti-immigration - specifically, further immigration of Muslims to France. However, this northern FN faction is ambivalent on social issues such as homosexuality (in fact, many of Le Pen's closest advisors from the north of France are openly gay), and they oppose Islam from a position that Muslim immigrants are incompatible with French liberal values. The southern FN faction is far more traditionally conservative, drawing their roots from the old anti-Gaullist, staunchly Catholic right wing. When Le Pen loses the 2017 presidential election, it will spell doom for the National Front. The only thing holding the two factions together is her leadership. Therefore, not only is France likely to elect a pro-reform president from the political establishment, but also its anti-establishment, Euroskeptic movement may be facing an internal struggle. Germany The German federal election is expected to be held sometime after August 2017. Chancellor Angela Merkel faces a decline in popularity (Chart I-18) and a challenge from the populist Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), which performed well in two Lander (state) elections this year. Nonetheless, the migration crisis that rocked Merkel's hold on power has abated. As Chart I-12 shows, migrant flows into Europe peaked at 220,000 last October and began to plummet well before the EU-Turkey deal that the press continues to erroneously cite as the reason for the reduction in migrant flows. As we controversially explained at the height of the crisis, every migration crisis ultimately abates as border enforcement strengthens, liberal attitudes towards refugees wane, and the civil wars prompting the flow exhaust themselves.9 Germany's centrist parties maintain a massive lead over the upstart AfD and Die Linke, the left-wing successor of East Germany's Communist establishment (Chart I-19). However, AfD's successes in Mecklenburg West Pomerania and Berlin have prompted investors to ask whether it will garner greater national support in the general election. Chart I-17France & Euro: Loveless Marriage,##br## But Together For The Kids bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s1_c17 bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s1_c17 Chart I-18Merkel's Popularity Has Suffered,##br## But Stabilized Merkel's Popularity Has Suffered, But Stabilized Merkel's Popularity Has Suffered, But Stabilized Chart I-19There Is A##br## Lot Of Daylight... There Is A Lot Of Daylight... There Is A Lot Of Daylight... There Is A Lot Of Daylight... There Is A Lot Of Daylight... We doubt it. Both states are sort of oddballs in German politics. For example, Mecklenburg West Pomerania is known for a strong anti-establishment sentiment. AfD largely took votes away from the National Democratic Party (ultra-far-right, neo-Nazis) and Die Linke. These two parties won a combined 25% of the vote in 2011. In 2016, the combined anti-establishment vote, including AfD, was 33%. Clearly this is a notable gain for the non-centrist parties, but it is hardly a paradigm shift. In Berlin, the AfD gained a solid 14% of the vote, but the sensationalist media conveniently avoided mentioning that it came in fifth in the final count. By our "back-of-the-envelope" calculation, AfD managed to take only about 8% of the vote from establishment parties. The bulk of its success once again came from taking votes from other populist parties. For example, Berlin's Pirate Party - yes, "pirates" - took 8% of the vote in the last election and none in 2016. Nonetheless, we suspect that time may be running out for Angela Merkel. She has been in power since 2005 and many voters have lost confidence in her. Merkel may choose not to contest the election at the CDU party conference in early December, or she may step aside as the leader following the election. Why? Because polls suggest that Merkel's CDU will have to once again rely on a Grand Coalition with its center-left opponent, the SPD, to govern. Politically, this is a failure for Merkel as the Grand Coalition was always intended to be a one-term arrangement. If Merkel decides to retire, how will the ruling CDU choose its successor? The process is relatively closed off and dominated by the party elites. The Federal Executive Board of the CDU selects the candidates for chairperson and the party delegates must choose the leader with a majority. The outcome is largely preordained, and Merkel has typically won above 90% of the party congress delegate vote. The possibility of a chancellor from the CDU's Bavarian sister-party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), is also decided by the elites. Therefore, the likelihood of an anti-establishment candidate hijacking the CDU/CSU leadership is minimal. How will the markets react to Merkel's resignation? Investors are overstating Merkel's role as the "anchor" of euro area stability. She has, in fact, dithered multiple times throughout the crisis. In 2011, for example, Merkel delayed the decision on whether to set up a permanent euro area fiscal backstop mechanism due to upcoming Lander elections in Rhineland-Palatinate and Baden Württemberg. In addition, her likely successor will not mark a paradigm shift in terms of Germany's pro-euro outlook (Box I-1). Bottom Line: Investors may wake up in mid-2017 to find that the U.K. is firmly on its way out of the EU and that the U.S. is embroiled in deepening political polarization. Meanwhile, France and Spain will be led by reformist governments, Italy will remain in the euro area, and Germany will be mid-way through a rather boring electoral campaign featuring pro-euro establishment parties. What is keeping the European establishment in power? In early 2016, we argued that it was its large social welfare state. Unlike the laissez-faire economies of the U.S. and the U.K., European "socialism" has managed to redistribute the gains of globalization sufficiently to keep the populists at bay. As such, European voters are not flocking to populist alternatives, despite considerable challenges such as the migration crisis and terrorism. Populists are gaining votes in Europe nonetheless. To counter that trend, we should expect to see Europe's establishment parties turn more negative towards immigration, positive on fiscal activism, and more assertive towards security and defense policy. But on the key investment-relevant issue of euro area membership and European integration, we see the consensus remaining with the status quo. China: Xi Is A "Core" Leader... So What? Chinese President Xi Jinping's recent designation as the "core" of the Chinese leadership should be seen as a marginally market-positive event in an otherwise bleak outlook. Not because the president has a new title, but because of the underlying reality that he is consolidating power ahead of the 19th National Party Congress. Set for the fall of 2017, the Congress will feature a major rotation of top Communist Party leaders and mark the halfway point of his 10-year administration. The new title was not a surprise when it trickled out of the Chinese Communist Party's Sixth Plenary meeting on October 24-27. But the media took the opportunity once again to decry President Xi's "ever-expanding power."10 As our readers know, we do not think there has been a palace coup in China. That is, we do not think Xi has overthrown the "collective leadership" model, i.e. rule by the Politburo Standing Committee, established after the death of Chairman Mao.11 Instead, we think he is presiding over a major centralization phase in Chinese politics. Xi's status as the "core" feeds into the broader idea of re-centralization that we identified as a key theme for this administration when it began its term back in 2012.12 The Sixth Plenum reinforced this view in various ways:13 Xi is clearly in charge: A smattering of local party officials started calling him the core leader earlier this year, but now it has been endorsed in official documents at the highest level. Again, it is not the title itself that matters, but the fact that Xi compelled the whole party to give him the title. This distinguishes him from his two predecessors, Presidents Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin, and in this way he resembles his mighty predecessor Deng Xiaoping. Xi already developed a strong track record for re-centralizing the political system prior to receiving the new title.14 Collective leadership persists: Deng invented the idea of the "core" leader specifically as a way to assert the need for a top leader or chief executive without reverting to Maoist absolutism. The core leader is the supreme leader within a collective leadership system. This interpretation was expressly reaffirmed by the communique issued at the Sixth Plenum, which denounced ruling by a single person and praised the current system.15 Corruption purge has not split the party: The focus of the plenum was the Communist Party's rules for disciplining its own members. This specifically highlighted Xi's harsh anti-corruption campaign, which has netted numerous party officials, and has not yet concluded (Chart I-20). The fact that this campaign has continued longer than expected without prompting significant resistance shows that centralization is acceptable to the party (and anti-corruption is positive for the party's public image). Policy coherence could improve: A rash of rumors suggest that Xi will not only promote his allies but also tweak party rules and norms in order to ensure he retains a factional majority on the Politburo Standing Committee after 2017. This should be positive for policymaking since the cohort of leaders ready to rise up the ranks is weighted against his faction as a result of the previous administration's appointments. These developments would be negative if Xi avoids appointing successors next year and thus appears ready to cling to power beyond 2022.16 Unified government is a plus amid crisis: Deng initiated the "core leader" concept in the dark days after the Tiananmen massacre, when the party faced internal rifts and potential regime collapse. In other words, it is in times of crisis that the party needs to reaffirm that rule-by-committee still requires a final arbiter at the top. This latter point is the most relevant for investors. It suggests that China's party leadership perceives itself to be in the midst, or on the brink, of a crisis. Why should this be the case? There has been an improvement in China's economic situation in 2016 - stimulus efforts have stabilized the economy and growth momentum is picking up (Chart I-21). Economic relations with Asian nations are also improving. All of this information has supported the China bulls, who argue that China is not particularly overleveraged, still has a long way to go in terms of economic development, and needs to stimulate demand in order to outgrow any problems it faces from debt and overcapacity (Chart I-22). Chart I-20Anti-Corruption ##br##Campaign Reaccelerating Anti-Corruption Campaign Reaccelerating Anti-Corruption Campaign Reaccelerating Chart I-21Chinese Economy##br## Improved This Year Chinese Economy Improved This Year Chinese Economy Improved This Year Chart I-22Chinese Capacity Utilization: ##br##A Historical Perspective Chinese Capacity Utilization: A Historical Perspective Chinese Capacity Utilization: A Historical Perspective Nevertheless, the latest reflation efforts have peaked (Chart I-23), and there are clear warning signs for what lies ahead. The RMB continues to weaken, capital outflows may reaccelerate as a result, the yield curve is flattening, and economic policy uncertainty remains markedly elevated (Chart I-24). As such, the China bears argue that exorbitant credit growth cannot continue indefinitely (Chart I-25). When credit growth slows, the credit-reliant economy will slow too, and China will face a cascade of bad loans and insolvent companies and banks. Chart I-23Latest Mini-Stimulus##br## Is Over Latest Mini-Stimulus Is Over Latest Mini-Stimulus Is Over Chart I-24China:##br## Who Is Driving This Bus? China: Who Is Driving This Bus? China: Who Is Driving This Bus? Chart I-25China's Corporate And Household Credit: ##br##The Sky's The Limit? China's Corporate And Household Credit: The Sky'S The Limit? China's Corporate And Household Credit: The Sky'S The Limit? While economists can argue over the nature of things, politicians do not have that luxury: China's government must be prepared for the worst-case scenario. The China bears may be right even if their economic analysis proves overly pessimistic or poorly timed, because policymakers may eventually decide they must do more to tackle excessive leverage and overcapacity. Chart I-26Rebalancing Is Slowing Down Rebalancing Is Slowing Down Rebalancing Is Slowing Down An optimistic long-term assumption about Xi's consolidation of power has been that he eventually intends to use that power to pursue painful structural reforms, as outlined at the Third Plenum in 2013.17 However, the intervening three years have shown that he is pragmatic and does not want to impose aggressive reforms that would undercut an already weak and slowing economy (Chart I-26). Thus, deep reforms are only going to occur if they are forced upon the leaders as a result of an intense bout of instability, uncertainty, and market riots. The implication of this is that Xi is concentrating power in preparation for further crisis points that may be thrust upon his administration. For instance, if recent efforts to tamp down on property prices end up bursting the bubble, then eventually China could be plunged into socio-political (as well as financial) turmoil. By that time, the party would not be able to re-centralize and consolidate power carefully and gradually. It would either have loyal tools at its disposal already, or would lose precious time (and likely make mistakes) trying to assemble them. Thus Xi's moves to consolidate power are marginally market-positive in an overall negative climate. He is making himself and the Politburo Standing Committee better prepared to handle a crisis, which suggests that he believes that a crisis is either occurring or close at hand. In short, the Communist Party is girding for war; a war for regime stability if and when the massive credit risks materialize. What about the 19th National Party Congress, set to take place next fall? We will revisit this topic in the future, but for now the key point is this: It would require a surprise and/or a new political dynamic to prevent Xi from getting his way in forming the Politburo Standing Committee next year. While there is a mixed record of policy stimulus for the years preceding the Chinese midterm leadership reshuffle, we certainly do not expect aggressive structural reforms to occur before then (Chart I-27). Policy tightening in the real estate sector and SOE restructuring efforts will be gradual. Chart I-27Unimpressive Record Of Stimulus Before Five-Year Party Congresses Unimpressive Record Of Stimulus Before Five-Year Party Congresses Unimpressive Record Of Stimulus Before Five-Year Party Congresses Only around the time of the party congress will it be possible to find out whether Xi wants his administration to be remembered for anything other than power consolidation - such as ambitious reforms. One reform effort we are confident will continue amid rising centralization, however, is tougher government policy against pollution. Pollution threatens social stability, especially among the restless new middle class, and stimulus efforts perpetuate the heavily polluting industries. Environmental spending has been the biggest growth category in government spending under Premier Li Keqiang.18 To capitalize on the darkening short-term outlook for stocks and Xi's policy momentum, we suggest shorting Chinese utilities, whose profit margins and share prices trade inversely with rising environmental spending (Chart I-28). Bottom Line: We remain overweight China relative to EM: The government has resources and is unified. However, the long-term outlook is mixed. Investors should steer clear of Chinese risk assets in absolute terms. Short utilities as a play on rising environmental spending and regulation, and stay short the RMB. Brexit Update: The "Legion Memorial" Is Alive And Well Chart I-28Anti-Pollution Push Hurts Utilities Anti-Pollution Push Hurts Utilities Anti-Pollution Push Hurts Utilities The Brexit movement encountered its first apparent setback last week when the country's High Court ruled that parliament must vote on invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to initiate the withdrawal from the European Union. We have always held a high-conviction view that parliament approval would ultimately be necessary, as we wrote in July.19 But, politically, it matters a great deal whether parliament votes before or after the exit negotiations. The High Court ruling is an obstacle to the government's Brexit plan because it could result in (1) the parliament's outright blocking Brexit, though this outcome is highly unlikely; (2) the parliament's insisting on a "soft Brexit" that leaves U.K.-EU relations substantially the same as before the referendum on matters like immigration and market access. However, the saga is nowhere near finished. The government is appealing the ruling, the Welsh assembly is contesting the appeal, and the Supreme Court will decide the matter in December. Until then, we expect U.K. markets to benefit marginally, ceteris paribus, from the belief that the odds of a soft Brexit are rising. Investors could be encouraged by the continuation of monetary stimulus and a new blast of fiscal stimulus, which we think will surprise to the upside on November 23 when the annual Autumn Statement is released by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The High Court-prompted rebound in U.K. assets will remain vulnerable for the following reasons: The Supreme Court has not yet ruled: It is not certain that the Supreme Court will uphold the High Court's insistence on a parliamentary role. Both views have legitimate arguments and the issue is not settled until the Supreme Court rules. Parliament's role is political, not merely legal: Assuming parliament gets to vote on whether to trigger the process of leaving the EU, the decision will depend on politics. For instance, it is highly unlikely that the Commons will flatly reject the popular referendum, and the House of Lords can at best delay it. Yes, parliament is sovereign, but that is because it represents the people. While the 1689 Glorious Revolution established the Bill of Rights and parliamentary supremacy, in as early as 1701 there was a crisis over whether parliament should flatly overrule popular will. At that time, the writer Daniel Defoe, representing "the people," delivered the so-called Legion Memorial directly to the Speaker of the Commons. It read: "Our name is Legion, for we are Many."20 Parliament backed down. The politics of the moment favor the government: Polling shows a stark divergence in popular opinion since the referendum in favor of the Tories (Chart I-29). This is a clear signal - on top of the referendum outcome and the sweeping Tory election win in 2015 - that the popular will favors leaving the European Union. It is also a clear signal that Prime Minister Theresa May has the mandate to do it her way. Her approval rating has waned a bit (Chart I-30), but she is still supported by nearly half the population. If the government fails to win parliamentary support on Brexit, it would likely lead to a vote of no confidence and early elections. Yet the current dynamics suggest an early election would return a Conservative majority with a clear mandate to vote for Brexit. Until those dynamics undergo a change, "Brexit means Brexit." Economics favor the government: One danger for the anti-Brexit coalition is that the Supreme Court may compel a parliamentary vote in the near future. The economy has not yet suffered much from Brexit, whatever it may do in future, so there is little motivation for widespread "Bregret," i.e. the desire to reverse course and stay in the EU. By contrast, in two years' time, the negative economic consequences and uncertainties of the actual exit plan, combined with ebbing popular enthusiasm, would likely give parliament a stronger position from which to soften or reverse Brexit. Although Article 50 is arguably irrevocable, it seems hard to believe that the EU would not find a way to allow the U.K. to stay in the union if its domestic politics shifted in favor of staying, since that is clearly in the EU's interest. The President of the European Council Donald Tusk has implied as much.21 Chart I-29Brexit Helped Tories, Hurt Labour Brexit Helped Tories, Hurt Labour Brexit Helped Tories, Hurt Labour Chart I-30Prime Minister May's Popularity Still Strong De-Globalization De-Globalization From the arguments above we can draw three conclusions. First, parliament will not simply repudiate the popular referendum. Second, if parliament must vote, the political context suggests it will vote on a bill that substantially favors the government's approach toward Brexit. If that happens, the High Court ruling this week will be only a pyrrhic victory for the Bremain camp. However, parliamentary involvement does imply a softer Brexit than otherwise, and it is possible that parliament could extract major concessions. Third, the High Court ruling makes Brexit more, not less, likely. This is because it is forcing parliamentarians to vote on Brexit so early in the process, when Brexit's negative consequences are yet not evident. What do the latest Brexit twists and turns portend for European and global growth? We do not see them as particularly damaging. The British turn toward greater fiscal spending adds yet another to the list of those countries supporting one of our key investment themes: "The Return of G," or government spending.22 As we predicted, Canada is overshooting its budget deficits, Japan is engaging in coordinated monetary and fiscal stimulus, and Italy is expanding spending and daring Germany and the European Council to stop it, especially in the face of badly needed earthquake reconstruction and the ongoing immigration crisis (Chart I-31). Chart I-31G7 Fiscal Thrust Is Going Up De-Globalization De-Globalization This leaves the United States and Germany as two outstanding questions. The U.S. election means that Trump will launch potentially large spending increases with a GOP-held Congress. As for Germany, the CDU/CSU appears to be shifting toward more government spending, but the direction will not be clear until the election in the fall of 2017. Bottom Line: The High Court ruling has made Brexit more rather than less likely. By forcing the parliament to make a ruling on Brexit before the economic damage is clear, the High Court has put parliamentarians in the difficult position of going against the public. We are closing our long FTSE 100 / short FTSE 250 Brexit hedge in the meantime. The market may, incorrectly, price a lower probability of Brexit, while domestic stimulus will aid the home-biased FTSE 250. Nonetheless, we remain short U.K. REITs to capitalize on the long-term uncertainty, as well as negative cyclical and structural factors that are affecting commercial real estate. We also expect the GBP/USD to remain relatively weak and vulnerable relative to the pre-Brexit period. We would expect the GBP/USD to retest its mid-October-low of 1.184 over the next two years. BOX I-1 Likely Successors To German Chancellor Angela Merkel If Merkel decides to retire, who are her potential successors? Wolfgang Schäuble, Finance Minister (CDU): The bane of the financial community, Schäuble is seen as the least market-friendly option due to his hardline position on bailouts and the euro area. In our view, this is an incorrect interpretation of Schäuble's heavy-handedness. He is by all accounts a genuine Europhile who believes in the integrationist project. At 74 years old, he comes from a generation of policymakers who consider European integration a national security issue for Germany. He has pursued a tough negotiating position in order to ensure that the German population does not sour on European integration. Nonetheless, we doubt that he will chose to take on the chancellorship if Merkel retires. He suffered an assassination attempt in 1990 that left him paralyzed and he has occasionally had to be hospitalized due to health complications left from this injury. As such, it is unlikely that he would replace Merkel, but he may stay on as Finance Minister and thus be as close to a "Vice President" role as Germany has. Ursula von der Leyen, Defense Minister (CDU): Most often cited as the likely replacement for Merkel, Leyen nonetheless is not seen favorably by most of the population. She is a strong advocate of further European integration and has supported the creation of a "United States of Europe." Leyen has gone so far as to say that the refugee crisis and the debt crisis are similar in that they will ultimately force Europe to integrate further. As a defense minister, she has promoted the creation of a robust EU army. She has also been a hardliner on Brexit, saying that the U.K. will not re-enter the EU in her lifetime. While the markets and pro-EU elites in Europe would love Leyen, the problem is that her Europhile profile may disqualify her from chancellorship at a time when most CDU politicians are focusing on the Euroskeptic challenge from the right. Thomas De Maizière, Interior Minster (CDU): Maizière is a former Defense Minister and a close confidant of Chancellor Merkel. He was her chief of staff from 2005 to 2009. Like Schäuble, he is somewhat of a hawk on euro area issues (he drove a hard bargain during negotiations to set up a fiscal backstop, the European Financial Stability Fund, in 2010) and as such could be a compromise candidate between the Europhiles and Eurohawks within the CDU ranks. However, he has also been implicated in scandals as Defense Minister and may be tainted by the immigration crisis due to his position as the Interior Minister. Julia Klöckner, Executive Committee Member, Deputy Chair (CDU): A CDU politician from Rhineland-Palatinate, Klöckner is a socially conservative protégé of Merkel. While she has taken a more right-wing stance on the immigration crisis, she has remained loyal to Merkel otherwise. She is a staunch Europhile who has portrayed the Euroskeptic AfD as "dangerous, sometimes racist." We think that she would be a very pro-market choice as she combines the market-irrelevant populism of anti-immigration rhetoric with market-relevant centrism of favoring further European integration. Hermann Gröhe, Minister of Health (CDU): Gröhe is a former CDU secretary general and very close to Merkel. He is a staunch supporter of the euro and European integration. Markets would have no problem with Grohe, although they may take some time to get to know who he is! Volker Bouffier, Minister President of Hesse (CDU): As Minister President of Hesse, home of Germany's financial center Frankfurt, Bouffier may be disqualified from leadership due to his apparent close links with Deutsche Bank. Nonetheless, he is a heavyweight within the CDU's leadership and a staunch Europhile. Fritz Von Zusammenbruch, Hardline Euroskeptic (CDU): This person does not exist! Section II: U.S. Election: Outcomes & Investment Implications Highlights Trump won by stealing votes from Democrats in the Midwest. His victory implies a national shift to the left on economic policy. Checks and balances on Trump are not substantial in the short term. U.S. political polarization will continue. Trump is good for the USD, bad for bonds, neutral for equities. Favor SMEs over MNCs. Close long alternative energy / short coal. Feature "Most Americans do not find themselves actually alienated from their fellow Americans or truly fearful if the other party wins power. Unlike in Bosnia, Northern Ireland or Rwanda, competition for power in the U.S. remains largely a debate between people who can work together once the election is over." — Newt Gingrich, January 2, 2001 Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (and a potential Secretary of State pick), was asked on NBC's Meet the Press two days before the U.S. election whether he still thought that "competition for power in the U.S. remains largely a debate between people who can work together once the election is over." Gingrich made the original statement in January 2001, merely weeks after one of the most contentious presidential elections in U.S. history was resolved by the Supreme Court. Gingrich's answer in 2016? "I think, tragically, we have drifted into an environment where ... it will be a continuing fight for who controls the country." Despite an extraordinary victory - a revolution really - by Donald J. Trump, the fact of the matter remains that the U.S. is a polarized country between Republican and Democratic voters. As of publication time of this report, Trump lost the popular vote to Secretary Hillary Clinton. His is a narrower victory than either the epic Richard Nixon win in 1968 or George W. Bush squeaker in 2000. Over the next two years, the only thing that matters for the markets is that the U.S. has a unified government behind a Republican president-elect and a GOP-controlled Congress. We discuss the investment implications of this scenario below and caution clients to not over-despair. On the other hand, we also see this election as more evidence that America remains a deeply polarized country where identity politics continue to play a key role. What concerns us is that these identity politics appear to transcend the country's many cultural, ethical, political, and economic commonalities. Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are fusing into almost ethnic-like groupings. To bring it back to Gingrich's quote at the top, that would suggest that the U.S. is no longer that much different from Bosnia or Northern Ireland.23 Election Post-Mortem Chart II-1Election Polls Usually##br## Miss By A Few Points De-Globalization De-Globalization Donald Trump has won an upset over Hillary Clinton, but his campaign was not as much of a long-shot as the consensus believed. U.S. presidential polls have frequently missed the final tally by +/- 3% of the vote, which was precisely the end result of the 2016 election (Chart II-1). Therefore, as we pointed out in our last missive on the election, Trump's victory was not a "wild mathematical oddity."24 Why Did Trump Win The White House? Where Trump really did beat expectations was in the Midwest, and Wisconsin in particular. He ended up outperforming the poll-of-polls by a near-incredible 10%!25 His victories in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania were well within the range of expectations. For example, the last poll-of-polls had Trump leading in both Florida (by a narrow 0.2%) and Ohio (by a solid 3.5%), whereas Clinton was up in Pennsylvania by the slightest of margins (just 1.9% lead). He ended up exceeding poll expectations in all three (by 2% in Florida, 6% in Ohio, and 3% in Pennsylvania), but not by the same wild margin as in Wisconsin. When all is said and done, Trump won the 2016 election by stealing votes away from the Democrats in the traditionally "blue" Midwest states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. This was a far more significant result than his resounding victories in Ohio (which Obama won in 2012) or Florida (where Obama won only narrowly in 2012). Our colleague Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist of the Global Investment Strategy, correctly forecast that Trump would be competitive in all three Midwest states back in September 2015! We highly encourage our clients to read his "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," as it is one of the best geopolitical calls made by BCA in recent history.26 As Peter had originally thought, Trump cleaned up the white, less-educated, male vote in all of the three crucial Midwest states. He won 68% of this vote in Michigan, 71% in Pennsylvania, and 69% in Wisconsin. To do so, Trump campaigned as an unorthodox Republican, appealing to the blue-collar white voter by blaming globalization for their job losses and low wages, and by refusing to accept Republican orthodoxy on fiscal austerity or entitlement spending. Instead, Trump promised to outspend Clinton and protect entitlements at their current levels. This mix of an outsider, anti-establishment, image combined with a left-of-center economic message allowed Trump to win an extraordinary number of former Obama voters. Exit polls showed that Obama had a positive image in all three Midwest states, including with Trump voters! For example, 30% of Trump voters in Michigan approved of the job Obama was doing as president, 25% in Pennsylvania, and 27% in Wisconsin. That's between a quarter and a third of eventual people who cast their vote for Trump. These are the voters that Republicans lost in 2012 because they nominated a former private equity "corporate raider" Mitt Romney as their candidate. Romney had famously argued in a 2008 New York Times op-ed that he would have "Let Detroit go bankrupt." Obama repeatedly attacked Romney during the 2011-2012 campaign on this point. Back in late 2011, we suspected that this message, and this message alone, would win President Obama his re-election.27 Why is the issue of the Midwest Obama voters so important? Because investors have to know precisely why Donald Trump won the election. It wasn't his messages on immigration, law and order, race relations, and especially not the tax cuts he added to his message late in the game. It was his left-of-center policy position on trade and fiscal spending. Trump is beholden to his voters on these policies, particularly in the Midwest states that won him the election. Final word on race. Donald Trump actually improved on Mitt Romney's performance with African-American and Hispanic voters (Table II-1). This was a surprise, given his often racially-charged rhetoric. Meanwhile, Trump failed to improve on the white voter turnout (as percent of overall electorate) or on Romney's performance with white voters in terms of the share of the vote. To be clear, Republicans are still in the proverbial hole with minority voters and are yet to match George Bush's performance in 2004. But with 70% of the U.S. electorate still white in 2016, this did not matter. Table II-1Exit Polls: Trump's Win Was Not Merely About Race De-Globalization De-Globalization Congress: No Gridlock Ahead Republicans exceeded their expectations in the Senate, losing only one seat (Illinois) to Democrats. This means that the GOP control of the Senate will remain quite comfortable and is likely to grow in the 2018 mid-term elections when the Democrats have to defend 25 of 33 seats. Of the 25 Senate seats they will defend, five are in hostile territory: North Dakota, West Virginia, Ohio, Montana, and Missouri. In addition, Florida is always a tough contest. Republicans, on the other hand, have only one Senate seat that will require defense in a Democrat-leaning state: Nevada (and in that case, it will be a Republican incumbent contesting the race). Their other seven seats are all in Republican voting states. As such, expect Republicans to hold on to the Senate well into the 2020 general election. In the House of Representatives, the GOP will retain its comfortable majority. The Tea Party affiliated caucuses (Tea Party Caucus and the House Freedom Caucus) performed well in the election. The Tea Party Caucus members won 35 seats out of 38 they contested and the House Freedom Caucus won 34 seats out of 37 it contested. The race to watch now is for the Speaker of the House position. Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the incumbent House, is likely to contest the election again and win. Even though his support for Donald Trump was lukewarm, we expect Republicans to unify the party behind Trump and Ryan. A challenge from the right could emerge, but we doubt it will materialize given Trump's victory. The campaign for the election will begin immediately, with Republicans selecting their candidate by December (the official election will be in the first week of January, but it is a formality as Republicans hold the majority). Bottom Line: Trump's victory was largely the product of former Obama voters in the Midwest switching to the GOP candidate. This happened because of Trump's unorthodox, left-of-center, message. Trump will have a friendly Congress to work with for the next four years. How friendly? That question will determine the investment significance of the Trump presidency. Investment Relevance Of A United Government Most clients we have spoken to over the past several months believe that Donald Trump will be constrained on economic policies by a right-leaning Congress. His more ambitious fiscal spending plans - such as the $550 billion infrastructure plan and $150 billion net defense spending plan - will therefore be either "dead on arrival" in Congress, or will be significantly watered down by the legislature. Focus will instead shift to tax cuts and traditional Republican policies. We could not disagree more. GOP is not fiscally conservative: There is no empirical evidence that the GOP is actually fiscally conservative. First, the track record of the Bush and Reagan administrations do not support the adage that Republicans keep fiscal spending in check when they are in power (Chart II-2). Second, Republican voters themselves only want "small government" when the Democrats are in charge of the White House (Chart II-3). When a Republican President is in charge, Republicans forget their "small government" leanings. Chart II-2Republicans Are##br## Not Fiscally Responsible Republicans Are Not Fiscally Responsible Republicans Are Not Fiscally Responsible Chart II-3Big Government Is Only ##br##A Problem For Opposition bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s2_c3 bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s2_c3 Presidents get their way: Over the past 28 years, each new president has generally succeeded in passing their signature items. Congress can block some but probably not all of president's plans. Clinton, Bush, and Obama each began with their own party controlling the legislature, which gave an early advantage that was later reversed in their second term. Clinton lost on healthcare, but achieved bipartisan welfare reform. For Obama, legislative obstructionism halted various initiatives, but his core objectives were either already met (healthcare), not reliant on Congress (foreign policy), or achieved through compromise after his reelection (expiration of Bush tax cuts for upper income levels). Median voter has moved to the left: Donald Trump won both the GOP primary and the general election by preaching an unorthodox, left-of-center sermon. He understood correctly that the American voter preferences on economic policies have moved away from Republican laissez-faire orthodoxies.28 Yes, he is also calling for significant lowering of both income and corporate tax rates. However, tax cuts were never a focal point of his campaign, and he only introduced the policy later in the race when he was trying to get traditional Republicans on board with his campaign. Newsflash: traditional Republicans did not get Trump over the hump, Obama voters in the Midwest did! Investors should make no mistake, the key pillars of Trump's campaign are de-globalization, higher fiscal spending, and protecting entitlements at current levels. And he will pursue all three with GOP allies in Congress. What are the investment implications of this policy mix? USD: More government spending, marginally less global trade, and pressure on multi-national corporations (MNCs) to scale back their global operations should be positive for inflation. If growth surprises to the upside due to fiscal spending, it will allow the Fed to hike more than the current 57 bps expected by the market by the end of 2018. Given easy monetary stance of central banks around the world, and lack of significant fiscal stimulus elsewhere, economic growth surprise in the U.S. should be positive for the dollar in the long term. At the moment, the market is reacting to the Trump victory with ambivalence on the USD. In fact, the dollar suffered as Trump's probability of victory rose in late October. We believe that this is a temporary reaction. We see both Trump's fiscal and trade policies as bullish. BCA's currency strategist Mathieu Savary believes that the dollar could therefore move in a bifurcated fashion in the near term. On the one hand, the dollar could rise against EM currencies and commodity producers, but suffer - or remain flat - against DM currencies such as the EUR, CHF, and JPY.29 Bonds: More inflation and growth should also mean that the bond selloff continues. In addition, if our view on globalization is correct, then the deflationary effects of the last three decades should begin to reverse over the next several years. BCA thesis that we are at the "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market" should therefore remain cogent.30 As one of our "Trump hedges," our colleague Rob Robis, Chief Strategist of the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy, suggested a 2-year / 30-year Treasury curve steepener. This hedge is now up 18.7 bps and we suggest clients continue to hold it. Fed policy: Trump's statements about monetary policy have been inconsistent. Early on in his campaign he described himself as "a low interest rate guy", but he has more recently become critical of current Federal Reserve policy - and Fed Chair Janet Yellen in particular - claiming that while higher interest rates are justified, the Fed is keeping them low for "political reasons." What seems certain is that Janet Yellen will be replaced as Fed Chair when her term expires in February 2018. Yellen is unlikely to resign of her own volition before then and it would be legally difficult for the President to remove a sitting Fed Chair prior to the end of her term. But Trump will get the opportunity to re-shape the composition of the Fed's Board of Governors as soon as he is sworn in. There are currently two empty seats on the Board need to be filled and given that many of Trump's economic advisers have "hard money" leanings, it is very likely that both appointments will go to inflation hawks. Equities: In terms of equities, Trump will be a source of uncertainty for U.S. stocks as the market deals with the unknown of his presidency. In addition, markets tend to not like united government in the U.S. as it raises the specter of big policy moves (Table II-2). However, Trump should be positive for sectors that sold off in anticipation of a Clinton victory, such as healthcare and financials. We also suspect that he will continue the outperformance of defense stocks, although that would have been the case with Clinton as well. Table II-2Election: Industry Implications De-Globalization De-Globalization In the long term, Trump's proposal for major corporate tax cuts should be good for U.S. equities. However, we are not entirely sure that this is the case. First, the effective corporate tax rate in the U.S. is already at its multi-decade lows (Chart II-4). As such, any corporate tax reform that lowers the marginal rate will not really affect the effective rate. Why does this matter? Because major corporations already have low effective tax rates. Any lowering of the marginal rate will therefore benefit the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and the domestic oriented S&P 500 corporations. If corporate tax reform also includes closing loopholes that benefit the major multi-national corporations (MNCs), then Trump's policy will not necessarily benefit all firms in the U.S. equally. Chart II-4How Low Can It Go? bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s2_c4 bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s2_c4 Investors have to keep in mind that Trump has not run a pro-corporate campaign. He has accused American manufacturing firms of taking jobs outside the U.S. and tech companies of skirting taxes. It is not clear to us that his corporate tax reform will therefore necessarily be a boon for the stock market. In the long term, we like to play Trump's populist message by favoring America's SMEs over MNCs. If we are ultimately correct on the USD and growth, then export-oriented S&P 500 companies should suffer in the face of a USD bull market and marginally less globalization. Meanwhile, lowering of the marginal corporate tax rate will benefit the SMEs that do not get the benefit of K-street lobbyist negotiated tax loopholes. Global Assets: The global asset to watch over the next several weeks is the USD/RMB cross. China is forced by domestic economic conditions to continue to slowly depreciate its currency. We have expected this since 2015, which is why we have shorted the RMB via 12-month non-deliverable forwards (NDF). Risk to global assets, particularly EM currencies and equities, would be that Beijing decides to depreciate the RMB before Trump is inaugurated on January 20. This could re-visit the late 2015 panic over China, particularly the narrative that it is exporting deflation. Our view is that even if China does not undertake such actions over the next two months, Sino-American tensions are set to escalate. It is much easier for Trump to fulfill his de-globalization policies with China - a geopolitical rival with which the U.S. has no free trade agreement - than with NAFTA trade partners Canada and Mexico. This will only deepen geopolitical tensions between the two major global powers, which has been our secular view since 2011. Finally, a quick note on the Mexican peso. The Mexican peso has already collapsed half of its value in the past 18 months and we believe the trade is overdone. Investors have used the currency cross as a way to articulate Trump's victory probability. It is no longer cogent. We believe that the U.S. will focus on trade relations with China under a Trump presidency, rather than NAFTA trade partners. Our Emerging Markets Strategy believes that it is time to consider going long MXN versus other EM currencies, such as ZAR and BRL. Investors should also watch carefully the Cabinet appointments that Trump makes over the next two months. Since Carter's administration, cabinet announcements have occurred in early to mid-December. Almost all of these appointments were confirmed on Inauguration Day (usually January 20 of the year after election, including in 2017) or shortly thereafter. Only one major nomination since Carter was disapproved. These appointments will tell us how willing Trump is to reach to traditional Republicans who have served on previous administrations. We suspect that he will go with picks that will execute his fiscal, trade, and tax policies. Bottom Line: After the dust settles over the next several weeks, we suspect that Trump will signal that he intends to pursue his fiscal, trade, immigration, and tax policies. These will be, in the long term, positive for the USD, negative for bonds (including Munis, which will lose their tax-break appeal if income taxes are reduced), and likely neutral for equities. Within the equity space, Trump will be positive for U.S. SMEs and negative for MNCs. This means being long S&P 600 over S&P 100. Lastly, close our long alternative energy / short coal trade for a loss of -26.8%. Constraints: Don't Bet On Them Domestically, the American president can take significant action without congressional support through executive directives. Lincoln raised an army and navy by proclamation and freed the slaves; Franklin Roosevelt interned the Japanese; Truman tried to seize steel factories to keep production up during the Korean War. Truman's case is almost the only one of a major executive order being rebuffed by the Supreme Court. The Reagan and Clinton administrations have shown that a president thwarted by a divided or adverse congress will often use executive directives to achieve policy aims and satisfy particular interest groups and sectors. Though the number of executive orders has gone down in recent administrations (Chart II-5), the economic significance has increased along with the size and penetration of the bureaucracy (Chart II-6). The economic impact of executive orders is always debatable, but the key point is that the president's word tends to carry the day.31 Chart II-5Rule By Decree De-Globalization De-Globalization Chart II-6Executive Branch Is Growing De-Globalization De-Globalization Trade is a major area where Trump would have considerable sway. He has repeatedly signaled his intention to restrict American openness to international trade. The U.S. president can revoke international treaties solely on their own authority. Congressionally approved agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) cannot be revoked by the president, but Trump could obstruct its ongoing implementation.32 He would also have considerable powers to levy tariffs, as Nixon showed with his 10% "surcharge" on most imports in 1971.33 Bottom Line: Presidential authority is formidable in the areas Trump has made the focus of his campaign: immigration and trade. Without a two-thirds majority in Congress to override him, or an activist federal court, Trump would be able to enact significant policies simply by issuing orders to his subordinates in the executive branch. Long-Term Implications: Polarization In The U.S. Does the Republican control of Congress and the White House signal that polarization in America will subside? We began this analysis by focusing on the investment implications when Republicans control the three houses of the American government. But long-term implications of polarization will not dissipate. Investors may overstate the importance of a Republican-controlled government and thus understate the relevance of continued polarization. We doubt that Donald Trump is a uniting figure who can transcend America's polarized politics, especially given his weak popular mandate (he lost the popular vote as Bush did in 2000) and the sub-50% vote share. And, our favorite chart of the year remains the same: both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have entered the history books as the most disliked presidential candidates ever on the day of the election (Chart II-7). Chart II-7Clinton And Trump Are Making (The Wrong Kind Of) History De-Globalization De-Globalization According to empirical work by political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, polarization in Congress is at its highest level since World War II (Chart II-8). Their research shows that the liberal-conservative dimension explains approximately 93% of all roll-call voting choices and that the two parties are drifting further apart on this crucial dimension.34 Chart II-8The Widening Ideological Gulf In The U.S. Congress De-Globalization De-Globalization Meanwhile, a 2014 Pew Research study has shown that Republicans and Democrats are moving further to the right and left, respectively. Chart II-9 shows the distribution of Republicans and Democrats on a 10-item scale of political values across the last three decades. In addition, "very unfavorable" views of the opposing party have skyrocketed since 2004 (Chart II-10), with 45% of Republicans and 41% of Democrats now seeing the other party as a "threat to the nation's well-being"! Chart II-9U.S. Political Polarization: Growing Apart De-Globalization De-Globalization Chart II-10Live And Let Die De-Globalization De-Globalization Much ink has been spilled trying to explain the mounting polarization in America.35 Our view remains that politics in a democracy operates on its own supply-demand dynamic. If there was no demand for polarized politics, especially at the congressional level, American politicians would not be so eager to supply it. We believe that five main factors - in our subjective order of importance - explain polarization in the U.S. today: Income Inequality and Immobility The increase in political polarization parallels rising income inequality in the U.S. (Chart II-11). The U.S. is a clear and distant outlier on both factors compared to its OECD peers (Chart II-12). However, Americans are not being divided neatly along income levels. This is because Republicans and Democrats disagree on how to fix income inequality. For Donald Trump voters, the solutions are to put up barriers to free trade and immigration while reducing income taxes for all income levels. For Hillary Clinton voters, it means more taxes on the wealthy and large corporations, while putting up some trade barriers and expanding entitlements. This means that the correlation between polarization and income inequality is misleading as there is no causality. Rather, rising income inequality, especially when combined with a low-growth environment, shifts the political narrative from the "politics of plenty" towards "politics of scarcity." It hardens interest and identity groups and makes them less generous towards the "other." Chart II-11Inequality Breeds Polarization Inequality Breeds Polarization Inequality Breeds Polarization Chart II-12Opportunity And Income: Americans Are Outliers De-Globalization De-Globalization Generational Warfare The political age gap is increasing (Chart II-13). This remains the case following the 2016 election, with 55% Millennials (18-29 year olds) having voted for Hillary Clinton. The problem for older voters, who tend to identify far more with the Republican Party, is that the Millennials are already the largest voting bloc in America (Chart II-14). And as Millennial voters start increasing their turnout, and as Baby Boomers naturally decline, the urgency to vote for Republican policymakers' increases. Chart II-13The Age Gap In American Politics The Age Gap In American Politics The Age Gap In American Politics Chart II-14Millennials Are The Biggest Bloc Millennials Are The Biggest Bloc Millennials Are The Biggest Bloc Geographical Segregation Noted political scientist Robert Putnam first cautioned that increasing geographic segregation into clusters of like-minded communities was leading to rising polarization.36 This explains, in large part, how liberal elites have completely missed the rise of Donald Trump. Left-leaning Americans tend to live in a left-leaning community. They share their morning cup-of-Joe with Liberals and rarely mix with the plebs supporting Trump. And of course vice-versa. University of Toronto professors Richard Florida and Charlotta Mellander have more recently shown in their "Segregated City" research that "America's cities and metropolitan areas have cleaved into clusters of wealth, college education, and highly-paid knowledge-based occupations."37 Their research shows that American neighborhoods are increasingly made up of people of the same income level, across all metropolitan areas. Florida and Mellander also show that educational and occupational segregation follows economic segregation. Meanwhile, the same research shows that Canada's most segregated metropolitan area, Montreal, would be the 227th most segregated city if it were in the U.S.! This form of geographic social distance fosters increasing polarization by allowing voters to remain aloof of their fellow Americans, their plight, needs, and concerns. The extreme urban-rural divide of the 2016 election confirms this thesis. Immigration Much as with income inequality, there is a close correlation between political polarization and immigration. The U.S. is on its way to becoming a minority-majority country, with the percent of the white population expected to dip below 50% in 2045 (Chart II-15). Hispanic and Asian populations are expected to continue rising for the rest of the century. For many Americans facing the pernicious effects of low-growth, high debt, and elevated income inequality, the rising impact of immigration is anathema. Not only is the country changing its ethnic and cultural make-up, but the incoming immigrants tend to be less educated and thus lower-income than the median American. They therefore favor - or will favor, when they can vote - redistributive policies. Many Americans feel - fairly or unfairly - that the costs of these policies will have to be shouldered by white middle-class taxpayers, who are not wealthy enough to be indifferent to tax increases, and may be unskillful enough to face competition from immigrants. There is also a security component to the rising concern about immigration. Although Muslims are only 1% of the U.S. population, many voters perceive radical Islam to be a vital security threat to the nation. As such, immigration and radical Islamic terrorism are seen as close bedfellows. Media Polarization The 2016 election has been particularly devastating for mainstream media. According to the latest Gallup poll, only 32% of Americans trust the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly." This is the lowest level in Gallup polling history. The decline is particularly concentrated among Independent and Republican respondents (Chart II-16). With mainstream media falling out of favor for many Americans, voters are turning towards social media and the Internet. Facebook is now as important for political news coverage as local TV for Americans who get their news from the Internet (Chart II-17). Chart II-15Racial Composition Is Changing De-Globalization De-Globalization Chart II-16A War Of Words bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s2_c16 bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s2_c16 Chart II-17New Sources Of News Not Always Credible De-Globalization De-Globalization The problem with getting your news coverage from Facebook is that it often means getting news coverage from "fake" sources. A recent experiment by BuzzFeed showed that three big right-wing Facebook pages published false or misleading information 38% of the time while three large left-wing pages did so in nearly 20% of posts.38 The Internet allows voters to self-select what ideological lens colors their daily intake of information and it transcends geography. Two American families, living next to each other in the same neighborhood, can literally perceive reality from completely different perspectives by customizing their sources of information. Chart II-18Gerrymandering Reduces Competitive Seats bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s2_c18 bca.gps_mp_2016_11_09_s2_c18 In addition to these five factors, one should also reaffirm the role of redistricting, or "gerrymandering." Over the last two decades, both the Democrats and Republicans (but mainly the latter) have redrawn geographical boundaries to create "ideologically pure" electoral districts. Of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, only about 56 are truly competitive (Chart II-18). This improves job security for incumbent politicians and legislative-seat security for the party; but it also discourages legislators from reaching across the ideological aisle in order to ensure re-election. Instead, the main electoral challenge now comes from the member's own party during the primary election. For Republicans, this means that the challenge is most often coming from a candidate that is further to the right. Incumbent GOP politicians in Congress therefore have an incentive to maintain highly conservative records lest a challenge from the far-right emerges in a primary election. Given that the frequency of elections is high in the House of Representatives (every two years), legislators cannot take even a short break from partisanship. Redistricting deepens polarization, therefore, by changing the political calculus for legislators facing ideologically pure electorates in their home districts. Bottom Line: Polarization in the U.S. is a product of structural factors that are here to stay. Trump's narrow victory will in no way change that. But How Much Worse? Chart II-19Party Is The Chief Source Of Identity De-Globalization De-Globalization Political polarization is not new. Older readers will remember 1968, when social unrest over the Vietnam War was at its height. Richard Nixon barely got over the finish line that year, beating Vice-President Hubert Humphrey by around 500,000 votes.39 Another contested election in a contested era. Our concern is that the Republican and Democrat "labels" - or perhaps conservative and liberal labels - appear to be ossifying. For example, Pew Research showed in 2012 that the difference between Americans on 48 values is the greatest between Republicans and Democrats. This has not always been the case, as Chart II-19 shows. We suspect that the data would be even starker today, especially after the divisive 2016 campaign that has bordered on hysterical. This means that "Republican" and "Democrat" labels have become real and almost "sectarian" in nature. In fact, one's values are now determined more by one's party identification than race, education, income, religiosity, or gender! This is incredible, given America's history of racial and religious divisions. Why is this happening? We suspect that the shift in urgency and tone is motivated at least in part by the changing demographics of America. Two demographic groups that identify the most with the Republican Party - Baby Boomers and rural or suburban white voters - are in a structural decline (the first in absolute terms and the second in relative terms). Both see the writing on the political wall. Given America's democratic system of government, their declining numbers (or, in the case of suburban whites, declining majorities) will mean significant future policy decisions that go against their preferences. America is set to become more left-leaning, favor more redistribution, and become less culturally homogenous. Not only are Millennials more socially liberal and economically left-leaning, but they are also "browner" than the rest of the U.S. As we pointed out early this year, 2016 was an election that the GOP could reasonably attempt to win by appealing exclusively to white and older voters. The "White Hype" strategy was mathematically cogent ... at least in 2016.40 It will get a lot more difficult to pursue this strategy in 2020 and beyond. Not impossible, but difficult. We suspect that conservative voters know this. As such, there was an urgency this year to lock-in structural changes to key policies before it is too late. Donald Trump may have been a flawed messenger for many voters, but it did not matter. The clock is ticking for a large segment of America and therefore Trump was an acceptable vehicle of their fears and anger. Bottom Line: Polarization in the U.S. is likely to increase. Two key Republican/conservative constituencies - Baby Boomers and rural or suburban white voters - are backed into the corner by demographic trends. But it also means that a left counter-revolution is just around the corner. And we doubt that the Democratic Party will chose as centrist of a candidate the next time around. Final Thoughts: What Have We Learned 1. Economics trump PC: Civil rights remain a major category of the American public's policy concerns. However, the Democratic Party's prioritization of social issues on the margins of the civil rights debate has not galvanized voters in the face of persistent negative attitudes about the economy. More specifically, the surge in cheap credit since 2000 that covered up the steady decline of wages as a share of GDP has ended, leaving households exposed to deleveraging and reduced purchasing power (Chart II-20). American households have lost patience with the slow, grinding pace of economic recovery, they reject the debt consequences of low inflation with deflationary tail risks, and they resent disappointed expectations in terms of job security and quality. Concerns about certain social preferences - as opposed to basic rights - pale in comparison to these economic grievances. Chart II-20Credit No Longer Hides Stagnant Income Credit No Longer Hides Stagnant Income Credit No Longer Hides Stagnant Income 2. Polls are OK, but beware the quant models that use them: On two grave political decisions this year, in two advanced markets with the "best" quality of polling, political modeling turned out to be grossly erroneous. To be fair, the polls themselves prior to both Brexit and the U.S. election were within a margin of error. However, quantitative models relying on these polls were overconfident, leading investors to ignore the risks of a non-consensus outcome. As we warned in mid-October - with Clinton ahead with a robust lead - the problem with quantitative political models is that they rely on polling data for their input.41 To iron-out the noise of an occasional bad poll, political analysts aggregate the polls to create a "poll-of-polls." But combining polls is mathematically the same as combining bad mortgages into securities. The philosophy behind the methodology is that each individual object (mortgage or poll) may be flawed, but if you get enough of them together, the problems will all average out and you have a very low risk of something bad happening. Well, something bad did happen. The quantitative models were massively wrong! We tried to avoid this problem by heavily modifying our polls-based-model with structural factors. Many of these structural variables - economic context, political momentum, Obama's approval rating - actually did not favor Clinton. Our model therefore consistently gave Donald Trump between 35-45% probability of winning the election, on average three and four times higher than other popular quant models. This caused us to warn clients that our view on the election was extremely cautious and recommend hedges. In fact, Donald Trump had 41% chance of winning the race on election night, according to the last iteration of our model, a very high probability.42 3. Professor Lichtman was right: Political science professor Allan Lichtman has once again accurately called the election - for the ninth time. The result on Nov. 8 strongly supports his life's work that presidential elections in the United States are popular referendums on the incumbent party of the last four years. Structural factors undid the Democrats (Table II-3), and none of the campaign rhetoric, cross-country barnstorming, or "horse race" polling mattered a whit. The Republicans had momentum from previous midterm elections, Clinton had suffered a strong challenge in her primary, the Obama administration's achievements over the past four years were negligible (the Affordable Care Act passed in his first term). These factors, along with the political cycle itself, favored the Republicans. Trump's lack of charisma did not negate the structural support for a change of ruling party. Investors should take note: no amount of mathematical horsepower, big data, or Silicon Valley acumen was able to beat the qualitative, informed, contemplative work of a single historian. Table II-3Lichtman's Thirteen Keys To The White House* De-Globalization De-Globalization 4. Non-linearity of politics: Lichtman's method calls attention to the danger of linear assumptions and quantitative modeling in attempting the art of political prediction. Big data and quantitative econometric and polling models have notched up key failures this year. They cannot make subjective judgments regarding whether a president has had a major foreign policy success or failure or a major policy innovation - on all three of those counts, the Democrats failed from 2012-16. There really is no way to quantify political risk because human and social organizations often experience paradigm shifts that are characterized by non-linearity. Newtonian Laws will always work on planet earth and as such we are not concerned about what will happen to us if we board an airplane. Laws of physics will not simply stop working while we are mid-air. However, social interactions and political narratives do experience paradigm shifts. We have identified several since 2011: geopolitical multipolarity, de-globalization, end of laissez-faire consensus, end of Chimerica, and global loss of confidence in elites and institutions.43 5. No country is immune to decaying institutions: The United States has, with few exceptions, the oldest written constitution among major states, and it ensures checks and balances. But recent decades have shown that the executive branch has expanded its power at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches. Moreover, executives have responded to major crisis - like the September 11 attacks and the 2008 financial crisis - with policy responses that were formulated haphazardly, ideologically divisive, and difficult to implement: the Iraq War and the Affordable Care Act. The result is that the jarring events that have blindsided America over the past sixteen years have resulted in wasted political capital and deeper polarization. The failure of institutions has opened the way for political parties to pursue short-term gains at the expense of their "partners" across the aisle, and to bend and manipulate procedural rules to achieve ends that cannot be achieved through consensus and compromise. 6. U.S. is shifting leftward when it comes to markets: Inequality and social immobility have, with Trump's election, entered the conservative agenda, after having long sat on the liberals' list of concerns. The shift in white blue-collar Midwestern voters toward Trump reflects the fact that voters are non-partisan in demanding what they want: they want to retain their existing rights, privileges, and entitlements, and to expand their wages and social protections. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Mercantilism Is Back," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 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. 6 Please see BCA Global Alpha Sector Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated October 28, 2016, available at gss.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Great Migration - Europe, Refuges, And Investment Implications," dated September 23, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 The BBC is exemplary of the mainstream Western press on this point. Please see Stephen McDonell, "The Ever-Growing Power Of China's Xi Jinping," BBC News, China Blog, dated October 29, 2016, available at www.bbc.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Myths About Chinese Politics," dated August 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Two Factions, One Party - Part II," dated September 12, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see the "Eighteenth Communist Party Of China Central Committee Sixth Plenary Session Communique," dated October 27, 2016, available at cpc.people.com.cn. 14 Jiang Zemin, China's ruler from roughly 1993 to 2002, was also referred to as the "core" leader, but he received this moniker from Deng Xiaoping. Xi is following in Deng's footsteps by declaring himself to be the core and winning support from the party. As for his centralizing efforts, prior to being named the "core leader," Xi had already waged a sweeping crackdown on political opponents and dissidents. He had used his position as head of the party, the state bureaucracy, and the armed forces to reshuffle personnel in these bodies extensively. He had already created new organizational bodies, including the National Security Commission, and initiated plans to restructure the military to emphasize joint-operations under regional battle commands. A weak leader would not have advanced so quickly. 15 Deng named Mao the "core" of the first generation of leaders, but it was evident that he sought a different leadership model. 16 Specifically, Xi could prevent the preferment of successors for 2022, he could reduce the size of the Politburo Standing Committee further to five members, or he could modify or make exceptions to the informal rule that top officials must not be promoted if they are 68 or older. Please see Minxin Pei, "A Looming Power Struggle For China?" dated October 28, 2016, available at www.cfr.org. 17 Please see "Communique of the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China," dated January 15, 2014 [adopted November 12, 2013], available at www.china.org.cn. 18 Please see "China: The Socialist Put And Rising Government Leverage," in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Brexit Update: Does Brexit Really Mean Brexit?" dated July 15, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. For the High Court ruling, please see the U.K. Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, "R (Miller) -V- Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union," dated November 3, 2016, available at www.judiciary.gov.uk. 20 At that time a Tory majority in the House of Commons had enraged the populace by imprisoning a group of petitioners from Kent. Both the Kentish Petition and the Legion Memorial demanded that parliament heed the will of the populace. 21 Presumably, the European Council could vote unanimously under Article 50 to extend the negotiation period for a very long time. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Nuthin' But A G Thang," dated August 12, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 Except that it is better armed. 24 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "U.S. Election: Trump's Arrested Development," dated November 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 25 However, Wisconsin polling was rather poor as most pollsters assumed that it was a shoe-in for Democrats. One problem with polling in Midwest states is that they were, other than Pennsylvania and Ohio, assumed to be safe Democratic states. Note for example the extremely tight result in Minnesota and the absolute dearth of polling out of that state throughout the last several months. 26 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. General Elections And Scenarios: Implications," dated July 11, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 28 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 29 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It," dated November 4, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 30 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 31 Only a two-thirds majority of Congress, or a ruling by a federal court, can undo an executive action, and that is exceedingly rare. The real check on executive orders is the rotation of office: a president can undo with the stroke of a pen whatever his predecessor enacted. Congress has the power of the purse, but it is sporadic in its oversight and has challenged less than 5% of executive orders, even though those orders often re-direct the way the executive branch uses funds Congress has allocated. More often, Congress votes to codify executive orders rather than nullify them. 32 Trump is not alone in calling for renegotiating or even abandoning NAFTA. Clinton called for renegotiation in 2008, and Senator Bernie Sanders has done so in 2016. 33 In Proclamation 4074, dated August 15, 1971, Nixon suspended all previous presidential proclamations implementing trade agreements insofar as was required to impose a new 10% surcharge on all dutiable goods entering the United States. He justified it in domestic law by invoking the president's authority and previous congressional acts authorizing the president to act on behalf of Congress with regard to trade agreement negotiation and implementation (including tariff levels). He justified the proclamation in international law by referring to international allowances during balance-of-payments emergencies. 34 The "primary dimension" of Chart II-8 is represented by the x-axis and is the liberal-conservative spectrum on the basic role of the government in the economy. The "second dimension" (y-axis) depends on the era and is picking up regional differences on a number of social issues such as the civil rights movement (which famously split Democrats between northern Liberals and southern Dixiecrats). 35 We have penned two such efforts ourselves. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Polarization In America: Transient Or Structural Risk?," dated October 9, 2013, and "A House Divided Cannot Stand: America's Polarization," dated July 11, 2012," available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 36 Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone. New York: Simon and Schuster. 37 Please see Martin Prosperity Institute, "Segregated City," dated February 23, 2015, available at martinprosperity.org. 38 Please see BuzzFeedNews, "Hyperpartisan Facebook Pages Are Publishing False And Misleading Information At An Alarming Rate," dated October 20, 2016, available at buzzfeed.com. 39 Nonetheless, due to the third-party candidate George Wallace carrying the then traditionally-Democratic South, Nixon managed to win the Electoral College in a landslide. 40 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 41 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "You've Been Trumped!," dated October 21, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 42 For comparison, Steph Curry, the greatest three-point shooter in basketball history, and a two-time NBA MVP, has a career three-point shooting average of 44%. With that average, he is encouraged to take every three-pointer he can by his team. In other words, despite being less than 50%, this is a very high percentage. 43 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategy Outlook 2015 - Paradigm Shifts," dated January 21, 2015, and "Strategy Outlook 2016 - Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Section III: Geopolitical Calendar