North Korea

Highlights The protectionist option in U.S. policy is here to stay; President Trump is likely to impose punitive measures on China before the U.S. midterm elections; The U.S. Section 301 investigation into China's intellectual property theft is about national security more than trade; China's NPC session suggests the Communist Party is downshifting growth rates; The North Korean diplomatic breakthrough is real ... stay focused on U.S.-China tensions. Feature "I won't rule out direct talks with Kim Jong Un. I just won't ... As far as the risk of dealing with a madman is concerned, that's his problem, not mine." - U.S. President Donald J. Trump, March 4, 2018 Two of our key 2018 views came to the fore over the past two weeks. First, U.S. President Donald Trump took protectionist action that rattled the markets.1 Second, North Korean diplomacy surprised to the upside, with Trump accepting an invitation to meet with Kim Jong Un by this May.2 The nuclear program is allegedly up for discussion. Markets recovered quickly from Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs, with the VIX falling and American and global equities continuing to rally (Chart 1). Trump's formal tariff proclamation was not as disruptive as some had feared. He provided exemptions for entire countries - rather than merely companies - based on an appeals process that will include economic as well as geopolitical criteria. But while he struck an optimistic note on NAFTA (on which Canada's and Mexico's exemptions will depend), he struck a pessimistic note on trade talks with China. Chart 1Markets Shrugged Off Protectionism China is quickly becoming the foremost political and geopolitical risk of the year, as we discuss in this report. First, diplomacy with North Korea will not remove the risk of serious U.S. protectionism toward China.3 Second, China's domestic reforms are proceeding, posing downside risks to Chinese imports and hence global growth. We conclude with a brief word on why investors should take the North Korean diplomacy as a hugely positive development. There may be some volatile episodes during the upcoming negotiations, but U.S.-China relations are the real risk and North Korea remains largely a derivative of the emerging "Warm War" between the two global behemoths. "Death By China" In the past few weeks, the Trump administration has moved swiftly to begin implementing its protectionist platform.4 Trump's formal announcement of global tariffs on steel and wrought and unwrought aluminum products marked the shift, although investors got a foreshadowing with the January announcement of washing machine and solar panel tariffs. The latest tariffs are insignificant in macroeconomic terms. They will affect less than 0.3% of global exports and less than 2% of U.S. imports.5 The market has thus far cheered the limited scope of the tariffs and the numerous exemptions that will surely follow. But the danger is that investors are underestimating the political shifts that underpin Trump's move. In fact, there is little reason to think that protectionism will fade when Trump leaves office: Americans are susceptible to it, according to opinion polling (Chart 2). Now that the seal has been broken - and that by a president who hails from the "pro-free trade" Republican Party - the danger is what happens when the next recession occurs. Politicians of all stripes will be more likely to propose protectionist solutions. The long trend of decline in U.S. tariffs since the 1930s may gradually begin to reverse (Chart 3), confirming our key decade theme that globalization has reached its apex. Chart 2Americans Not Immune To Protectionism Chart 3U.S. Tariffs: Nowhere To Go But Up! How far will the protectionist threat go in the short term? Investors should focus on two bellwethers. First, the outcome of NAFTA re-negotiations.6 Second, a decision by the Trump administration on how to respond to the U.S. Trade Representative Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 investigation into China's practices on technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation, discussed below. China is an industrial powerhouse that is becoming more technologically adept, which threatens the core advantage of the United States in what could soon become a "Warm War" between the two global hegemons. Trump was elected on a pledge to get aggressive on China and is relatively unconstrained on trade policy (Table 1). U.S.-China economic interdependency has declined, reducing the two countries' ability to manage tensions.7 Table 1Trump Lacks Legal Constraints On Trade Issues Moreover, Trump is relatively unpopular - which jeopardizes the GOP Congress in November - and he will need to take actions to remain relevant ahead of the November 6 midterm elections (Chart 4). The U.S. and China are currently bickering about the size of the trade imbalance (Chart 5), not to mention the causes and solutions. What will the U.S. demand? This was the question of Xi Jinping's top economic adviser, Politburo member Liu He, when he visited Washington D.C. on March 1-3 for emergency meetings with the U.S. administration. He was rebuffed with the announcement on tariffs. Washington has been arguing that high-level dialogues with China - that investors cheered after the Mar-a-Lago Summit - have failed and that punitive measures will go forward unless China makes quick and concrete improvements to the trade balance, starting with $100 billion worth of new imports.8 Chart 4Trump's Low Approval Jeopardizes Control Of Congress In November Chart 5U.S.-China: Disagreeing Even On The Facts In response, Liu has promised that China will redouble its economic "reform and opening up" process and has asked the United States for an official list of demands. Our sense is that there are broadly two types of demands: Cyclical demands: Beijing often does one-off purchases of big-ticket items to ally Washington's ire over trade. This time, it would have the added benefit for Trump of coming right ahead of the midterm election. Trump's request on March 8 for an immediate $100 billion reduction in the trade deficit could fall in this category. Structural demands: If Trump seeks to be a game changer in the U.S.-China relationship, then he will demand accelerated structural reforms: for instance, a lasting decrease in the deficit due to a permanent opening of market access. He could also begin pushing a "mirror tax" on trade (reciprocal tariffs) so as to reduce the gap between the U.S. and China, which is less justifiable now that China is an economic juggernaut (Chart 6). Trump could also demand action on several long-standing U.S. requests: Chart 6Not All That Much Daylight On U.S.-China Tariff Rates Opening foreign investment access to a broad range of sectors (beyond finance), such as transportation, logistics, information technology, or even telecommunications; The right to operate wholly U.S.-owned companies in China; An open capital account and truly free-floating currency; Subsidy cuts for state-owned enterprises (SOEs); Full digital access for U.S. tech companies; An improved arbitration system for legal disputes. Since rapidly implementing many of these demands could threaten China's stability or even undermine the Communist Party, Trump may have to use the threat of sweeping tariffs to try to force them through. The current news flow suggests that Trump is favoring cyclical solutions. At the same time, we expect China to make at least some significant structural compromises: China does not want a trade war. China is more exposed to the U.S. than the U.S. is to China (Chart 7). Moreover, China's political system is rigid and opposed to mass unemployment. The last time China allowed mass layoffs was in 1999, and even then the state controlled the process. A trade war, by contrast, would threaten 223 million manufacturing employees with uncontrolled job losses. The central government is focused on stability; while it will insist on "saving face" internationally through tit-for-tat measures, it will go to great lengths to avoid a negative spiral. This will require compromises. China wants structural reform. Xi Jinping is rebooting a reform agenda that requires transitioning away from old industries. These reforms are long overdue and Xi can parlay many of them to pacify Trump. For instance, China has improved the market-orientation of the renminbi, causing Trump to cease his complaints about currency manipulation (Chart 8). China currently claims it is about to increase imports and open its financial sector further to foreign investment. Chart 7China More Exposed To U.S., But Not By Much Chart 8China: Structural Reform As Trade Concession The jury is still out on the deepest structural issues. We expect Xi's latest reform push to surprise to the upside, but it is not clear how far he will go. For instance, while Beijing might begin to ease capital controls imposed in 2016, it would be a shock if it agreed to rapidly liberalize the capital account. The same goes for granting extensive access to strategic sectors, downgrading state support for SOEs, or moderating cyber controls that punish U.S. companies. Any promises of gradual progress on these issues will likely be seen by the U.S. as no different from past promises to past presidents. Hence everything depends on whether Trump will be satisfied by token Beijing actions that look good ahead of the midterms. It is ominous that China has already drastically cut steel and aluminum overcapacity, and yet Trump imposed tariffs anyway. This kind of delayed retribution could become a pattern. Bottom Line: China has the means to prevent a trade war through significant compromises that Trump can advertise as "wins" to his domestic audience this November. If Trump accepts these concessions, the risk of trade war will effectively be removed until the next major electoral test in 2020. However, Trump lacks constitutional and legal constraints on the use of tariffs, which means that he can override China's offers and instigate a trade war anyway. This risk has a fair probability, given midterm politics and the fact that overall U.S.-China interdependency, the key economic constraint to conflict, has eroded over the past decade. A Bellwether: The Intellectual Property Investigation The immediate bellwether for the Trump administration's appetite for trade war will be Trump's handling of the Section 301 investigation on technology transfer, intellectual property (IP), and innovation. A ruling is due no later than August 18, but reports indicate action could come quickly.9 Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 is the prime law by which the U.S. seeks to enforce trade agreements, resolve disputes, and open markets. Under this law, the U.S. executive - i.e. the president - can impose trade sanctions against countries deemed to be violating trade agreements or engaging in unreasonable or discriminatory trade practices. The law is specific in addressing intellectual property violations and closed market access, and yet broad in giving the executive leeway to interpret "unjustifiable" practices and mete out punishment. It does, however, require negotiations with the foreign trading partner to remedy the situation before the U.S. imposes duties or other remedies. We expect the U.S. to draw a hard line. A close look reveals that this Section 301 probe is primarily addressing strategic problems, not trade problems. To be fair, the U.S.'s trade grievances have merit. Clearly there is room for China to improve the IP trade balance. The ratio of IP receipts versus IP payments shows that the U.S. is a world-leader, while China is an extreme IP laggard, as one would expect (Chart 9). And yet the U.S. barely runs a trade surplus with China in IP, and far less of a surplus than with Taiwan and Korea, which are more advanced than China and thus ought to be more competitive with the U.S. than China (Chart 10). The U.S. appears particularly disadvantaged in the Chinese market when it comes to computer software and trademarks (Chart 11), judging by its IP exports to similar Asian partners. Chart 9China Is An Innovation Laggard... Chart 10... Yet Its IP Deficit With U.S. Is Small Also, in many cases Chinese companies have gained a dominant share of new markets, like e-commerce, where the U.S. would have a larger share if it had been allowed to compete fairly in the nascent stages. The U.S. wants to prevent this from happening again. The "Made In China 2025" program, for example, combines ambitious goals in supercomputers, robotics, medical devices, and smart cars, while setting domestic localization targets that would favor Chinese companies over foreigners (Chart 12). China will have to compromise on this program to stave off tariffs. Chart 11China Skirting Fees On U.S. Software? Chart 12China's High-Tech Protectionism Nevertheless, China is a large and growing market for U.S. high-tech goods, intellectual property, and services exports (Chart 13). A comparison with Taiwan and South Korea suggests that China could open up greater access to these U.S. exports (Chart 14). The truth is that, unlike with staunch ally Japan, the U.S. harbors deep misgivings about China's strategic intentions. This is why it limits high-tech exports to China - which, as Beijing often points out, creates an abnormal imbalance in this column of the trade book (Chart 15). Chart 13U.S. Tech And IP Exports To China Growing Chart 14China Could Give U.S. More Market Share Chart 15U.S. Deficit Due To Security Concerns Thus while the trade concerns above are not to be scoffed at, the Section 301 probe is clearly about U.S. security. The main practices under investigation are: Forced technology transfer by means of joint-venture (JV) requirements, ownership caps, government procurement, and administrative or regulatory interventions; Unfair licensing and contracting pricing, and abuses of proprietary technology; State-backed investment and/or acquisitions in the U.S. to acquire cutting-edge tech and IP; Cyber-espionage and intrusion to acquire tech and IP. Only one of these is about market pricing. The others speak to the U.S. belief that the Communist Party has orchestrated a "techno-nationalist" agenda that combines aggressive and illegal acquisitions with domestic protectionism. In particular, Chinese companies have made strategic acquisitions in the U.S. through shell companies with state funds or state guidance to access critical technologies and IP, while forcing American companies operating in China to transfer over the same as a precondition to operate there.10 Washington fears that if Beijing' strategy continues unabated, high-tech Chinese companies will be able to gain the best western technology, grow uninhibited in the massive domestic market with state financial support, and then launch competitive operations on a global scale. Moreover, the lack of division between China's ruling party, state apparatus, and corporate sector means that technologies acquired by Chinese companies can be directly appropriated by the country's military and intelligence apparatus to the detriment of the strategic balance with the U.S. How will the U.S. retaliate? We are unsure, and therein lies the risk for the market.11 Trump has floated the idea of levying a large "fine" or indemnity on China for past IP violations. The U.S. believes that IP theft amounts to a "second trade deficit" with China, with estimates of annual losses ranging from $200 billion to nearly $600 billion.12 U.S. remedies will become clearer when the USTR offers its recommendations. Bottom Line: The Section 301 probe is not about the trade deficit alone. It is about the growing tension between U.S. and China in a broader strategic context. We would expect the USTR to propose trade remedies that are more significant than the recent steel and aluminum tariffs. And we would expect Trump to impose some punitive measures. This is a source of near-term risk to markets, as the U.S. and China are less likely to manage their disputes smoothly than in the past. We are short China-exposed U.S. stocks relative to their domestic-oriented peers. China's NPC Session: On Track For Downside Risk Surprises Chart 16Downward Revisions In Chinese Growth China's NPC session is not yet over but some preliminary takeaways are in order. The headlines focused on Xi Jinping's power grab, but for us the real relevance was economic policy. Signs of economic policy tightening are not as hawkish as we expected, but the bias remains in favor of slower growth and tighter monetary, fiscal, and financial policy. The 6.5% GDP growth target was not a surprise. China has various economic targets to meet in 2020 under existing economic plans; only after that does it say it will scrap GDP targets altogether. The GDP target is a fabrication but the point is that the direction is down. Local government GDP targets suggest downward revision as well (Chart 16). To put a point on it, there is no evidence that China's cyclical slowdown is on the cusp of reversing (Table 2).13 Table 2No Convincing Signs Of An Impending Upturn In China's Economy In this context, it is notable that the government got rid of official targets for monetary growth (M2). This confirms the view of our colleagues at BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy that China has been targeting interest rates instead of the quantity of money since 2015 (Chart 17).14 This means that M2 growth can rise or fall as high or as low as necessary to meet the PBoC's interest rate targets. The takeaway for now is that M2 growth can go lower than the recent 8%-9% range in which it has been moving, since the current policy is to "control" money growth and avoid systemic risk. The new leadership at the People's Bank of China will have a challenge to establish its credibility, which means that accommodative compromises may not come as quickly as some expect. Chart 17A New Monetary Policy Regime On the fiscal front, China implied some tightening by lowering its official budget deficit target to 2.6%. Past reports show that China always meets its budget deficit targets perfectly (Chart 18), suggesting that the target is either meaningless or Beijing has a steely discipline unseen in the rest of the world. The IMF publishes an augmented budget deficit which, at 12% of GDP, gives a better indication of why authorities want to maintain control, if not outright tighten the reins (Chart 19).15 The Finance Ministry rushed to dampen speculation that this budget deficit reduction would amount to austerity. Approximately 550 billion yuan of additional "special purpose bonds" - issued by local governments to finance infrastructure projects - will be issued in 2018. This could amount to new spending worth 2% of last year's total spending, i.e. not a negligible sum. The purpose may be to smooth over the conclusion of the local government debt swap program that began in 2014. The debt swap program was a "game changer" by allowing local governments to exchange high-interest or short-term debt for low-interest, long-term, government-backed debt. Now Beijing is winding down the program and telling local governments that new bond issuance will not have the implicit guarantee of the central government, and will face higher interest rates. Chart 18China's Budget Deficit Target Is Meaningless Chart 19China's Real Budget Deficit Is Large Similarly, Beijing has been attempting to provide formal banks more freedom to lend to offset its crackdown on shadow banks. Pursuant to this goal, it announced that required provisions for non-performing loans (NPLs) will be reduced from 150% of NPLs to 120%. Banks are already holding excess provisions, and provisions have been trending upwards. Meanwhile China's official NPL count is unbelievably low, warranting higher provisions. So it is not clear to what extent banks will lend more as a result of lower requirements. January and February credit numbers imply that credit policy remains tight even aside from the wind-down of the local government debt swap (Chart 20). The dust has not yet settled on the NPC session and we will soon examine some of the other policy announcements, like tax cuts for small businesses and infrastructure spending reductions. However, the implication so far is that the Communist Party wants to keep the fiscal deficit and total social financing flat this year. If this policy were executed faithfully, the fiscal and credit impulse would be zero this year. Simultaneously, new data revealed that, in keeping with the reform reboot, the Xi administration is allowing creative destruction to improve efficiency in the corporate sector. Bankruptcies rocketed upward in 2017 and this trend should continue (Chart 21). This is a notable development given the widespread perception that China does not know how to deal with social consequences of structural reforms. It suggests that policymakers have a higher threshold for economic pain. Chart 20Credit Growth Is Slowing Chart 21Creative Destruction Is Rising Finally, the new anti-corruption super-ministry, the National Supervisory Commission, has now received legislative clearance. It is still unclear how the new body will operate in practice. We maintain that on the margin it should be negative for economic growth due to the micro-level impact of corruption probes on local government officials and local state enterprises. Notably, some of the provinces whose GDP-weighted economic growth targets were the most aggressively revised downwards (Tianjin, Chongqing, Inner Mongolia) are also provinces that have been hit heavily with anti-corruption probes, accusations of falsifying data, and canceled infrastructure projects over the past year. The anti-corruption campaign is a tool for enforcing central party dictates more effectively, and at present those dictates call for minimizing systemic financial risk, including misallocation of capital by local authorities (Chart 22). Chart 22Anti-Corruption Campaign Encourages Downward GDP Revisions? Bottom Line: Policy settings in China will continue to constrain growth this year. Now that the policy shift toward accelerated reform is more evident, the downside risks of that move will become apparent. We are closing our long China H-shares versus EM trade for a gain of 3%. North Korea: This Time Is Different A brief concluding word on North Korea. While we did not expect that Trump and Kim would arrange to meet so soon, we are not surprised by the fact that the diplomatic track is moving forward. As we wrote in January, Trump demonstrated a credible military threat, forcing China to implement sanctions, which subsequently caused North Korea to stop testing missiles. Trump effectively called Kim Jong Un's bluff, daring him to go beyond missile and nuclear device tests. Instead of ratcheting up tensions, Kim declared victory on the nuclear deterrent and proclaimed the end of the crisis. This is the "Arc of Diplomacy" about which we have written (Chart 23).16 We reject the view in the media that Trump's policy has been erratic and that China is getting left on the sidelines of a Trump-Kim meet-up. China has cut off exports to North Korea (Chart 24), which in turn has cut off the regime's access to hard currency. Because of China, Kim literally cannot afford not to negotiate. Chart 23Credible Threat Cycle: North Korea Mirrors Iran Chart 24China Gives Kim To Trump For the same reason, Kim is not likely to be bluffing or stalling: with limited conventional military capabilities, Kim cannot dial up and dial down the level of tensions at will. If he provokes the U.S. anew, he risks provoking a war that would destroy his regime. Moreover, from the moment he came to power, Supreme Leader Kim established a desire to elevate the importance of economic reforms within state policy, which is impossible without dealing with China and the U.S. to create a favorable international setting. From the U.S. side, Trump has likely notched up a major national security victory that will enhance his credibility in the 2018 midterms and especially 2020 elections. A clear risk to our view that Trump will take protectionist action toward China this year is that he will need China's continued cooperation, as it could relax sanctions enforcement. However, the strategic significance of the Section 301 investigation means that Trump cannot afford to sacrifice his trade agenda so soon. While bad news from North Korea seldom has a substantial impact on markets, our South Korean curve steepener benefited. So far it has returned 2.9%. The JPY/EUR has fallen back from a strong February rally, but we remain long. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, Weekly Report, "Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks," dated November 22, 2017, and Special Report, "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 In September we highlighted that the North Korean threat cycle had peaked. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, and Special Report, "BCA Geopolitical Strategy 2017 Report Card," dated December 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 The Apprentice-style personnel reshuffle that has seen Peter Navarro, director of the National Trade Council, elevated above the departed Gary Cohn, has signaled the return of the protectionist agenda. 5 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Tariffs: A Q&A," dated March 9, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 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. 8 Not $1 billion, as Trump erroneously tweeted! 9 One year after the date of initiation is likely August 18, the date used in the USTR's description in the Federal Register, although President Trump signed off on August 14 which could mark an earlier deadline. Please see Andrew Restuccia and Adam Behsudi, "Trump Eyes Another Trade Crackdown," Politico, March 7, 2018, available at www.politico.com. Note that according to the text of the law, by late May, the U.S. Trade Representative could report that China is making sufficient progress and further action unnecessary (but this is unlikely). The recent handling of the Section 232 investigation into steel and aluminum suggests that punitive measures will be foreshadowed by public statements from U.S. officials. 10 For detailed assessments, please see USTR, "2017 Special 301 Report," which puts China at the top of the priority watch list; USTR, "2017 Report To Congress On China's WTO Compliance," January 2018; U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, "2017 Report To Congress," November 2017. 11 As a frame of reference, in the dispute over U.S. beef exports to the EU, a prominent Section 301 case, the U.S. imposed 100% ad valorem tariffs on 34 products from the EU in 1999 until 2009. However, Trump's actions are likely to go well beyond this due to the strategic nature of the dispute. Not only can he impose tariffs on 100 or more specific goods - since Chinese IP violations run the gamut - but also he can impose restrictions on Chinese investment through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS), which is tightening scrutiny on China in general. 12 The $600 billion "high water mark" estimate comes from the former Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair and former director of the National Security Agency Keith Alexander. They also emphasize that the U.S. has additional retaliatory options (outside of the 1974 trade law) under the Economic Espionage Act, Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act. Please see "China's Intellectual Property Theft Must Stop," The New York Times, August 15, 2017, available at www.nytimes.com. 13 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China And The Risk Of Escalation," dated March 7, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB," dated November 23, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 15 At the same time, the government issued guidelines suggesting that scrutiny of local government budgets, and specifically expenditures, will get stricter. The cancellation of subway/metro projects is already a trend that is well underway, but other inefficient projects and capital misallocation could be targeted next. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Bond Strategy: The investment backdrop is broadly evolving the way that we forecasted in our 2018 Outlook, thus we continue to maintain our core strategic recommendations. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and overweight global corporate debt versus government bonds (focused on the U.S.). Look to reverse that positioning sometime during the latter half of 2018 after global inflation increases and central banks tighten policy more aggressively. Japan Corporates: Japanese companies are in excellent financial shape, according to our new Japan Corporate Health Monitor. Although softening Japanese growth and a firming yen may prevent an outperformance of Japanese corporate debt in the coming months. Feature "I love it when a plan comes together." - Hannibal Smith, Leader of The A-Team Many investors likely came down with serious case of a sore neck last week, given the head-turning headlines that came out: Chart 1A Pause In The 'Inflation Scare' U.S. President Donald Trump announcing a blanket tariff on metals imports, then exempting some important countries (Canada, Mexico, Australia) only days later. Trump agreeing to an unprecedented meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on the nuclear issue, only to have the White House press secretary later announce that no meeting would take place without North Korean "concessions". The European Central Bank (ECB) hawkishly altering its forward guidance to markets at the March monetary policy meeting, but then having that immediately followed by dovish comments from ECB President Mario Draghi. The strong headline number on the February U.S. employment report blowing away expectations, but the soft readings on wages suggesting that the Fed will not have to move more aggressively on rate hikes. For bond markets in particular, the ECB announcement and the U.S. Payrolls report were most important. Investors had been growing worried about a more hawkish monetary policy shift in Europe or the U.S. This was especially true in the U.S. after the previous set of employment data was released in early February showing a pickup in wage inflation that could force the Fed to shift to a more hawkish stance. That created a spike in Treasury yields and the VIX and a full-blown equity market correction. Since then, inflation expectations have eased a bit and market pricing of future Fed and ECB moves has stabilized, helping to bring down volatility and supporting some recovery in global equity markets (Chart 1). With all of these "tape bombs" hitting the news wires, investors can be forgiven for re-thinking their medium-term investment strategy in light of the changing events. We think it is more productive to check if the initial expectations on which that strategy was based still make sense. On that note, the developments seen so far this year fit right in with the key themes we outlined in our 2018 Outlook, which we will review in this Weekly Report. The Critical Points From Our Outlook Still Hold Up In a pair of reports published last December, we translated BCA's overall 2018 Outlook into broad investment themes (and strategic implications) for global fixed income markets. We repeat those themes below, with our updated assessment on where we currently stand. Theme #1: A more bearish backdrop for bonds, led by the U.S.: Faster global growth, with rebounding inflation expectations, will trigger tighter overall global monetary policy. This will be led by Fed rate hikes and, later in 2018, ECB tapering. Global bond yields will rise in response, primarily due to higher inflation expectations. ASSESSMENT: UNFOLDING AS PLANNED, BUT WATCH INFLATION EXPECTATIONS. Economic growth is still broadly expanding at a solid pace, as evidenced by the elevated levels of the OECD leading economic indicator and our global manufacturing PMI (Chart 2). The U.S. is clearly exhibiting the strongest growth momentum looking at the individual country PMIs (bottom panel), while there is a more mixed picture in the most recent readings in other countries and regions. Importantly, all of the manufacturing PMIs remain well above the 50 line indicating expanding economic activity. Last week's U.S. Payrolls report for February showed that great American job creation machine can still produce outsized employment gains with only moderate wage inflation pressures, even in an economy that appears to be at "full employment". The +313k increase in jobs, which included upward revisions to both of the previous two months of a combined +54k, generated no change in the U.S. unemployment rate which stayed unchanged at 4.1% with the labor force participation rate increasing modestly (Chart 3). Chart 2U.S. Growth Leading The Way Chart 3The Fed Can Still Hike Rates Only 'Gradually' The wage data was perhaps the most important part of the report, given that the spike in global market volatility seen last month came on the heels of an upside surprise in U.S. average hourly earnings (AHE) for January. There was no follow through of that acceleration in February, with the year-over-year growth rate of AHE slowing back to 2.6% from 2.9%, reversing the previous month's increase (middle panel). The immediate implication is that the Fed does not have to start raising rates faster or by more than planned. That pullback in U.S. wage growth, combined with the continued sluggishness of inflation in the other developed economies and the sideways price action seen in global oil markets, does suggest that inflation expectations may struggle to be the main driver of higher global bond yields in the near term. Overall nominal bond yields are unlikely to decline, however, as real yields are slowly rising in response to faster global growth and markets pricing in tighter monetary policy in response (Chart 4). Chart 4Real Yields Rising Now,##BR##Inflation Expectations Will Rise Again Later We have not seen enough evidence to cause us to change our view on inflation expectations moving higher over the course of 2018, particularly with BCA's commodity strategists now expecting oil prices to trade between $70-$80/bbl in the latter half of 2018.1 One final point: it is far too soon to determine if the protectionist trade leanings of President Trump will alter the current trajectory of global growth and interest rates. The implication is that investors should not change their overall planned investment strategy for this year at this juncture. Theme #2: Growth & policy divergences will create cross-market bond investment opportunities: Global growth in 2018 will become less synchronized compared to 2016 & 2017, as will individual country monetary policies. Government bonds in the U.S. and Canada, where rate hikes will happen, will underperform, while bonds in the U.K. and Australia, where rates will likely be held steady, will outperform. ASSESSMENT: UNFOLDING AS PLANNED. As shown in Chart 2, the big coordinated upward move in global growth seen in 2017 is already starting to become less synchronized in 2018. Recent readings on euro area growth have softened a bit while, more worryingly, a growing list of Japanese data is slowing. U.K. data remains mixed, while the Canadian economy is showing few signs of cooling off. China's growth remains critical for so many countries, including Australia, but so far the Chinese data is showing only some moderation off of last year's pace. Net-net, the data seen so far this year is playing out according to our 2018 Themes - better in the U.S. and Canada, softer in the U.K. and Australia. We are sticking to our view that the rate hikes currently discounted by markets in the U.S. and Canada will be delivered, but that there will be little-to-no monetary tightening in the U.K. and Australia (Chart 5). Theme #3: The most dovish central banks will be forced to turn less dovish: The ECB and Bank of Japan (BoJ) will both slow the pace of their asset purchases in 2018, in response to strong domestic economies and rising inflation. This will lead to bear-steepening of yield curves in Europe, mostly in the latter half of 2018. The BoJ could raise its target on JGB yields, but only modestly, in response to an overall higher level of global bond yields. ASSESSMENT: UNFOLDING AS PLANNED, ALTHOUGH WE NOW EXPECT NO BoJ MOVE TO TAKE PLACE THIS YEAR. Both central banks have already dialed back to pace of the asset purchases in recent months. This is in addition to the Fed beginning its own process of reducing its balance sheet by not rolling over maturing bonds in its portfolio. Growth of the combined balance sheet of the "G-4" central banks (the Fed, ECB, BoJ and Bank of England) has been slowing steadily as a result (Chart 6). The ECB continues to contribute the greatest share of that aggregate "G-4" liquidity expansion, although that is projected to slow over the balance of 2018 as the ECB moves towards a full tapering of its bond buying program by the end of the year (top panel). Chart 5Not Every Central Bank##BR##Will Deliver What's Priced Chart 6Risk Assets Are##BR##Exposed To ECB Tapering Barring a sudden sharp downturn in the euro area economy, the ECB is still on track for that taper. We have been expecting a signaling of the taper sometime in the summer, likely after the ECB gains even greater confidence that its inflation target can be reached within its typical two-year forecasting horizon. That story will not be repeated in Japan, however, where core inflation is still struggling to stay much above 0% and economic data is softening. We see very little chance that the BoJ will make any alterations of its current policy settings - with negative deposit rates and a target of 0% on the 10-year JGB yield - this year, as we discussed in a recent Special Report.2 We continue to expect a diminishing liquidity tailwind for global risk assets over the rest of 2018 (bottom two panels). Theme #4: The low market volatility backdrop will end through higher bond volatility: Incremental tightening by central banks, in response to faster inflation, will raise the volatility of global interest rates. This will eventually weigh on global growth expectations over the course of 2018, and create a more volatile backdrop for risk assets in the latter half of the year. ASSESSMENT: UNFOLDING AS PLANNED. We saw a sneak preview of how this theme would play out during that volatility spike at the beginning of February, triggered by only a brief blip up higher in U.S. wage inflation. With a more sustained increase in realized global inflation likely to develop within the next 3-6 months, a return to that world of high volatility is still set to unfold in the latter half of 2018, in our view. After reviewing our four investment themes for 2018 in light of the latest news, we conclude that the themes are largely playing out. Therefore, we will continue to stick with the investment strategy conclusions for this year that were derived from those themes (Table 1):3 Table 1A Pro-Risk Recommended Portfolio In H1/2018, Looking To Get Defensive Later In The Year 2018 Model Bond Portfolio Positioning: Target a moderate level of portfolio risk, with below-benchmark duration and overweights on corporate credit versus government debt. These allocations will shift later in the year as central banks shift to a more restrictive monetary policy stance and growth expectations for 2018 become more uncertain. Chart 7Tracking Our Recommendations 2018 Country Allocations: Maintain underweight positions in the U.S., Canada and the Euro Area, keeping a moderate overweight in low-beta Japan, and add small overweights in the U.K. and Australia (where rate hikes are unlikely). The year-to-date performance of the main elements of our model bond portfolio are shown in Chart 7. All returns are shown on a currency-hedged basis in U.S. dollars. Our country underweights are shown in the top panel, our country overweights in the 2nd panel, our credit overweights in the 3rd panel and our credit underweights in the bottom panel. The broad conclusion is that our best performing underweight is the U.S. and best performing overweight is Japan. All other country allocations are essentially flat on the year (in currency-hedged terms). Our call to overweight corporate debt vs. government debt, focused on the U.S., has performed well, but mostly through our overweight stance on U.S. high-yield. Bottom Line: The investment backdrop is broadly evolving the way that we forecasted in our 2018 Outlook, thus we continue to maintain our core strategic recommendations. Maintain below-benchmark portfolio duration and overweight global corporate debt versus government bonds (focused on the U.S.). Look to reverse that positioning sometime during the latter half of 2018 after global inflation increases and central banks tighten policy more aggressively. Introducing The Japan Corporate Health Monitor Japan's relatively small corporate bond market has not provided much excitement for non-Japanese investors over the years. Japanese companies have always been highly cautious when managing leverage on their balance sheets, and have traditionally relied heavily on bank loans, rather than bond issuance, for debt financing. The result is a corporate bond market with far fewer defaults and downgrades compared to other developed economies, with much lower yields and spreads as well. Due to its small size, poor liquidity and low yields/spreads, we have not paid much attention to Japanese corporate debt in the past. Thus, we don't have the same kinds of indicators available to us for Japanese corporate bond analysis as we have in the U.S., euro area or U.K. One such indicator is the Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) to assess the financial health of corporate issuers.4 We are changing that this week by adding a Japan CHM to our global CHM suite of indicators. In other countries, we have both top-down and bottom-up versions of the CHM. The former uses GDP-level data on income statements and balance sheets to determine the individual ratios that go into the CHM (a description of the ratios is shown in Table 2), while the latter uses actual reported financial data at the individual firm level which is aggregated into the CHM. Table 2Definitions Of Ratios##BR##That Go Into The CHM Consistent and timely data availability is an issue for building a top-down CHM, as there is no one source of top-down data on the corporate sector. Some data is available from the BoJ or the Ministry of Finance, or even from international research groups like the OECD, but not all are presented using a consistent methodology. Some data is only available on an annual basis, which significantly diminishes the usefulness of a top-down CHM as a timely indicator for bond investment. Thus, we focused our efforts on only building a bottom-up version of a Japan CHM, using publically available financial information released with higher frequency (quarterly). We focused on non-financial companies (as we do in the CHMs for other countries) and exclude non-Japanese issuers of yen-denominated corporate bonds. In the end, we used data on 43 companies for our bottom-up CHM. By way of comparison, there are only 36 individual issuers in the Bloomberg Barclays Japan Corporate Bond Index that fit the same description of non-financial, non-foreign issuers, highlighting the relatively tiny size of the Japanese corporate bond market. Our new Japan bottom-up CHM is presented in Chart 8. The overall conclusions are the following: Japanese corporate health is in overall excellent shape, with the CHM being in the "improving health" zone for the full decade since the 2008 Financial Crisis. Corporate leverage has steadily declined since 2012, mirroring the rise in company profits and cash balances over the same period. Return on capital is currently back to the pre-2008 highs just below 6%, although operating margins remain two full percentage points below the pre-2008 highs. Interest coverage and the liquidity ratio are both at the highest levels since the mid-2000s, while debt coverage is steadily improving. The overall reading from the CHM is one of solid Japanese creditworthiness and low downgrade and default risks. It is no surprise, then, that corporate bond spreads have traded in a far narrower range than seen in other countries. In Chart 9, we present the yield, spread, return and duration data for the Bloomberg Barclays Japanese Corporate Bond Index. We also show similar data for the Japanese Government Bond Index for comparison. Japanese corporates have a much lower index duration than that of governments, which reflects the greater concentration of corporate issuance at shorter maturities. Chart 8The Japan Corporate Health Monitor Chart 9The Details Of Japan Corporate Bond Index Japanese corporates currently trade at a relatively modest spread of 36bps over Japanese government debt, although that spread only reached a high of just over 100bps during the 2008 Global Financial Crisis - a much lower spread compared to U.S. and European debt of similar credit quality. That is likely a combination of many factors, including the small size of the Japanese corporate market and the relatively smaller level of interest rate volatility in Japan versus other countries. Given the dearth of available bond alternatives with a positive yield in Japan, the "stretch for yield" dynamic has created a demand/supply balance that is very favorable for valuations - especially given the strong health of Japanese issuers. Chart 10Japan Corporates Do Not Like A Rising Yen It remains to be seen how the market will respond to a future economic slowdown in Japan, which may be starting to unfold given the recent string of sluggish data. On that note, the performance of the Japanese yen bears watching, as the currency has a positive correlation to Japanese corporate spreads (Chart 10). The linkage there could be a typical one of risk-aversion, where the yen goes up as risky assets selloff. Or it could be linked to growth expectations, where markets begin to price in the impact on Japanese growth and corporate profits from a stronger currency. Given our view that the BoJ is highly unlikely to make any changes to its monetary policy settings this year, the latest bout of yen strength may not last for much longer. For now, given the link between the yen and Japanese credit spreads, we would advise looking for signs that the yen is rolling over before considering any allocations to Japanese corporate debt. Bottom Line: Japanese companies are in excellent financial shape, according to our new Japan Corporate Health Monitor. Although softening Japanese growth and a firming yen may prevent an outperformance of Japanese corporate debt in the coming months. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Ray Park, Research Analyst Ray@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "OPEC 2.0 Getting Comfortable With Higher Prices", dated February 22nd 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Special Report, "What Would It Take For The Bank Of Japan To Raise Its Yield Target?", dated February 13th 2018, available at gfis.bcareseach.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Our Model Bond Portfolio In 2018: A Tale Of Two Halves", dated December 19th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 4 For a summary of all of our individual country CHMs, including a description of the methodology, please see the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "BCA Corporate Health Monitor Chartbook: No Improvement Despite A Strong Economy", dated November 21st 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights The U.S. government shutdown showed that the path of least resistance is for more fiscal spending; President Trump is turning to trade and foreign policy amid a lack of popularity at home; North Korean diplomacy is on track, but U.S.-China relations and Taiwan are potential black swans; Iran and the U.S. are playing a risky double game that will add geopolitical risk premium to oil; NAFTA will be a bellwether for Trump's future actions on issues that carry greater constraints, like Iran and China; Book profits on French vs German industrials and China volatility; close U.S. curve steepener and long PHP/TWD. Feature This weekend, investors woke up to the nineteenth government shutdown since 1976, a product of "grand standing" on both sides of the aisle. Our low-conviction view, which we elucidated last week, is that President Donald Trump will be forced to migrate to the middle on policy as the midterm election approaches.1 Chart 1Trump Hitting (And Building!) A Wall Despite a roaring stock market, strong economic fundamentals, and decade-low unemployment, President Trump's popularity continues to flounder. There is now even a perceptible decline in his support among GOP voters. Key problems for Trump have been the failure to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the intensification of the Mueller investigation (Chart 1). We suspect that he will try to preempt an electoral disaster in November by means of bipartisan deal-making and more orthodox policies. The government shutdown, although not entirely unexpected, undermined the view that President Trump is thinking about moderating his stance. That said, the Democrats are as much, if not more, to blame. With the Republicans in charge of Congress and the White House, it is clear that the Democrats thought that voters would ultimately see the shutdown as the GOP's fault. This was a dangerous assumption given that current polling suggests the Democrats have more to lose. One positive about the short-lived imbroglio is that it was the first government shutdown in twenty years that had little to do with government spending, whether the appropriations bill explicitly or entitlements. While immigration is an intractable issue, the disagreement between Republicans and Democrats is not about dollars. This is good news for the markets as it means that more spending will likely be necessary to grease the wheels of compromise. Our mantra continues to be that the political path of least resistance will lead towards profligacy. While the media's focus is on domestic politics, the real risks remain in the international arena. The two are connected. As political science theory teaches us, policymakers often play "two-level games," with the domestic arena influencing what is possible in the international one. As Donald Trump loses political capital on the domestic front, his options for affecting policy will become constrained. However, the U.S. constitution places almost no constraints on the president when it comes to foreign policy. To this arena we turn, starting with China-U.S. relations and the other potential risks in Asia (the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan). We also briefly turn to Iran and NAFTA. What binds all these risks is that it is essentially up to President Trump whether they become market-relevant or not. Korean Diplomacy Is On Track In mid-September North Korean tensions peaked (Chart 2).2 Leader Kim Jong Un chose to demonstrate known missile capabilities rather than escalate the crisis. Chart 2Markets Have Called Kim's Bluff Chart 3North Korea Is Running Out Of Cash We expected this choice given Pyongyang's considerable military constraints. Kim is a rational actor following his father Kim Jong Il's nuclear negotiations playbook.3 Just as brinkmanship reached new highs, Kim Jong Un declared victory and offered to play nice. Specifically, he launched his most advanced missile yet on November 28 (the Hwasong-15) and immediately thereafter North Korean state media declared that North Korea has "finally realized the great historic cause of completing the state nuclear force," complete with a fireworks celebration in Pyongyang.4 Kim confirmed this message personally on January 1 while offering an olive branch to South Korea for the New Year. Apparently, then, Kim is responsive to the United States' threats of devastating military retaliation against any attack. Kim is also responsive to the fact that China's President Xi Jinping has joined the U.S. coalition imposing sanctions on the North (Chart 3), squeezing North Korea's economy. The deep drop in exports to China suggests that the North will run into foreign-exchange problems if it does not adjust its posture - not to mention shortages of goods like fuel that China is gradually cutting off (Chart 4). In short, the U.S. established a credible military threat in 2017, just as it did with Iran in 2012 (Chart 5). China responded to the U.S. and established a credible economic threat of its own. Kim has de-escalated. Kim said in his New Year declaration that he would only use his nuclear deterrent if the U.S. committed an act of aggression. Rhetoric about destroying American cities is gone. Meanwhile Kim has engaged South Korea in direct negotiations, with military-to-military talks possibly to follow, and both sides will make a display of friendship at the Olympic Games in South Korea in February. Chart 4China Is Enforcing Sanctions Chart 5Credible Threat Cycle: North Korea Mirrors Iran While our view that diplomacy will reduce tensions is on track, we caution that the underlying disagreement is driven by North Korea's weapon capabilities and remains unresolved. The North Korean issue is not a red herring and the diplomatic route may continue to be bumpy from time to time.5 Markets could still be rattled by surprise North Korean provocations. Nevertheless, we do not expect a replay of the 2017 level of "fire and fury" that caused the U.S. 10-year treasury yield to drop from 2.31% to 2.05% between June and September 2017. If the North should jerk back toward a belligerent posture and decisively throw away this opportunity for diplomacy, then we will watch closely to determine whether its provocations truly alter the status quo and whether the U.S. shows any sign of greater willingness to respond with force. Otherwise we will simply monitor the diplomatic talks and watch for any signs of internal stress in North Korea as global sanctions tighten.6 Bottom Line: Korean risks remain market-relevant as the crisis is not resolved and talks are just beginning. Nevertheless, diplomacy is taking shape. We remain long the Korean two-year government bond versus the ten-year on the back of global trends and continued de-escalation. China-U.S. Relations May Sour Anyway Over the past year we have warned clients that U.S.-China tensions are the fundamental source of geopolitical risk globally and in Asia Pacific; that North Korea is a derivative of this fact; and that China's cooperation in policing North Korea would only temporarily dissuade the Trump administration from imposing punitive measures on China over trade. Despite China's assistance with North Korea, Trump will be driven by domestic American politics to slap tariffs on China in addition to those levied on January 22.7 First, Trump is committed to an "America First" trade policy and to economic nationalist voters. Thus he may need to show more muscle against China ahead of the midterm elections. This is particularly true for the key rust-belt states that handed him the election in 2016, where four Democratic senators' seats are in competition in November (not to mention nine other senate seats that could be swayed for similar reasons) (Chart 6). It is politically embarrassing to Trump that China racked up its largest trade surplus ever with the U.S. in his first year in office and is on track to continue racking up surpluses (Chart 7). While Beijing has vowed to open up market access and import more goods and services, these promises have yet to impress (Chart 8). Chart 6Trump's Base Expects Protectionism Chart 7China's Exports To U.S. Are Growing... Administrative rulings on several trade disputes early this year will give Trump ample opportunity to take additional trade action against China. The critical question, however, is whether Trump will continue to focus on item-by-item trade remedies (perhaps at an accelerated pace), or whether he goes beyond previous administrations and demands that China make progress on structural and systemic issues. The latter is more politically difficult and would have greater macro consequences. The U.S. has recently suggested that it made a mistake by bringing China into the WTO. This comes after the December WTO meeting in which the administration was able to secure a joint statement with Japan and Europe that increased the pressure on China.8 At the same time, Trump is weighing a significant decision (due by August, but possible any day now) on China's alleged systemic intellectual property theft, which Trump says is likely to require a "fine" (penalty). And comments by White House officials suggest that the administration may be going after China's promotion of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) as well as forced technology transfers (Chart 9).9 These are structural demands on China that will create much bigger frictions than tariffs on a few sub-sectors. Chart 8...While Imports Remain Tepid Chart 9Foreign Firms Forced To Transfer Tech Second, assuming that the U.S. and international community reach some kind of deal to reduce Korean tensions over the next six-to-eighteen months - for instance, a missile-test moratorium and corresponding easing of sanctions. It is likely still to be a complicated and ugly deal, as Pyongyang has no intention of giving up its nuclear and missile capabilities. The U.S. will have to make unpopular compromises with a rogue regime, comparable to the Iranian nuclear deal of 2015. The deal will leave a bitter taste in Trump's mouth and the administration will likely blame China for failing to prevent the North from achieving its nuclear status. It will rotate to address other long-standing disagreements with China, and may well look for compensation for Korea by taking a harder line on trade. Bottom Line: Korean diplomacy may delay or soften Trump's trade policies but cannot change his domestic political calculus. The Trump administration is more, not less, likely to impose further punitive trade measures on China as the midterm election draws near. We expect Chinese equity volatility to remain high. We are closing our recommendation to go long the CBOE China ETF Volatility Index, which has appreciated by 26.5%. This is not an investable index but an indicator of volatility in ETFs. A Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis? The rumor is going around that China and Taiwan are on the verge of a "Fourth Taiwan Strait Crisis." Clients all over the world - from Hong Kong to San Francisco to Toronto - are asking us about cross-strait tensions and the risk of war. As we go to press, Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen has just publicly acknowledged that war is possible. Taiwan could indeed be a geopolitical "black swan." It was one of our top five black swans for 2016,10 and several extraordinary events that year suggested that our concerns are warranted: China cut off all communication with the island; the Taiwanese navy accidentally fired a missile towards the mainland on the Communist Party's birthday; and a U.S. president-elect spoke directly with a Taiwanese president for the first time since 1979, creating an uproar in Beijing.11 Today, in the wake of Xi Jinping's concentration of power at the nineteenth National Party Congress,12 and Beijing's heavy-handed crackdown on Hong Kong throughout 2017,13 there is renewed concern that China is about to stage a major intervention to rein in Taiwan. There is even talk that China could be preparing to mount a surprise attack.14 The rumors are arising from a confluence of events. On the mainland side, Xi is personally powerful and has made it a priority to lead China into a "New Era" of greater Chinese influence globally. This means that a decision to take bolder action on Taiwan could come from individual whim rather than a collective decision within the party (which would tend to maintain the status quo). Xi has also taken personal control of the military through promotions, and reasserted that the "party controls the gun," making it less likely that he would meet institutional resistance in any major foreign policy initiative. Finally, Xi has hardened Communist Party policies toward Taiwan, reflected in increased military drills, controversial new air traffic routes, and tougher language in the five-year policy blueprint that he presented to the party congress. On the Taiwanese side, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which is the party that leans toward independence from the mainland, dominates the country's politics. The DPP not only won the presidency but also won legislative control for the first time in the January 2016 election.15 The DPP is also the leading party on lower levels of government. And young Taiwanese people increasingly identify as exclusively Taiwanese.16 While President Tsai has been relatively pragmatic so far, her party has fewer domestic political constraints than in the past - leaving room for the party's more radical side to have more influence or for Tsai to overreach. Internationally, Tsai has allies in Trump and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan - both nationalists who favor Taiwan and harbor deep suspicions about the reviving communism emanating from Beijing. Hence we still see Taiwan as a potential black swan event in the coming years. However, we would put a near 0% subjective probability on the likelihood that China will spring a massive surprise attack in the near future. Why? Xi is not yet breaking the status quo: Xi has not yet shown himself to be a reckless revisionist. China's foreign policy assertiveness is a gradual process that began in the mid-2000s - it traces the country's growing economic importance and need for supply-line security (Chart 10). Xi has trod carefully in both the East and South China Seas, and both of these strategic thrusts are connected with China's security vis-à-vis Taiwan, as well as vis-à-vis the U.S. and Japan. There is no reason to think that China is ready to launch a multi-front attack against the combined forces of the U.S., Taiwan, Japan, and the rest of the American alliance system. North Korea's new missile capabilities do not tip the scales in China's favor either. Incidentally, even Xi's tougher rhetoric at the party congress echoed the 2005 "Anti-Secession" law, so that more evidence would be needed to conclude that a drastic policy shift is under way.17 China may even want to avoid antagonizing the Taiwanese ahead of local elections later this year. Trump is not yet breaking the status quo: Trump's Asia policy has been consistent with that of previous administrations.18 And Trump's moves to assure Taiwan of U.S. commitment to its defense are status quo. After all, the Democratic Party is historically more enthusiastic about supplying Taiwan with arms (Chart 11). Trump has assured Xi Jinping he will adhere to the "One China" policy; and it is rarely observed that Trump's controversial phone call with Taiwanese President Tsai followed the first-ever tête-à-tête between a Chinese president and his Taiwanese counterpart.19 As long as Trump upholds the norm, the U.S. remains committed to Taiwan's defense yet will refuse to let Taiwan lock it into excessive tensions with China. This policy actually reduces the probability of a miscalculation by Beijing or Taipei. By contrast, the probability would rise if China and Taiwan perceived that the U.S. was withdrawing from its commitments, as Taiwan might want to suck the U.S. back in, or China might see Taiwan as vulnerable. Incidentally, if the Trump administration is not rushing into conflict over Taiwan, then Japan's Abe administration certainly is not. Tsai is not yet breaking the status quo: President Tsai has so far played a pragmatic role. While she is dissatisfied with the "1992 Consensus," which holds that there is only "One China" but two different interpretations of it, she has not rejected the status quo, and she has not implied that Taiwan should be its own state (either of which would cause a huge reaction from the mainland). And there is no serious prospect of a popular independence referendum ("Twexit"?) on the horizon, which would assuredly prompt Beijing to aggressive measures. Chart 10China's Assertiveness Grows With Trade Chart 11Trump Has Not Changed Status Quo In order for us to increase the probability of a Taiwanese war, we would have to see one of these three players start behaving in a way that truly violates the status quo that has prevailed since the U.S. and China normalized relations in 1979. The real risk for Taiwan comes if the U.S. and China fail to arrest the secular decline in relations that began in the mid-2000s. A serious misunderstanding between these two would have a range of global repercussions, and could lead to miscalculation over Taiwan. Unfortunately, a miscalculation is conceivable within Trump's and Tsai's terms, which last until 2020. Consider the following scenario as an example. The U.S. is currently demanding that China assist with the North Korean problem, and may believe that it can compensate China by delaying any punitive trade measures. However, China may be expecting something else - it may be expecting the U.S. to downgrade relations with Taiwan. (In other words, China says, we diminish the North Korean threat to the U.S. mainland, you diminish the Taiwanese threat to the Chinese mainland.) Instead of giving China what it wants, the U.S. may provide Taiwan with new weapon capabilities in response to China's militarization of the South China Sea. In this way, U.S.-China competition could shift to the Taiwan Strait in the aftermath of any Korean settlement. In the meantime, we see Taiwan as vulnerable to China's discrete economic sanctions, which China has not hesitated to use in this or other diplomatic spats (Chart 12).20 Chart 12Mainland Tourists Punish Rebel Taiwan Bottom Line: What is clear to us is that U.S.-China tensions continue to grow and Taiwan could become more frightened, or more emboldened, in the "security dilemma" between them. But until we see signs that any of the relevant powers are actively attempting to break the status quo, we see war as a distant prospect. More likely, today's robust trade between China and Taiwan could suffer a hit due to politics, and tit-for-tat cross-strait sanctions could be imposed. We are closing our tactical trade of long Philippine peso / short Taiwanese dollar for a loss of 5%. This was a speculative play on the divergence in diplomatic relations with China. Taiwan has allowed its currency to rise to avoid antagonizing President Trump, while China and Taiwan have so far avoided the diplomatic crisis that we expect eventually to occur, as outlined above. Iran: Could America Pivot Back To The Middle East? BCA's Geopolitical Strategy correctly forecast the U.S.-Iran détente two years before the nuclear deal was agreed in the summer of 2015.21 At the heart of this call was our read of global forces, namely the paradigm shift in the global distribution of power away from American hegemony towards multipolarity (Chart 13). As the U.S. pivoted its geopolitical focus towards China, Iran became a thorn in its side, forcing it to maintain considerable presence in the Middle East. Without a formal détente with Iran - of which the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is the fulcrum - such a pivot to Asia would be extremely difficult. On January 12, President Trump imperiled our forecast by threatening not to waive sanctions against Iran the next time they come due (May 12).22 To avoid that fate, President Trump wants to see three major changes to the JCPOA: An indefinite extension of limits on Iran's uranium enrichment; Immediate access for inspectors to all nuclear sites; Adding new provisions to limit development of ballistic missiles. These additions are likely to kill the deal, although Trump appears to have directed his comments to the European signatories only. This could potentially create a loophole in the crisis, by allowing Europe to agree to new thresholds for re-imposing sanctions outside of the deal's framework. Pressure from the U.S. president comes at a delicate time for Iran. Domestic unrest has been ongoing since December 28. Although protests have largely fizzled out, they have reopened the rift between the clerical regime, led by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and moderate President Hassan Rouhani. In a surprising statement, President Rouhani said, "it would be a misrepresentation and also an insult to Iranian people to say they only had economic demands ... people had economic, political, and social demands." He went on to say that "We cannot pick a lifestyle and tell two generations after us to live like that ... The views of the young generation about life and the world is different than ours." We agree with President Rouhani. First, 49% of Iran's population is under the age of 30 (Chart 14). Meanwhile, the Supreme Leader and the twelve members of the "Guardian Council" - which has the power to veto parliamentary legislation and to vet presidential candidates - have an average age of 73.23 As with the 2009 Green Revolution, which was brutally repressed, Iran's demographics provide the kindling for a potential regime change. Chart 13American Hegemony Ended,##br## Global Multipolarity Ascending Chart 14Iran's Youth:##br## A National Security Risk Second, Iran's economy is clearly not the main reason for the angst. While unemployment is elevated at 12%, it is only slightly above its two-decade average. Meanwhile, inflation is well below its average, with real GDP growth at 5.8% by the end of 2016 (Chart 15). Considering that inflation peaked at 44%, and real GDP growth bottomed at -16% during the most severe sanctions, the current situation is not dire. What has irked the population is that while the private sector suffered throughout the sanctions ordeal, government spending remained elevated (Chart 16). This is not merely because of automatic stabilizers amidst a deep recession. Instead, Iran has elevated its military spending as new geopolitical opportunities presented themselves in the region (Chart 17). It currently spends more on its military as a percent of GDP than any peer in the region (save for Saudi Arabia, its chief rival). It is openly engaged in military conflict in both Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, while it continues to support allies militarily, economically, and diplomatically across the region, particularly Hezbollah in Lebanon. Chart 15Economic Situation Poor But Not Dire Chart 16Government Felt No Pain During Sanctions Chart 17Iran Overspends On Military Third, Chart 18 shows that Iran is becoming "dangerously wealthy." Both the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the 2009 Green Revolution occurred at, or near, the peak of Iran's wealth. The 25 years preceding each event saw the country's GDP per capita triple and double, respectively. Chart 18Wealth Is Also A National Security Risk Political scientists Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel have empirically shown that wealth changes people's basic values and beliefs, from political and economic beliefs to religion and sexual mores.24 This is the process of modernization. Economic development gives rise to cultural changes that make individual autonomy, gender equality, and even democracy likely. Iran has essentially come full circle since 1979. We suspect that the conservative hardliners in the regime understand the revolutionary context well. After all, they were themselves in their 30s when they rebelled against the old corrupt regime. As such, they will welcome President Trump's pressure as it gives them a raison d'être and an opportunity to undermine the moderate President Rouhani who staked his presidency on the success of the nuclear deal. The risk in this scenario is that the domestic arena of the ongoing "two-level game" will prevent both the U.S. and Iran from backing away from a confrontation. Iranian hardliners, who control part of the armed forces, could lash out in the Persian Gulf, either by rhetorically threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz - as they did repeatedly in 2011 - or by boarding foreign vessels in international waters.25 Geopolitical tensions would therefore serve to undermine President Rouhani's embrace of diplomacy and to de-legitimize any further protests, which would be deemed treasonous. For Trump, a belligerent Iranian response to his pressure would in turn legitimize his suspicion of the nuclear deal. What about the global constraints of multipolarity that compelled the U.S. to seek a détente with Iran in order to pivot to Asia? They remain in place. As such, President Trump's simultaneous pressure on Iran and China runs counter to U.S. strategy, given its limited material resources and diplomatic bandwidth. It is therefore unsustainable. What we cannot forecast, however, is whether the White House will realize this before or after it commits the U.S. to a serious confrontation. Bottom Line: Domestic political calculus in both Iran and the U.S. make further Tehran-Washington tensions likely. The two countries are playing a dangerous two-level game that could spiral out of control in the Middle East. For the time being, however, we expect merely a minor geopolitical risk premium to seep into the energy markets, supporting our bullish BCA House View on oil prices. NAFTA: Of Global Relevance On a recent client trip through Toronto and Ottawa we were unsurprisingly asked a lot of questions regarding the fate of NAFTA. The deal is not just of importance to Canada but to the world. It is a bellwether for our low-conviction view that President Trump is going to moderate to the middle on policy issues ahead of the midterm elections. We encourage clients to read our November Special Report titled "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism."26 In it, we cautioned clients that the probability of NAFTA being abrogated by Trump is around 50%. Why so high? Because there are few constraints: Economic: The U.S. economy has been largely unaffected by NAFTA (Chart 19) and would likely experience no disruption if Trump abrogated the deal and began negotiations on bilateral trade agreements with Canada and Mexico. Political: Investors and the media are overstating the importance of the Midwest automotive and agricultural sectors to Trump's base. Trump's Midwest voters knew well his view on NAFTA when they voted for him. In fact, they voted for him because of his NAFTA view. Investors have to realize that Americans do not support unbridled free trade (Chart 20). Constitutional/Legal: There is an argument that Congress could stop President Trump from withdrawing from NAFTA, but the only way to do so would be to nullify his executive orders or legislate a law that prevents the president from withdrawing. However, given the point from above, Congress is afraid to go against the median voter. The immediate implications for investors are that both the CAD and MXN could face downside pressure following the Montreal round of negotiations ending January 29. Both fell by 1.2% and 1.9% respectively in the week of trading following the third round of negotiations in September (Chart 21). Chart 19U.S. Economy:##br## Largely Unaffected By NAFTA Chart 20America Belongs To##br## The Anti-Globalization Bloc Chart 21NAFTA Negotiations##br## Are FX-Relevant More broadly, NAFTA is an important bellwether for the direction of Trump's policy. He has practically no constraints to abrogating the deal. If his intention is to renegotiate two separate deals - or simply reactivate the 1988 Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement - then it makes sense for him to end NAFTA and score political points at home. As such, if he does not, it will indicate that the White House is not truly populist but has been captured by the Republican establishment. Bottom Line: If President Trump does not abrogate NAFTA, which comes with few constraints, then he has clearly decided to throw his lot in with the U.S. establishment, which has consistently been more pro-trade than the American voter. This would be highly bullish for investors as it would suggest that the (geo)political risk premium would dissipate going forward. In fact, the decision on NAFTA could be a broad indicator for future decisions on trade relations with China, Iranian sanctions, and policy writ large. For if Trump sides with the establishment on an issue with minimal constraints, then he is more likely to do so on issues with greater constraints. This month, we are closing our 2/30 curve steepener recommendation, which is down 90bps since inception. The two alternative ways we have played rising U.S. growth and inflation prospects - shorting the 10-year Treasury vs. the Bunds and shorting the Fed Funds December 2018 futures - are in the money, 27bps and 46bs respectively. We are keeping both open for now. In addition, we are closing our long French industrial equities relative to German industrials for a gain of 10.26%. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Upside Risks In U.S., Downside Risks In China," dated January 17, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 The playbook is really Nikita Khruschev's. 4 Please see "NK celebrates completion of nuke arsenal with fireworks," The Korea Herald, December 2, 2017, available at www.koreaherald.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Trump decided to impose tariffs on solar panels and washing machine, mostly affecting China and South Korea, on January 22. On steel and aluminum, Trump has until late April to decide, i.e. 90 days after reports from the Commerce Department due Jan. 15 and Jan. 22. Please see Andrew Restuccia and Doug Palmer, "White House preparing for trade crackdown," Politico, dated January 7, 2018, available at www.politico.com. 8 The U.S. Trade Representative's latest edition of an annual report to Congress over China's compliance with World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments declares that the U.S. "erred in supporting China's entry into the WTO on terms that have proven to be ineffective in securing China's embrace of an open, market-oriented trade regime." Please see "Joint Statement by the United States, European Union and Japan at MC11," December 2017, and "USTR Releases Annual Reports on China's and Russia's WTO Compliance," dated January 2018, available at ustr.gov. 9 Please see Lesley Wroughton, "Trump administration says U.S. mistakenly backed China WTO accession in 2001," Reuters, January 19, 2018, available at www.reuters.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see "China cuts communication with Taiwan," Al Jazeera, June 25, 2016, available at www.aljazeera.com; "Taiwan mistakenly fires supersonic missile killing one," BBC, July 1, 2016, available at www.bbc.com; Mark Landler and David E. Sanger, "Trump Speaks With Taiwan's Leader, An Affront To China," New York Times, December 2, 2016, available at www.nytimes.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?" dated November 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see "U.S.-China: From Rivalry To Proxy Wars" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Xi Jinping is rumored to have told Communist Party leaders in 2012 that the country would invade Taiwan by 2020. Please see Ian Easton, The Chinese Invasion Threat: Taiwan's Defense and American Strategy in Asia (Project 2049 Institute, 2017). 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan's Election: How Dire Will The Straits Get?" dated January 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 National Chengchi University's long-running data series on Taiwanese identity shows that 58% of Taiwanese people identify as Taiwanese, and 70% under the age of 40. However, 77.5% of twenty-year olds also support the political status quo, i.e. do not seek political independence. Please see Marie-Alice McLean-Dreyfus, "Taiwan: Is there a political generation gap?" dated June 9, 2017, available at lowyinstitute.org. 17 Please see Richard C. Bush, "What Xi Jinping Said About Taiwan At The 19th Party Congress," Brookings Institution, October 19, 2017, available at www.brookings.edu. 18 Even the North Korea threat portfolio was bequeathed to him from former President Barack Obama, and it is being managed largely by the Pentagon and navy. 19 In other words, the incoming Trump administration implied that if China's leader Xi Jinping can speak directly to Taiwan's leader Ma Ying-jeou, then U.S. President Donald Trump can speak to Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. This is a sign that alliances are alive and well, and that there are tensions, but it is not a harbinger of war. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Does It Pay To Pivot To China?" dated July 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Out Of The Vault: Explaining The U.S.-Iran Détente," dated July 15, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 The JCPOA did not actually legislate the removal of sanctions against Iran as the Obama administration was unable to get the Republican-controlled Senate to agree. Instead, the president has to use his executive authority to continue waiving sanctions against Iran. 23 That is only two years away from the average life expectancy in Iran. 24 Please see Ronald Inglehart and Christian Welzel, Modernization, Cultural Change, and Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. 25 Iranian military personnel - almost always the Navy of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards - seized British Royal Navy personnel in 2007 and U.S. Navy personnel in 2016. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Feature It has been a Geopolitical Strategy tradition, since our launch in 2012, to include our best and worst forecasts of the year in our end-of-year Strategic Outlook monthly reports.1 Since we have switched over to a weekly publication schedule, we are making this section of our Outlook an individual report.2 It will also be the final publication of the year, provided that there is no global conflagration worthy of a missive between now and January 10, when we return to our regular publication schedule. The Worst Calls Of 2017 A forecasting mistake is wasted if one learns nothing from the error. Alternatively, it is an opportunity to arm oneself with wisdom for the next fight. This is why we take our mistakes seriously and why we begin this report card with the zingers. Overall, we are satisfied with our performance in 2017, as the successes below will testify. However, we made one serious error and two ancillary ones. Short Emerging Markets Continuing to recommend an overweight DM / underweight EM stance was the major failure this year (Chart 1). More specifically, we penned several bearish reports on the politics of Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey throughout the year to support our view.3 What did we learn from our mistake? The main driving forces behind EM risk assets in 2017 have been U.S. TIPS yields and the greenback (Chart 2). Weak inflation data and policy disappointments as the pro-growth, populist economic policy of the Trump Administration stalled mid-year supported the EM carry trade throughout the year. The post-election dollar rally dissipated, while Chinese fiscal and credit stimulus carried over into 2017 and buoyed demand for EM exports. Chart 1The Worst Call Of 2017: Long DM / Short EM Chart 2How Long Can The EM Carry Trade Survive? Our bearish call was based on EM macroeconomic and political fundamentals. On one hand, our fundamental analysis was genuinely wrong. Emerging markets were buoyed by Chinese stimulus and a broad-based DM recovery. On the other hand, our fundamental analysis was irrelevant, as the global "search-for-yield" overwhelmed all other factors. Chart 3The Dollar Ought ##br##To Rebound Chart 4Chinese Monetary Conditions Point##br## To Slowing Industrial Activity Going forward, it is difficult to see this combination of factors emerge anew. First, the U.S. economy is set to outperform the rest of the world in 2018, particularly with the stimulative tax cut finally on the books, which should be dollar bullish (Chart 3). Second, downside risks to the Chinese economy are multiplying (Chart 4) as policymakers crack down on the shadow financial sector and real estate (Chart 5). BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has shown that EM currencies are already flagging risks to global growth. Their "carry canary indicator" - EM currencies vs. the JPY - is forecasting a sharp deceleration in global growth within the next two quarters (Chart 6). Chart 5Chinese Growth ##br##Slowing Down? Chart 6After Carry Trades Lose Momentum,##br## Global IP Weakens That said, we have learned our lesson. We are closing all of our short EM positions and awaiting January credit numbers from China. If our view on Chinese financial sector reforms is correct, these figures should disappoint. If they do not, the EM party can continue. "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin" In our defense, the title of our first Weekly Report of the year belied the nuanced analysis within.4 We argued that the Trump administration would begin its relationship with China with a "symbolic punitive measure," but that it would then "seek high-level negotiations toward a framework for the administration's relations with China over the next four years." This was largely the script followed by the White House. We also warned clients that it would be the "lead up to the 2018 or 2020 elections" that truly revealed President Trump's protectionist side. Nonetheless, we were overly bearish about trade protectionism throughout 2017. First, President Trump did not name China a currency manipulator. Second, the border adjustment tax (BAT), which we thought had a 55% chance of being included in tax reform, really was dead-on-arrival. Third, the "Mar-A-Lago Summit" consensus lasted through the summer, buoying companies with relative exposure to China relative to the S&P 500 (Chart 7).5 Chart 7Second Worst Call Of 2017:##br## Alarmism On Protectionism Why did we get the Trump White House wrong on protectionism? There are three possibilities: Constraints error: We strayed too far from our constraints-based model by focusing too much on preferences of the Trump Administration. While we are correct that the White House lacks constraints when it comes to trade, tensions with North Korea this year - which we forecast correctly - were a constraint on an overly punitive trade policy against China. Preferences error: We got the Trump administration preferences wrong. Trade protectionism is the wool that Candidate Trump pulled over his voters' eyes. He is in fact an establishment Republican - a pluto-populist - with no intention of actually enacting protectionist policies. Timing error: We were too early. Year 2018 will see fireworks. Unfortunately for our clients, we have no idea which error we committed. But Trump's national security speech on Dec. 18 maintained the protectionist threat, and there are several key deadlines coming up that should reveal which way the winds are blowing: New Year: Trump will have to decide on January 12 and February 3 whether to impose tariffs on solar panels and washing machines, respectively, under Section 201 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974. This ruling will have implications for other trade items. End of Q1: NAFTA negotiations have been extended through the end of Q1 2018. As we recently posited, the abrogation of NAFTA by the White House is a 50-50 probability.6 The question is whether the Trump administration follows this up with separate bilateral talks with Canada and Mexico, or whether it moves beyond NAFTA to clash directly with the WTO instead.7 The U.K. Election (Although We Got Brexit Right!) Our forecasting record of U.K. elections is abysmal. We predicted that Theresa May would preserve her majority in the House of Commons, although in our defense we also noted that the risks were clearly skewed to the downside given the movement of the U.K. median voter to the left.8 We are now 0 for 2, having also incorrectly called the 2015 general election (we expected the Tories to fail to reach the majority in that election).9 On the other hand, we correctly sounded the alarm on Brexit, noting that the probability was much closer to 50% than what the market was pricing at the time.10 What gives? The mix of U.K.'s first-past-the-post system and the country's unique party distribution makes forecasting elections difficult. Because the Tories are essentially the only right-of-center party in England, they tend to outperform their polls and win constituencies with a low-plurality of votes. As such, in 2017, we ignored the strong Labour momentum in the polls, expecting that it would stall. It did not (Chart 8). That said, our job is not to call elections, but to generate alpha by focusing on the difference between what the market is pricing in and what we believe will happen. If elections are a catalyst for market performance - as was the case with the French one this year - we track them closely in a series of publications and adjust our probabilities as new data comes in. For U.K. assets this year, by contrast, getting the Brexit process right was far more relevant than the general election. Our high conviction view that the EU would not be punitive, that the U.K. would accept all conditions, and that the May administration would essentially stick to the "hard Brexit" strategy it defined in January ended up being correct.11 This allowed us to call the GBP bottom versus the USD in January (Chart 9). Chart 8Third Worst Call Of 2018: The U.K. Election Chart 9But We Got Brexit - And Cable! - Right What did we learn from our final error? Stop trying to forecast U.K. elections! The Best Calls Of 2017 The best overall call in 2017 was to tell clients to buy the S&P 500 in April and never look back. Our "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" missive on April 26 was preceded by our analysis of global geopolitical risks and opportunities.12 In these, we concluded that "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017" and "Understated In 2018."13 As such, the combination of strong risk asset performance and low volatility did not surprise us. It was our forecast (Chart 10). U.S. Politics: Tax Cuts & Impeachment Not only did we forecast that President Trump would manage to successfully pass tax reform in 2017, but we also correctly called the GOP's fiscal profligacy.14 We get little recognition for the latter in conversations with clients and colleagues, but it was a highly contentious call, especially after seven years of austere rhetoric from the fiscal conservatives supposedly running the Republican Party. We were also correct that impeachment fears and the ongoing Mueller Investigation would have little impact on U.S. assets.15 Chart 11 shows that the U.S. dollar and S&P 500 barely moved with each Trump-related scandal (Table 1). Chart 10The Best Call Of 2017: Getting The Market Right Chart 11No Real Impact From Trump Imbroglio By correctly identifying the ongoing "Trump Put" in the market, we were able to remain bullish on U.S. equities throughout the year and avoid calling any pullbacks. Table 1An Eventful Year 1 Of The Trump Presidency Europe (All Of It) Our performance forecasting European politics and markets has been stellar this year. Instead of reviewing each call, the list below simply summarizes each report: "After Brexit, N-Exit?" - Although technically a call made in 2016, our view that Brexit would cause a surge in support for the EU was a view for 2017.16 Several anti-establishment populists failed to perform in line with their 2015-2016 polling, particularly Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" - We definitely answered this question in the negative, going back to November 2016.17 This allowed us to recommend clients go long the euro vs. the U.S. dollar (Chart 12). Moreover, we argued that regardless of who won the election, the next French government would embark on structural reforms.18 As a play on our bullish view of France, we recommended that clients overweight French industrials vs. German ones (Chart 13). "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italy In Purgatorio" - We correctly assessed that Italian Euroskpetics would migrate towards the center on the question of the euro. However, we missed recommending the epic rally in Italian equities and bonds that should have naturally flowed from our political view.19 "Fade Catalan Risks" - Based on our 2014 net assessment, we concluded that the Catalan independence drive would be largely irrelevant for the markets.20 This proved to be correct this year. "Can Turkey Restart The Immigration Crisis?" - Earlier in the year, clients became nervous about a potential diplomatic breakdown between the EU and Turkey leading to a renewal of the immigration crisis.21 We reiterated our long-held view that the immigration crisis did not end because of Turkish intervention, but because of tighter European enforcement. Throughout the year, we were proven right, with Europeans becoming more and more focused on interdiction. Chart 12Second Best Call Of 2017: The Euro... Chart 13...And France In Particular China: Policy-Induced Financial Tightening Throughout 2016-17, in the lead-up to China's nineteenth National Party Congress, we argued that the stability imperative would ensure an accommodative-but-not-too-accommodative policy stance.22 In particular, we highlighted the ongoing impetus for anti-pollution controls.23 This forecast broadly proved to be correct, as the government maintained stimulus yet simultaneously surprised the markets with financial and environmental regulatory crackdowns throughout the year. Once these regulatory campaigns took off, we argued that they would remain tentative, since the truly tough policies would have to wait until after the party congress. At that point, Xi Jinping could re-launch his structural reform agenda, primarily by intensifying financial sector tightening.24 Over the course of the year, this political analysis began to be revealed in the data, with broad money (M3) figures suggesting that money growth decelerated sharply in 2017 (Chart 14). In addition, we correctly called several moves by President Xi Jinping at the party congress.25 Chart 14Third Best Call Of 2017:##br## Chinese Reforms? (We Will See In 2018!) Our view that Chinese policymakers will restart reforms after the party congress is now becoming more widely accepted, given Xi's party congress speech Oct. 18 and the news from the December Politburo meeting.26 Where we differ from the market is in arguing that Beijing's bite will be worse than its bark. We are concerned that there is considerable risk to the downside and that stimulus will come much later than investors think this time around. Our China view was largely correct in 2017, but the real market significance will be felt in 2018. There are still several questions outstanding, including whether the crackdown on the financial sector will be as growth-constraining as we think. As such, this is a key view that will carry over into 2018. Thankfully, we should know whether we are right or wrong by the March National People's Congress session and the data releases shortly thereafter. North Korea - Both A Tail Risk And An Overstated Risk We correctly identified North Korea as a key 2017 geopolitical risk in our Strategic Outlook and began signaling that it was no longer a "red herring" as early as April 2016.27 In April 2017, we told clients to prepare for safe haven flows due to the likelihood that tensions would increase as the U.S. established a "credible threat" of war, a playbook that the Obama administration most recently used against Iran.28 While we flagged North Korea as a risk that would move the markets, we also signaled precisely when the risk became overstated. In September, we told clients that U.S. Treasury yields would rise from their lows that month as investors realized that the North Korean regime was constrained by its paltry military capability.29 At the same time, we gave President Trump an A+ for his performance establishing a credible threat, a bet that worked not only on Pyongyang, but also on Beijing. Since this summer, China has begun to ratchet up economic pressure against North Korea (Chart 15). Chart 15Fourth Best Call Of 2017: North Korea Middle East And Oil Prices BCA Research scored a big win this year with our energy call. It would be unfair for us to take credit for that view. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy as well as our Energy Sector Strategy deserve all the credit.30 Nonetheless, we helped our commodity teams make the right calls by: Correctly forecasting that Saudi-Iranian and Russo-Turkish tensions would de-escalate, allowing OPEC and Russia to maintain the production-cut agreement;31 Emphasizing risks to Iraqi production as tensions shifted from the Islamic State to the Kurdish Regional Government; Highlighting the likely continued decline, but not sharp cut-off, of Venezuelan production, due to the regime's ability to cling to power even as the conditions of production worsened.32 In addition, we were correct to fade various concerns regarding renewed tensions in Qatar, Yemen, and Lebanon throughout the year. Despite the media narrative that the Middle East has become a cauldron of instability anew, our long-held view that all the players involved are constrained by domestic and material constraints has remained cogent. In particular, our view that Saudi Arabia would engage in serious social reforms bore fruit in 2017, with several moves by the ruling regime to evolve the country away from feudal monarchy.33 Going forward, a major risk to our view is the Trump administration policy towards Iran, our top Black Swan risk for 2018. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Assistant ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com 1 Due to the high volume of footnotes in this report, we have decided to include them at the end of the document. For a review of our past Strategic Outlooks, please visit gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 For the rest of our 2018 Outlook, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, and "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Turkey: Military Adventurism And Capital Controls," dated December 7, 2016, "South Africa: Back To Reality," dated April 5, 2017, "Brazil: Politics Giveth And Politics Taketh Away," dated May 24, 2017, "South Africa: Crisis Of Expectations," dated June 28, 2017, "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "G19," dated July 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 The outcome at the WTO Buenos Aires summit last week offered a possible way out of confrontation between the Trump administration and the WTO. It featured Europe and Japan taking a tougher line on trade violations, namely China, to respond to the Trump administration grievances that, unaddressed, could escalate into a full-fledged Trump-WTO clash. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How Long Can The 'Trump Put' Last?" dated June 14, 2017 and "U.K. Election: The Median Voter Has Spoken," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.K. Election Preview," dated February 26, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me?' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017 and "Political Risks Are Understated In 2017," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes And Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017 and "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 14, 2014 and "Why So Serious?" dated October 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Five Questions On Europe," dated March 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 24 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy We," dated June 28, 2017, "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 25 We argued in our 2017 Strategic Outlook that while Xi's faction would gain a majority on the Politburo Standing Committee, he would maintain a reasonable balance and refrain from excluding opposing factions from power. We expected that factional struggle would flare back up into the open (as with the ouster of Sun Zhengcai), and that Xi would retire anti-corruption chief Wang Qishan, but not that Xi would avoid promoting a successor for 2022 to the Politburo Standing Committee. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016 and "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 28 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 29 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 30 If you are an investor with even a passing interest in commodities and oil, you must review the work of our colleagues Robert Ryan and Matt Conlan. 31 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Forget About The Middle East?" dated January 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 32 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Venezuela: Oil Market Rebalance Is Too Little, Too Late," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 33 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise," dated November 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Feature It has been a Geopolitical Strategy tradition, since our launch in 2012, to include our best and worst forecasts of the year in our end-of-year Strategic Outlook monthly reports.1 Since we have switched over to a weekly publication schedule, we are making this section of our Outlook an individual report.2 It will also be the final publication of the year, provided that there is no global conflagration worthy of a missive between now and January 10, when we return to our regular publication schedule. The Worst Calls Of 2017 A forecasting mistake is wasted if one learns nothing from the error. Alternatively, it is an opportunity to arm oneself with wisdom for the next fight. This is why we take our mistakes seriously and why we begin this report card with the zingers. Overall, we are satisfied with our performance in 2017, as the successes below will testify. However, we made one serious error and two ancillary ones. Short Emerging Markets Continuing to recommend an overweight DM / underweight EM stance was the major failure this year (Chart 1). More specifically, we penned several bearish reports on the politics of Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey throughout the year to support our view.3 What did we learn from our mistake? The main driving forces behind EM risk assets in 2017 have been U.S. TIPS yields and the greenback (Chart 2). Weak inflation data and policy disappointments as the pro-growth, populist economic policy of the Trump Administration stalled mid-year supported the EM carry trade throughout the year. The post-election dollar rally dissipated, while Chinese fiscal and credit stimulus carried over into 2017 and buoyed demand for EM exports. Chart 1The Worst Call Of 2017: Long DM / Short EM Chart 2How Long Can The EM Carry Trade Survive? Our bearish call was based on EM macroeconomic and political fundamentals. On one hand, our fundamental analysis was genuinely wrong. Emerging markets were buoyed by Chinese stimulus and a broad-based DM recovery. On the other hand, our fundamental analysis was irrelevant, as the global "search-for-yield" overwhelmed all other factors. Chart 3The Dollar Ought ##br##To Rebound Chart 4Chinese Monetary Conditions Point##br## To Slowing Industrial Activity Going forward, it is difficult to see this combination of factors emerge anew. First, the U.S. economy is set to outperform the rest of the world in 2018, particularly with the stimulative tax cut finally on the books, which should be dollar bullish (Chart 3). Second, downside risks to the Chinese economy are multiplying (Chart 4) as policymakers crack down on the shadow financial sector and real estate (Chart 5). BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has shown that EM currencies are already flagging risks to global growth. Their "carry canary indicator" - EM currencies vs. the JPY - is forecasting a sharp deceleration in global growth within the next two quarters (Chart 6). Chart 5Chinese Growth ##br##Slowing Down? Chart 6After Carry Trades Lose Momentum,##br## Global IP Weakens That said, we have learned our lesson. We are closing all of our short EM positions and awaiting January credit numbers from China. If our view on Chinese financial sector reforms is correct, these figures should disappoint. If they do not, the EM party can continue. "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin" In our defense, the title of our first Weekly Report of the year belied the nuanced analysis within.4 We argued that the Trump administration would begin its relationship with China with a "symbolic punitive measure," but that it would then "seek high-level negotiations toward a framework for the administration's relations with China over the next four years." This was largely the script followed by the White House. We also warned clients that it would be the "lead up to the 2018 or 2020 elections" that truly revealed President Trump's protectionist side. Nonetheless, we were overly bearish about trade protectionism throughout 2017. First, President Trump did not name China a currency manipulator. Second, the border adjustment tax (BAT), which we thought had a 55% chance of being included in tax reform, really was dead-on-arrival. Third, the "Mar-A-Lago Summit" consensus lasted through the summer, buoying companies with relative exposure to China relative to the S&P 500 (Chart 7).5 Chart 7Second Worst Call Of 2017:##br## Alarmism On Protectionism Why did we get the Trump White House wrong on protectionism? There are three possibilities: Constraints error: We strayed too far from our constraints-based model by focusing too much on preferences of the Trump Administration. While we are correct that the White House lacks constraints when it comes to trade, tensions with North Korea this year - which we forecast correctly - were a constraint on an overly punitive trade policy against China. Preferences error: We got the Trump administration preferences wrong. Trade protectionism is the wool that Candidate Trump pulled over his voters' eyes. He is in fact an establishment Republican - a pluto-populist - with no intention of actually enacting protectionist policies. Timing error: We were too early. Year 2018 will see fireworks. Unfortunately for our clients, we have no idea which error we committed. But Trump's national security speech on Dec. 18 maintained the protectionist threat, and there are several key deadlines coming up that should reveal which way the winds are blowing: New Year: Trump will have to decide on January 12 and February 3 whether to impose tariffs on solar panels and washing machines, respectively, under Section 201 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974. This ruling will have implications for other trade items. End of Q1: NAFTA negotiations have been extended through the end of Q1 2018. As we recently posited, the abrogation of NAFTA by the White House is a 50-50 probability.6 The question is whether the Trump administration follows this up with separate bilateral talks with Canada and Mexico, or whether it moves beyond NAFTA to clash directly with the WTO instead.7 The U.K. Election (Although We Got Brexit Right!) Our forecasting record of U.K. elections is abysmal. We predicted that Theresa May would preserve her majority in the House of Commons, although in our defense we also noted that the risks were clearly skewed to the downside given the movement of the U.K. median voter to the left.8 We are now 0 for 2, having also incorrectly called the 2015 general election (we expected the Tories to fail to reach the majority in that election).9 On the other hand, we correctly sounded the alarm on Brexit, noting that the probability was much closer to 50% than what the market was pricing at the time.10 What gives? The mix of U.K.'s first-past-the-post system and the country's unique party distribution makes forecasting elections difficult. Because the Tories are essentially the only right-of-center party in England, they tend to outperform their polls and win constituencies with a low-plurality of votes. As such, in 2017, we ignored the strong Labour momentum in the polls, expecting that it would stall. It did not (Chart 8). That said, our job is not to call elections, but to generate alpha by focusing on the difference between what the market is pricing in and what we believe will happen. If elections are a catalyst for market performance - as was the case with the French one this year - we track them closely in a series of publications and adjust our probabilities as new data comes in. For U.K. assets this year, by contrast, getting the Brexit process right was far more relevant than the general election. Our high conviction view that the EU would not be punitive, that the U.K. would accept all conditions, and that the May administration would essentially stick to the "hard Brexit" strategy it defined in January ended up being correct.11 This allowed us to call the GBP bottom versus the USD in January (Chart 9). Chart 8Third Worst Call Of 2018: The U.K. Election Chart 9But We Got Brexit - And Cable! - Right What did we learn from our final error? Stop trying to forecast U.K. elections! The Best Calls Of 2017 The best overall call in 2017 was to tell clients to buy the S&P 500 in April and never look back. Our "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" missive on April 26 was preceded by our analysis of global geopolitical risks and opportunities.12 In these, we concluded that "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017" and "Understated In 2018."13 As such, the combination of strong risk asset performance and low volatility did not surprise us. It was our forecast (Chart 10). U.S. Politics: Tax Cuts & Impeachment Not only did we forecast that President Trump would manage to successfully pass tax reform in 2017, but we also correctly called the GOP's fiscal profligacy.14 We get little recognition for the latter in conversations with clients and colleagues, but it was a highly contentious call, especially after seven years of austere rhetoric from the fiscal conservatives supposedly running the Republican Party. We were also correct that impeachment fears and the ongoing Mueller Investigation would have little impact on U.S. assets.15 Chart 11 shows that the U.S. dollar and S&P 500 barely moved with each Trump-related scandal (Table 1). Chart 10The Best Call Of 2017: Getting The Market Right Chart 11No Real Impact From Trump Imbroglio By correctly identifying the ongoing "Trump Put" in the market, we were able to remain bullish on U.S. equities throughout the year and avoid calling any pullbacks. Table 1An Eventful Year 1 Of The Trump Presidency Europe (All Of It) Our performance forecasting European politics and markets has been stellar this year. Instead of reviewing each call, the list below simply summarizes each report: "After Brexit, N-Exit?" - Although technically a call made in 2016, our view that Brexit would cause a surge in support for the EU was a view for 2017.16 Several anti-establishment populists failed to perform in line with their 2015-2016 polling, particularly Geert Wilders in the Netherlands. "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" - We definitely answered this question in the negative, going back to November 2016.17 This allowed us to recommend clients go long the euro vs. the U.S. dollar (Chart 12). Moreover, we argued that regardless of who won the election, the next French government would embark on structural reforms.18 As a play on our bullish view of France, we recommended that clients overweight French industrials vs. German ones (Chart 13). "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italy In Purgatorio" - We correctly assessed that Italian Euroskpetics would migrate towards the center on the question of the euro. However, we missed recommending the epic rally in Italian equities and bonds that should have naturally flowed from our political view.19 "Fade Catalan Risks" - Based on our 2014 net assessment, we concluded that the Catalan independence drive would be largely irrelevant for the markets.20 This proved to be correct this year. "Can Turkey Restart The Immigration Crisis?" - Earlier in the year, clients became nervous about a potential diplomatic breakdown between the EU and Turkey leading to a renewal of the immigration crisis.21 We reiterated our long-held view that the immigration crisis did not end because of Turkish intervention, but because of tighter European enforcement. Throughout the year, we were proven right, with Europeans becoming more and more focused on interdiction. Chart 12Second Best Call Of 2017: The Euro... Chart 13...And France In Particular China: Policy-Induced Financial Tightening Throughout 2016-17, in the lead-up to China's nineteenth National Party Congress, we argued that the stability imperative would ensure an accommodative-but-not-too-accommodative policy stance.22 In particular, we highlighted the ongoing impetus for anti-pollution controls.23 This forecast broadly proved to be correct, as the government maintained stimulus yet simultaneously surprised the markets with financial and environmental regulatory crackdowns throughout the year. Once these regulatory campaigns took off, we argued that they would remain tentative, since the truly tough policies would have to wait until after the party congress. At that point, Xi Jinping could re-launch his structural reform agenda, primarily by intensifying financial sector tightening.24 Over the course of the year, this political analysis began to be revealed in the data, with broad money (M3) figures suggesting that money growth decelerated sharply in 2017 (Chart 14). In addition, we correctly called several moves by President Xi Jinping at the party congress.25 Chart 14Third Best Call Of 2017:##br## Chinese Reforms? (We Will See In 2018!) Our view that Chinese policymakers will restart reforms after the party congress is now becoming more widely accepted, given Xi's party congress speech Oct. 18 and the news from the December Politburo meeting.26 Where we differ from the market is in arguing that Beijing's bite will be worse than its bark. We are concerned that there is considerable risk to the downside and that stimulus will come much later than investors think this time around. Our China view was largely correct in 2017, but the real market significance will be felt in 2018. There are still several questions outstanding, including whether the crackdown on the financial sector will be as growth-constraining as we think. As such, this is a key view that will carry over into 2018. Thankfully, we should know whether we are right or wrong by the March National People's Congress session and the data releases shortly thereafter. North Korea - Both A Tail Risk And An Overstated Risk We correctly identified North Korea as a key 2017 geopolitical risk in our Strategic Outlook and began signaling that it was no longer a "red herring" as early as April 2016.27 In April 2017, we told clients to prepare for safe haven flows due to the likelihood that tensions would increase as the U.S. established a "credible threat" of war, a playbook that the Obama administration most recently used against Iran.28 While we flagged North Korea as a risk that would move the markets, we also signaled precisely when the risk became overstated. In September, we told clients that U.S. Treasury yields would rise from their lows that month as investors realized that the North Korean regime was constrained by its paltry military capability.29 At the same time, we gave President Trump an A+ for his performance establishing a credible threat, a bet that worked not only on Pyongyang, but also on Beijing. Since this summer, China has begun to ratchet up economic pressure against North Korea (Chart 15). Chart 15Fourth Best Call Of 2017: North Korea Middle East And Oil Prices BCA Research scored a big win this year with our energy call. It would be unfair for us to take credit for that view. Our Commodity & Energy Strategy as well as our Energy Sector Strategy deserve all the credit.30 Nonetheless, we helped our commodity teams make the right calls by: Correctly forecasting that Saudi-Iranian and Russo-Turkish tensions would de-escalate, allowing OPEC and Russia to maintain the production-cut agreement;31 Emphasizing risks to Iraqi production as tensions shifted from the Islamic State to the Kurdish Regional Government; Highlighting the likely continued decline, but not sharp cut-off, of Venezuelan production, due to the regime's ability to cling to power even as the conditions of production worsened.32 In addition, we were correct to fade various concerns regarding renewed tensions in Qatar, Yemen, and Lebanon throughout the year. Despite the media narrative that the Middle East has become a cauldron of instability anew, our long-held view that all the players involved are constrained by domestic and material constraints has remained cogent. In particular, our view that Saudi Arabia would engage in serious social reforms bore fruit in 2017, with several moves by the ruling regime to evolve the country away from feudal monarchy.33 Going forward, a major risk to our view is the Trump administration policy towards Iran, our top Black Swan risk for 2018. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Ekaterina Shtrevensky, Research Assistant ekaterinas@bcaresearch.com 1 Due to the high volume of footnotes in this report, we have decided to include them at the end of the document. For a review of our past Strategic Outlooks, please visit gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 For the rest of our 2018 Outlook, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Black Swans In 2018," dated December 6, 2017, and "Three Questions For 2018," dated December 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Turkey: Military Adventurism And Capital Controls," dated December 7, 2016, "South Africa: Back To Reality," dated April 5, 2017, "Brazil: Politics Giveth And Politics Taketh Away," dated May 24, 2017, "South Africa: Crisis Of Expectations," dated June 28, 2017, "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "G19," dated July 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 The outcome at the WTO Buenos Aires summit last week offered a possible way out of confrontation between the Trump administration and the WTO. It featured Europe and Japan taking a tougher line on trade violations, namely China, to respond to the Trump administration grievances that, unaddressed, could escalate into a full-fledged Trump-WTO clash. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How Long Can The 'Trump Put' Last?" dated June 14, 2017 and "U.K. Election: The Median Voter Has Spoken," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.K. Election Preview," dated February 26, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me?' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Overstated In 2017," dated April 5, 2017 and "Political Risks Are Understated In 2017," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Outcomes And Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution," dated February 3, 2017 and "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy Part II: Italy In Purgatorio," dated June 21, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 14, 2014 and "Why So Serious?" dated October 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Five Questions On Europe," dated March 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Throwing The Baby (Globalization) Out With The Bath Water (Deflation)," dated July 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 24 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy We," dated June 28, 2017, "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 25 We argued in our 2017 Strategic Outlook that while Xi's faction would gain a majority on the Politburo Standing Committee, he would maintain a reasonable balance and refrain from excluding opposing factions from power. We expected that factional struggle would flare back up into the open (as with the ouster of Sun Zhengcai), and that Xi would retire anti-corruption chief Wang Qishan, but not that Xi would avoid promoting a successor for 2022 to the Politburo Standing Committee. 26 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress," dated July 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016 and "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 28 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 29 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Equities And Bonds Continue To Rally?" dated September 20, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 30 If you are an investor with even a passing interest in commodities and oil, you must review the work of our colleagues Robert Ryan and Matt Conlan. 31 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Forget About The Middle East?" dated January 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 32 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Venezuela: Oil Market Rebalance Is Too Little, Too Late," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 33 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Middle East: Separating The Signal From The Noise," dated November 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Geopolitical risks were overstated in 2017, but have now become understated; If Donald Trump becomes an early "lame duck" president, he will seek relevance abroad; This could mean a protectionist White House, or increased geopolitical tensions with Iran and North Korea; North Korean internal stability could come into question as economic sanctions begin to bite; Political risks in the U.K. and Italy could rise with markets overly complacent on both; Emerging markets, particularly Brazil and Mexico, will see renewed political risk. Feature Buoyant global growth, political stability in Europe, and steady policymakers' hands in China have fueled risk assets in 2017. As the year draws to a close, investors also have tax cuts in the U.S. to celebrate. Our high conviction view that tax cuts would happen - and that they would be fiscally profligate - is near the finish line.1 In making this call, we ignored the failure to repeal Obamacare, the "wisdom" of old "D.C. hands," and direct intelligence from a source inside the White House circle who swore tax reform would be revenue neutral. Throughout the year, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy remained confident that the GOP would ignore its fiscal conservative credentials and focus on the midterm elections.2 That election is increasingly looking like a bloodbath-in-the-making for the Republican Party (Chart 1). What of the latest opinion polls showing that the tax cuts are unpopular with half of all Americans? The polls also show that a solid one-third of all Americans remain in support of the Republican plan (Chart 2). We suspect - as do Republican strategists - that those are the Republicans who vote in midterm elections. Given the atrociously low turnout in midterm elections - just 36.4% of Americans voted in 2014 - Republicans need their base to turn out in November. The tax cuts are not about the wider American public but the Republican base. Chart 1Midterm Election: A Bloodbath? Chart 2Republican Base Supports Tax Cuts As we close the book on 2017, we look with trepidation towards 2018. Our main theme for next year is that the combination of economic stimulus from the tax cuts in the U.S. and structural reforms in China will create a U.S.-dollar-bullish policy mix that will combine into a headwind for global risk assets, particularly emerging market equities.3 However, in this report, we focus on some of the more exotic risks that investors may have to deal with. In particular we focus on five potential "black swans" - low probability, high market-impact events - that are neither on the market's radar nor the media's. To qualify for our list, the events must be: Unlikely: There must be less than a 20% probability that the event will occur in the next 12 months. Out of sight: The scenario we present should not be receiving media coverage, at least not as a serious market risk. Geopolitical: We must be able to identify the risk scenario through the lens of our geopolitical methodology. Genuinely unpredictable events - such as meteor strikes, pandemics, crippling cyber-attacks, solar flares, alien invasions, and failures in the computer program running the simulation that we call the universe - do not make the cut. Black Swan 1: Lame Duck Trump "Lame duck" presidents - leaders whose popularity late in their term has sunk so low that they can no longer affect policy - are said to be particularly adventurous in the foreign arena. While this adage has a spotty empirical record, there are several notable examples in recent memory.4 American presidents have few constitutional constraints when it comes to foreign policy. Therefore, when domestic constraints rise, U.S. presidents seek relevance abroad. Chart 3The Day After The Midterms, Trump's Overall Popularity Will Matter More Than That Among Republicans President Trump may become the earliest, and lamest, lame duck president in recent U.S. history. While his Republican support remains healthy, his overall popularity is well below the average presidential approval rating at this point in the political cycle (Chart 3). Based on these poll numbers, his party is likely to underperform in the upcoming midterm election (Chart 4). A Democrat-led House of Representatives would have the votes to begin impeachment, which we would then consider likely in 2019. As we have argued in our "impeachment handbook," the market impact of such a crisis would ultimately depend on market fundamentals and the global context, not political intrigue.5 Chart 4Trump Is Becoming A Liability For The GOP President Trump's political capital ahead of the midterm elections is based on his ability to influence Republican legislators. Despite low overall poll numbers, President Trump can use the threat of endorsing primary challengers against conservative peers in Congress to move his agenda in the legislature. He has effectively done this with tax cuts. However, the day after the midterm elections, President Trump's own numbers will matter for the GOP. Given that President Trump will be on the ballot in the 2020 general election, his low approval numbers with non-Republican voters will hang like an albatross around the party's neck. This is a serious issue, particularly given that 22 of the 33 Senators up for reelection in 2020 will be Republican.6 Robust economic growth and a roaring stock market have not boosted Trump's popularity so far. At the same time, a strong economy ready to translate into higher wages is about to be "pump-primed" by stimulative tax cuts (Chart 5). We would expect the result to be a stronger dollar, which should keep the U.S. trade deficit widening well into Trump's second year in office. At some point, this will become a sore political point, given Trump's protectionist rhetoric and his administration's focus on the trade balance as a key measure of U.S. power. Chart 5Wage Pressures Are Building What kind of adventures would we expect to see President Trump embark on in 2018? There are three prime candidates: China-U.S. trade war: The Trump administration started off with threats against China and then proceeded to negotiations. However, neither the North Korean situation nor the trade deficit has seen substantial improvement, and a lame duck Trump administration would be more likely to resort to serious punitive actions. Even improvements on the Korean peninsula would not necessarily prevent Washington from getting tougher on Beijing over trade, as the Trump administration will be driven by domestic politics. Investors should carefully watch whether the World Trade Organization deems China a "market economy," which could trigger a U.S. backlash, and whether the various investigations by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross result in anti-dumping and countervailing duties being imposed more frequently on specific Chinese exports. Thus far, the empirical evidence suggests that the Trump administration has picked up the pace of protectionist rulings (Chart 6). Notably, the Trump administration claims that the Comprehensive Economic Dialogue has "stalled," and it is reviving deeper, structural demands on Chinese policymakers.7 Iran Jingoism: Rumors that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson may be replaced by CIA Director Mike Pompeo - who would be replaced at the CIA by Senator Tom Cotton - can only mean one thing: the White House has Iran in its sights. Both Pompeo and Cotton are hawks on Iran. The administration may be preparing to shift its focus from North Korea, where American allies in the region are urging caution, to the Middle East, where American allies in the region are urging aggression. Investors should watch whether Tillerson is removed and especially how Congress reacts to President Trump's decision on October 15 to decertify the Iran nuclear agreement (also called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA). The Republican-controlled Congress has until December 15 to reimpose sanctions on Iran that were suspended as part of the deal, with merely a simple majority needed in both chambers. However, President Trump will also have an opportunity, as early as January, to end waivers on a slew of sanctions that were not covered under the JCPOA. North Korea: It would be natural to slot North Korea as first on our list of potential foreign policy adventures for President Trump. However, it does not really fit our qualification of a black swan. North Korea is not "out of sight." Additionally, President Trump has already broken with the tradition of previous administrations by upping the pressure on Pyongyang. In fact, a North Korean black swan would be if President Trump succeeded in breaking the regime in Pyongyang. To that scenario we turn next. Chart 6Trump: Game Changer In U.S. Trade Policy? Bottom Line: Geopolitics has not affected the markets in 2017, with risk assets reaching record highs and the VIX reaching record lows (Chart 7). This was our view throughout the year and we called for investors to "buy in May and have a nice day" as a result of our analysis.8 We do not see this as likely in 2018. The Trump administration has no credible legislative agenda after tax cuts. We expect Congress to stall as we enter the summer primary season and for the GOP to lose the House to the Democrats. President Trump is an astute political analyst and will sense these developments before they happen. There is a good chance that he will attempt to sway the election and pre-empt his lame duck status with an aggressive foreign policy. Chart 72017 Goldilocks: S&P 500 Up, VIX Down Investment implications are twofold. First, we continue to recommend an equally weighted basket of Swiss 10-year bonds and gold as a portfolio hedge.9 Second, risk premium for oil prices should rise in 2018. Not only is the supply-demand balance favorable for oil prices, but geopolitical risks are likely to rise as well. Black Swan 2: A Coup In Pyongyang Our colleague Peter Berezin, BCA's Chief Global Strategist, has suggested that a coup d'état against Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un could be a black swan trigger that spooks the markets.10 While Peter used the scenario as a tongue-in-cheek way to weave Kim into a narrative that tells of a late 2019 recession, we have long raised North Korean domestic politics as the true Korean black swan.11 Here we entertain Peter's idea for three reasons.12 First, China has upped the economic pressure on Pyongyang. Under Kim Jong-un, the North Korean state has attempted some limited economic "opening up," namely to China. But the attempt to finalize the nuclear deterrent has delayed an already precarious process. There has now been a $617 million drop in Chinese imports from the country since the beginning of the year (Chart 8), with coal imports particularly affected (Chart 9). China has also pulled back on tourism. Meanwhile, North Korea's imports of Chinese goods have risen, which suggests that the country's current account balance may be widening. At some point, if these trends continue, Pyongyang will run out of foreign currency with which to purchase Chinese and Russian imports. Chart 8China Is Turning The Screws On Pyongyang... Chart 9...Particularly On Coal Imports Second, Pyongyang is well aware of pressures against the regime. The assassination of Kim Jong-nam - the older half-brother of Kim Jong-un - in February of this year sent a message to the world, but especially to China, which kept Kim Jong-nam around as an alternative to the current Kim. That Pyongyang went to the extreme lengths of poisoning Kim Jong-nam with VX nerve agent in a foreign airport suggests that Kim Jong-un is still worried about threats to his rule.13 If Beijing's economic sanctions continue to tighten in 2018, the military could conceivably see the Supreme Leader's aggressive foreign policy as a risk to regime survival. Third, Pyongyang could miscalculate and create a crisis from which it cannot deescalate. A provocation that disrupts international infrastructure and commerce or kills civilians from the U.S. or Japan could trigger a downward spiral. For instance, an attack against international shipping in the Yellow Sea or Sea of Japan by North Korean submarines would be an unprecedented act that the U.S. and Japan would likely retaliate against.14 We could see the U.S. following the script from Operation Praying Mantis in the Persian Gulf in 1988 - the largest surface engagement by the U.S. Navy since the Second World War. In that incident, the U.S. sunk half of Iran's navy in retaliation for the mining of the guided missile frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts. In the case of North Korea, this would primarily mean taking out its approximately 20 Romeo-class submarines and an unknown number of domestically-produced - Yugoslav-designed - newly built submarines. Such a conflict is not our baseline case, but we assign much higher probability to it than an all-out war on the Korean Peninsula. How would Pyongyang react to the sinking of its submarines? Our best case is that the regime would do nothing. The leadership in Pyongyang is massively constrained by its quantifiable military inferiority. True, North Korea has around 6 million military personnel - about 25% of the total population is under arms - but unfortunately for Pyongyang, this large army is arrayed against one of the most sophisticated defenses ever constructed by man: the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). To support its ground forces, North Korea would have at its disposal only about 20-30 Mig-29s. Countering two dozen jets would be South Korea's combined 177 F-15s and F-16s, plus American forces that would vary in size depending on how many aircraft carriers were deployed in the vicinity. Given that a single American aircraft carrier holds up to 48 fighter jets, North Koreans would quickly find themselves fighting a losing battle. Which is why they may never initiate one. If Kim Jong-un insists on retaliation, the military could remove and replace him with, for instance, his 30-year old sister, who has recently risen in party ranks, or his 36-year old brother Kim Jong-chul, who is apparently not entirely uninvolved in the regime despite living an unassuming life in Pyongyang. What would a regime change mean for the markets? It depends on whether it is successful or not. An unsuccessful coup could lead to a massive purge and likely a total break in Pyongyang's relations with the outside world, including China. This would seriously destabilize North Korea's decision-making. The global community would have to begin contemplating a total war on the Korean peninsula. Alternatively, a successful coup could lead to temporary volatility, yet long-term stability. The military regime in the North may even be open to reunification over the long term, depending on how U.S.-China relations evolve. Bottom Line: China does not want to cripple North Korea or throw a coup. But it is cooperating with sanctions and could therefore trigger one by mistake. At least two regimes have collapsed in the past when facing the pincer movement of economic sanctions and American military pressure - South Africa's apartheid regime in 1991 and Slobodan Miloševic's Yugoslavia in 1999. Kim Jong-un could face a similar fate, particularly if China applies excessive economic pressure. Black Swan 3: Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn There is no election scheduled in the U.K. for 2018, but if one were to be held the ruling Tories would be in trouble (Chart 10). In fact, the combined anti-Brexit forces are currently in a solid lead over the pro-Brexit parties, Conservatives and the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) (Chart 11). Chart 10Labour Is In The Lead... Chart 11...As Are Anti-Brexit Forces Writ-Large What could trigger such an election? Ultimately, the final exit deal may prompt a new election. More immediately, the ongoing negotiations over the status of the Irish border would be a prime candidate. As our colleague Dhaval Joshi, head of BCA's European Investment Strategy noted recently, Prime Minister Theresa May's government is propped up by the Northern Irish Unionists to whom May has promised that there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This will likely create a crisis as the EU negotiations may inadvertently threaten the Good Friday peace agreement. The Northern Ireland Unionists will not tolerate the border moving to the Irish Sea. This would effectively take Northern Ireland into the EU customs union and single market, and out of the U.K.'s domestic trading zone. It would also embolden Scotland's push for single market access. In essence, the Tory government may collapse because of differences within the U.K.'s "three kingdoms" before it even has the chance to collapse over differences with the EU.15 The market may cheer a Labour-Scottish National Party (SNP) coalition government, a potential winner of an early election, as it would mean that a new referendum on the U.K. leaving the EU could be held. The latest polls suggest that "Bremorse" (remorse for Brexit) has set in, as a clear majority in the U.K. thinks that Brexit was a bad idea (Chart 12). However, we suspect that it would take Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn several months, if not over a year, before he called such a referendum. First, Corbyn is on record supporting a soft Brexit, not a new referendum, and he has only just begun to adjust this position. Second, a soft Brexit is far more difficult to achieve than the hard Brexit of Prime Minister Theresa May since it requires the U.K. to subvert its sovereignty in significant ways (i.e., accepting EU regulation) in order to access the EU Common Market. Third, the most politically palatable way to re-do the referendum is to put a U.K.-EU deal up to the people to decide, which means that Corbyn first has to spend a long time negotiating that deal. Chart 12Bremorse Sets In The market may be disappointed to find out that PM Corbyn is not willing or able to put the question of the U.K.'s EU exit up to a vote right away. Instead, the market would have to deal with Corbyn's economic policies, which are markedly left-wing. Corbyn harkens back to the 110 Propositions pour la France of French President François Mitterrand, if not exactly to the ghastly 1970s of the U.K.'s own history. A brief sample platter of Labour's proposals under Corbyn includes: Increasing the U.K. corporate tax rate to 26% from 20%; Increasing the minimum wage; Forcing companies not to out-source operations; Nationalizing public infrastructure companies. How should investors play a Corbyn victory? We think that the U.K. pound would likely rally on a higher probability of reversing Brexit. However, this "no Brexit" rally would quickly dissipate as PM Corbyn reiterated his promise to fulfill the democratic desire of the population to exit the EU. While Corbyn's negotiating team set to work on getting a better Brexit deal out of Brussels, the market would quickly turn its attention to the reality that Corbyn is not kidding about socialism.16 The result would be a selloff in the pound. Bottom Line: BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has pointed out that the pound remains well below its fair value (Chart 13). However, as BCA's chief FX strategist Mathieu Savary points out, the valuation technicals may be misleading as the currency has entered a new economic, trade, and political paradigm. A Corbyn premiership is not clearly positive for Brexit, while opening up a completely different question: is the U.K. also exiting the free-market, laissez-faire paradigm that it has helped lead since May 1979? Black Swan 4: Italy Is A Black Swan Hiding In Plain Sight The spread between Italian and German 10-year government bonds has narrowed 72 basis points since April, suggesting that investors have grown comfortable with the risks associated with the Italian election due by May (Chart 14). There are three reasons why we agree with the market: Chart 13Pound Valuation Reflects Post-Brexit Paradigm Chart 14Investors Not Worried About Italy New electoral rules passed in October make it highly likely that a center-right alliance will take shape between the Forza Italia of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and the mildly Eurosketpic Lega Nord. These two could form a government alone, or in a grand coalition with the center-left Democratic Party (PD) (Chart 15). Both Lega Nord and the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) have moved to the center on the questions of European integration and membership in the currency union; The European migration crisis is over and its supposedly constant impact on Italy is waning (Chart 16). Meanwhile, Italy's economy is on the mend, with its banking sector finally following the Spanish trajectory with a drop in non-performing loans (Chart 17). Chart 15Italy Set For A Hung Parliament Chart 16Migration Crisis Is Over (Yes, Even In Italy) Chart 17Italian Recovery Is Just Starting That said, we continue to warn clients that the underlying support for the common currency is lagging in Italy. The support level is just above 55%, despite a strong rally in the rest of the Euro Area (Chart 18). Similarly, over 40% of Italians appear confident in the country's future outside of the EU (Chart 19). Chart 18Italians Stand Out For Distrust Of Euro Chart 19Italians Not Enthusiastic About EU Our baseline case is that Italian elections will produce a weak and ineffective government, though crucially not a Euroskeptic one. How could we be wrong? Easy: one of the three reasons why we agree with the market could shift. For example, M5S could alter its pledge to remain in the Euro Area and surprisingly win on a Euroskeptic platform. Why would the party do something like that? Because it makes sense! Polls are already showing that M5S's recent moderation on the euro is not paying political dividends, with its support sharply sliding since the summer. With power quickly slipping out of reach for the party, why wouldn't they put a down-payment on the next election by trusting the underlying trend in opinion polling and investing in a Euroskeptic platform that might pay political dividends in the future? If we think that this strategy makes sense based on the data, then the M5S leadership might as well. Chart 20Can MIB Keep Outperforming? Another scenario is a major terror attack perpetrated by recent migrants from North Africa. Italy has been spared from radical Islamic terror. As such, the country may not be as desensitized to it as other European nations. A strong showing by Lega Nord and the far-right Fratelli d'Italia could force Forza Italia to move to the right as well. On our travels, we have noticed that few investors want to talk about Italy. There is wide acknowledgement of the structural trends pointing to a rise of Euroskepticism in the country, but also an appearance of consensus that this is a problem for a later date. We agree with this consensus, but our conviction is low. Bottom Line: Italian election risk is completely unappreciated by the markets. The country's equity market is one of the best performing this year (Chart 20), while government bonds are pricing in no political risk as the election approaches. We believe that shorting both would present a good hedging opportunity. Black Swan 5: Bloodbath In Latin America Our last black swan risk is not really a black swan to us but a forecast we believe will happen. As we outlined last month, we fear that Chinese policy-induced credit contraction will be negative for emerging markets, as BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy data asserts (Chart 21). BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has pointed out in its latest missive that its "Carry Canary Indicator" - performance of EM/JPY crosses - is signaling that a sharp deceleration in global growth is coming in Q1 2018 (Chart 22).17 Latin America (especially Chile, Peru, and Brazil) is the region most exposed to the combination of a slowing China and a China-induced drop in commodity prices. Chart 21When China Sneezes, EM Gets The Flu Chart 22Ominous Signal From EM/JPY From a political perspective, this is most negative for Brazil and Mexico. Both countries hold elections in 2018, with the Mexican election further complicated by the ongoing NAFTA renegotiations. We believe that the future of NAFTA hangs in the balance, with a high probability that the Trump administration will decide to abrogate the deal.18 Currently, anti-market political forces are in the lead in both countries. In Brazil, no pro-market candidate is leading in the polls (Chart 23). In fact, anti-market options have a 48% lead on the centrists. Granted, there are ten months until the election, but we are skeptical that the Brazilian population will change its mind and support reformers. If the "median voter" in Brazil supported reforms, the current Temer administration would have passed them already. In Mexico, anti-establishment candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (also known as AMLO) is leading in the polls (Chart 24), as is his new party Morena (Chart 25). If Morena wins the most seats in the Mexican Congress, it will be more difficult for the opposition parties to combine to counter it.19 Chart 23There Is No Pro-Market Option In Brazil Chart 24AMLO Is In The Lead ... Chart 25...As Is Morena In 2017, we argued that politics were not a tailwind for EM asset performance. Instead, investors chased yield in the favorable economic context of Chinese economic stimulus, low developed market yields, and a weak U.S. dollar. In reality, politics was just as dire in much of EM as it was in prior years of asset underperformance, but the surge of global liquidity in 2018 masked the problems. We do not think the EM rally is sustainable in 2018. As the global economic and market context shifts, investors will start paying attention. Suddenly, political problems will enter into focus. Here we argue that Brazil and Mexico are likely to be the main targets of portfolio outflows, but a strong case could be made for South Africa and Turkey as well.20 Bottom Line: Political risk in Latin America will return. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "U.S. Election: Outcomes & Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, and "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, "How Long Can The 'Trump Put' Last?" dated June 14, 2017, and "Is King Dollar Back?" dated October 4, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks," dated November 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 President Clinton launched the largest NATO military operation against Yugoslavia amidst impeachment proceedings against him while President George H. W. Bush ordered U.S. troops to Somalia a month after losing the 1992 election. Ironically, President George H. W. Bush intervened in Somalia in order to lock in the supposedly isolationist Bill Clinton, who had defeated him three weeks earlier, into an internationalist foreign policy. President George W. Bush ordered the "surge" of troops into Iraq in 2007 after losing both houses of Congress in 2006; President Obama arranged the Iranian nuclear deal after losing the Senate (and hence Congress) to the Republicans in 2014. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Particularly vulnerable, in our view, will be Cory Gardner (R, Colorado), Joni Ernst (R, Iowa), Susan Collins (R, Maine), and Thom Tillis (R, North Carolina). 7 U.S. Treasury Under Secretary for International Affairs David Malpass recently claimed that high-level talks had "stalled" and re-emphasized the U.S.'s structural complaints: "We are concerned that China's economic liberalization seems to have slowed or reversed, with the role of the state increasing ... State-owned enterprises have not faced hard budget constraints and China's industrial policy has become more and more problematic for foreign firms. Huge export credits are flowing in non-economic ways that distort markets." The growing presence of Communist Party cells within corporations is another important structural concern that puts the administration at loggerheads with China's leaders. Please see Andrew Mayeda and Saleha Mohsin, "US Rebukes China For Backing Off Market Embrace," Bloomberg, November 30, 2017, available at www.bloomberg.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy, "A Timeline For The Next Five Years: Part II," dated December 1, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see "North Korea: From Overstated To Understated" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2016: Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. A notable coup attempt occurred in 1995-96 in North Hamgyong; something like a coup attempt may have occurred in 2013; and defectors from North Korea have reported various stories of plots and conspiracies against the regime. 12 After all, Peter predicted that Donald Trump would be a serious candidate for the U.S. presidency back in September 2015! 13 Still worried, that is, even after Kim Jong-un's supposed "consolidation of power" in 2013-14 when he executed his influential and China-aligned uncle, Jang Song Thaek, and purged the latter's faction. There were reports of rogue military operations at that time. With low troop morale reported by North Korean defectors, the possibility of insubordination cannot be ruled out. 14 A North Korean submarine sank the South Korean corvette Cheonan in 2010, and North Korean artillery shelled two islands killing South Korean civilians later that year, but these attacks were still within the norm of North Korean provocations. The two countries are still technically at war and have contested maritime as well as land borders. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 To help investors get ready for a Corbyn premiership, we thought his appearance on President Nicolás Maduro's weekly radio show would be a good place to start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eL8_wtS-0I 17 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy, "Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert: EM/JPY Carry Trades," dated December 1, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "South Africa: Crisis Of Expectations," dated June 28, 2017, and "Turkey: Military Adventurism And Capital Controls," dated December 7, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Special Report

Highlights Geopolitical risks were overstated in 2017, but have now become understated; If Donald Trump becomes an early "lame duck" president, he will seek relevance abroad; This could mean a protectionist White House, or increased geopolitical tensions with Iran and North Korea; North Korean internal stability could come into question as economic sanctions begin to bite; Political risks in the U.K. and Italy could rise with markets overly complacent on both; Emerging markets, particularly Brazil and Mexico, will see renewed political risk. Feature Buoyant global growth, political stability in Europe, and steady policymakers' hands in China have fueled risk assets in 2017. As the year draws to a close, investors also have tax cuts in the U.S. to celebrate. Our high conviction view that tax cuts would happen - and that they would be fiscally profligate - is near the finish line.1 In making this call, we ignored the failure to repeal Obamacare, the "wisdom" of old "D.C. hands," and direct intelligence from a source inside the White House circle who swore tax reform would be revenue neutral. Throughout the year, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy remained confident that the GOP would ignore its fiscal conservative credentials and focus on the midterm elections.2 That election is increasingly looking like a bloodbath-in-the-making for the Republican Party (Chart 1). What of the latest opinion polls showing that the tax cuts are unpopular with half of all Americans? The polls also show that a solid one-third of all Americans remain in support of the Republican plan (Chart 2). We suspect - as do Republican strategists - that those are the Republicans who vote in midterm elections. Given the atrociously low turnout in midterm elections - just 36.4% of Americans voted in 2014 - Republicans need their base to turn out in November. The tax cuts are not about the wider American public but the Republican base. Chart 1Midterm Election: A Bloodbath? Chart 2Republican Base Supports Tax Cuts As we close the book on 2017, we look with trepidation towards 2018. Our main theme for next year is that the combination of economic stimulus from the tax cuts in the U.S. and structural reforms in China will create a U.S.-dollar-bullish policy mix that will combine into a headwind for global risk assets, particularly emerging market equities.3 However, in this report, we focus on some of the more exotic risks that investors may have to deal with. In particular we focus on five potential "black swans" - low probability, high market-impact events - that are neither on the market's radar nor the media's. To qualify for our list, the events must be: Unlikely: There must be less than a 20% probability that the event will occur in the next 12 months. Out of sight: The scenario we present should not be receiving media coverage, at least not as a serious market risk. Geopolitical: We must be able to identify the risk scenario through the lens of our geopolitical methodology. Genuinely unpredictable events - such as meteor strikes, pandemics, crippling cyber-attacks, solar flares, alien invasions, and failures in the computer program running the simulation that we call the universe - do not make the cut. Black Swan 1: Lame Duck Trump "Lame duck" presidents - leaders whose popularity late in their term has sunk so low that they can no longer affect policy - are said to be particularly adventurous in the foreign arena. While this adage has a spotty empirical record, there are several notable examples in recent memory.4 American presidents have few constitutional constraints when it comes to foreign policy. Therefore, when domestic constraints rise, U.S. presidents seek relevance abroad. Chart 3The Day After The Midterms, Trump's Overall Popularity Will Matter More Than That Among Republicans President Trump may become the earliest, and lamest, lame duck president in recent U.S. history. While his Republican support remains healthy, his overall popularity is well below the average presidential approval rating at this point in the political cycle (Chart 3). Based on these poll numbers, his party is likely to underperform in the upcoming midterm election (Chart 4). A Democrat-led House of Representatives would have the votes to begin impeachment, which we would then consider likely in 2019. As we have argued in our "impeachment handbook," the market impact of such a crisis would ultimately depend on market fundamentals and the global context, not political intrigue.5 Chart 4Trump Is Becoming A Liability For The GOP President Trump's political capital ahead of the midterm elections is based on his ability to influence Republican legislators. Despite low overall poll numbers, President Trump can use the threat of endorsing primary challengers against conservative peers in Congress to move his agenda in the legislature. He has effectively done this with tax cuts. However, the day after the midterm elections, President Trump's own numbers will matter for the GOP. Given that President Trump will be on the ballot in the 2020 general election, his low approval numbers with non-Republican voters will hang like an albatross around the party's neck. This is a serious issue, particularly given that 22 of the 33 Senators up for reelection in 2020 will be Republican.6 Robust economic growth and a roaring stock market have not boosted Trump's popularity so far. At the same time, a strong economy ready to translate into higher wages is about to be "pump-primed" by stimulative tax cuts (Chart 5). We would expect the result to be a stronger dollar, which should keep the U.S. trade deficit widening well into Trump's second year in office. At some point, this will become a sore political point, given Trump's protectionist rhetoric and his administration's focus on the trade balance as a key measure of U.S. power. Chart 5Wage Pressures Are Building What kind of adventures would we expect to see President Trump embark on in 2018? There are three prime candidates: China-U.S. trade war: The Trump administration started off with threats against China and then proceeded to negotiations. However, neither the North Korean situation nor the trade deficit has seen substantial improvement, and a lame duck Trump administration would be more likely to resort to serious punitive actions. Even improvements on the Korean peninsula would not necessarily prevent Washington from getting tougher on Beijing over trade, as the Trump administration will be driven by domestic politics. Investors should carefully watch whether the World Trade Organization deems China a "market economy," which could trigger a U.S. backlash, and whether the various investigations by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross result in anti-dumping and countervailing duties being imposed more frequently on specific Chinese exports. Thus far, the empirical evidence suggests that the Trump administration has picked up the pace of protectionist rulings (Chart 6). Notably, the Trump administration claims that the Comprehensive Economic Dialogue has "stalled," and it is reviving deeper, structural demands on Chinese policymakers.7 Iran Jingoism: Rumors that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson may be replaced by CIA Director Mike Pompeo - who would be replaced at the CIA by Senator Tom Cotton - can only mean one thing: the White House has Iran in its sights. Both Pompeo and Cotton are hawks on Iran. The administration may be preparing to shift its focus from North Korea, where American allies in the region are urging caution, to the Middle East, where American allies in the region are urging aggression. Investors should watch whether Tillerson is removed and especially how Congress reacts to President Trump's decision on October 15 to decertify the Iran nuclear agreement (also called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA). The Republican-controlled Congress has until December 15 to reimpose sanctions on Iran that were suspended as part of the deal, with merely a simple majority needed in both chambers. However, President Trump will also have an opportunity, as early as January, to end waivers on a slew of sanctions that were not covered under the JCPOA. North Korea: It would be natural to slot North Korea as first on our list of potential foreign policy adventures for President Trump. However, it does not really fit our qualification of a black swan. North Korea is not "out of sight." Additionally, President Trump has already broken with the tradition of previous administrations by upping the pressure on Pyongyang. In fact, a North Korean black swan would be if President Trump succeeded in breaking the regime in Pyongyang. To that scenario we turn next. Chart 6Trump: Game Changer In U.S. Trade Policy? Bottom Line: Geopolitics has not affected the markets in 2017, with risk assets reaching record highs and the VIX reaching record lows (Chart 7). This was our view throughout the year and we called for investors to "buy in May and have a nice day" as a result of our analysis.8 We do not see this as likely in 2018. The Trump administration has no credible legislative agenda after tax cuts. We expect Congress to stall as we enter the summer primary season and for the GOP to lose the House to the Democrats. President Trump is an astute political analyst and will sense these developments before they happen. There is a good chance that he will attempt to sway the election and pre-empt his lame duck status with an aggressive foreign policy. Chart 72017 Goldilocks: S&P 500 Up, VIX Down Investment implications are twofold. First, we continue to recommend an equally weighted basket of Swiss 10-year bonds and gold as a portfolio hedge.9 Second, risk premium for oil prices should rise in 2018. Not only is the supply-demand balance favorable for oil prices, but geopolitical risks are likely to rise as well. Black Swan 2: A Coup In Pyongyang Our colleague Peter Berezin, BCA's Chief Global Strategist, has suggested that a coup d'état against Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un could be a black swan trigger that spooks the markets.10 While Peter used the scenario as a tongue-in-cheek way to weave Kim into a narrative that tells of a late 2019 recession, we have long raised North Korean domestic politics as the true Korean black swan.11 Here we entertain Peter's idea for three reasons.12 First, China has upped the economic pressure on Pyongyang. Under Kim Jong-un, the North Korean state has attempted some limited economic "opening up," namely to China. But the attempt to finalize the nuclear deterrent has delayed an already precarious process. There has now been a $617 million drop in Chinese imports from the country since the beginning of the year (Chart 8), with coal imports particularly affected (Chart 9). China has also pulled back on tourism. Meanwhile, North Korea's imports of Chinese goods have risen, which suggests that the country's current account balance may be widening. At some point, if these trends continue, Pyongyang will run out of foreign currency with which to purchase Chinese and Russian imports. Chart 8China Is Turning The Screws On Pyongyang... Chart 9...Particularly On Coal Imports Second, Pyongyang is well aware of pressures against the regime. The assassination of Kim Jong-nam - the older half-brother of Kim Jong-un - in February of this year sent a message to the world, but especially to China, which kept Kim Jong-nam around as an alternative to the current Kim. That Pyongyang went to the extreme lengths of poisoning Kim Jong-nam with VX nerve agent in a foreign airport suggests that Kim Jong-un is still worried about threats to his rule.13 If Beijing's economic sanctions continue to tighten in 2018, the military could conceivably see the Supreme Leader's aggressive foreign policy as a risk to regime survival. Third, Pyongyang could miscalculate and create a crisis from which it cannot deescalate. A provocation that disrupts international infrastructure and commerce or kills civilians from the U.S. or Japan could trigger a downward spiral. For instance, an attack against international shipping in the Yellow Sea or Sea of Japan by North Korean submarines would be an unprecedented act that the U.S. and Japan would likely retaliate against.14 We could see the U.S. following the script from Operation Praying Mantis in the Persian Gulf in 1988 - the largest surface engagement by the U.S. Navy since the Second World War. In that incident, the U.S. sunk half of Iran's navy in retaliation for the mining of the guided missile frigate USS Samuel B. Roberts. In the case of North Korea, this would primarily mean taking out its approximately 20 Romeo-class submarines and an unknown number of domestically-produced - Yugoslav-designed - newly built submarines. Such a conflict is not our baseline case, but we assign much higher probability to it than an all-out war on the Korean Peninsula. How would Pyongyang react to the sinking of its submarines? Our best case is that the regime would do nothing. The leadership in Pyongyang is massively constrained by its quantifiable military inferiority. True, North Korea has around 6 million military personnel - about 25% of the total population is under arms - but unfortunately for Pyongyang, this large army is arrayed against one of the most sophisticated defenses ever constructed by man: the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). To support its ground forces, North Korea would have at its disposal only about 20-30 Mig-29s. Countering two dozen jets would be South Korea's combined 177 F-15s and F-16s, plus American forces that would vary in size depending on how many aircraft carriers were deployed in the vicinity. Given that a single American aircraft carrier holds up to 48 fighter jets, North Koreans would quickly find themselves fighting a losing battle. Which is why they may never initiate one. If Kim Jong-un insists on retaliation, the military could remove and replace him with, for instance, his 30-year old sister, who has recently risen in party ranks, or his 36-year old brother Kim Jong-chul, who is apparently not entirely uninvolved in the regime despite living an unassuming life in Pyongyang. What would a regime change mean for the markets? It depends on whether it is successful or not. An unsuccessful coup could lead to a massive purge and likely a total break in Pyongyang's relations with the outside world, including China. This would seriously destabilize North Korea's decision-making. The global community would have to begin contemplating a total war on the Korean peninsula. Alternatively, a successful coup could lead to temporary volatility, yet long-term stability. The military regime in the North may even be open to reunification over the long term, depending on how U.S.-China relations evolve. Bottom Line: China does not want to cripple North Korea or throw a coup. But it is cooperating with sanctions and could therefore trigger one by mistake. At least two regimes have collapsed in the past when facing the pincer movement of economic sanctions and American military pressure - South Africa's apartheid regime in 1991 and Slobodan Miloševic's Yugoslavia in 1999. Kim Jong-un could face a similar fate, particularly if China applies excessive economic pressure. Black Swan 3: Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn There is no election scheduled in the U.K. for 2018, but if one were to be held the ruling Tories would be in trouble (Chart 10). In fact, the combined anti-Brexit forces are currently in a solid lead over the pro-Brexit parties, Conservatives and the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) (Chart 11). Chart 10Labour Is In The Lead... Chart 11...As Are Anti-Brexit Forces Writ-Large What could trigger such an election? Ultimately, the final exit deal may prompt a new election. More immediately, the ongoing negotiations over the status of the Irish border would be a prime candidate. As our colleague Dhaval Joshi, head of BCA's European Investment Strategy noted recently, Prime Minister Theresa May's government is propped up by the Northern Irish Unionists to whom May has promised that there will be no hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. This will likely create a crisis as the EU negotiations may inadvertently threaten the Good Friday peace agreement. The Northern Ireland Unionists will not tolerate the border moving to the Irish Sea. This would effectively take Northern Ireland into the EU customs union and single market, and out of the U.K.'s domestic trading zone. It would also embolden Scotland's push for single market access. In essence, the Tory government may collapse because of differences within the U.K.'s "three kingdoms" before it even has the chance to collapse over differences with the EU.15 The market may cheer a Labour-Scottish National Party (SNP) coalition government, a potential winner of an early election, as it would mean that a new referendum on the U.K. leaving the EU could be held. The latest polls suggest that "Bremorse" (remorse for Brexit) has set in, as a clear majority in the U.K. thinks that Brexit was a bad idea (Chart 12). However, we suspect that it would take Prime Minister Jeremy Corbyn several months, if not over a year, before he called such a referendum. First, Corbyn is on record supporting a soft Brexit, not a new referendum, and he has only just begun to adjust this position. Second, a soft Brexit is far more difficult to achieve than the hard Brexit of Prime Minister Theresa May since it requires the U.K. to subvert its sovereignty in significant ways (i.e., accepting EU regulation) in order to access the EU Common Market. Third, the most politically palatable way to re-do the referendum is to put a U.K.-EU deal up to the people to decide, which means that Corbyn first has to spend a long time negotiating that deal. Chart 12Bremorse Sets In The market may be disappointed to find out that PM Corbyn is not willing or able to put the question of the U.K.'s EU exit up to a vote right away. Instead, the market would have to deal with Corbyn's economic policies, which are markedly left-wing. Corbyn harkens back to the 110 Propositions pour la France of French President François Mitterrand, if not exactly to the ghastly 1970s of the U.K.'s own history. A brief sample platter of Labour's proposals under Corbyn includes: Increasing the U.K. corporate tax rate to 26% from 20%; Increasing the minimum wage; Forcing companies not to out-source operations; Nationalizing public infrastructure companies. How should investors play a Corbyn victory? We think that the U.K. pound would likely rally on a higher probability of reversing Brexit. However, this "no Brexit" rally would quickly dissipate as PM Corbyn reiterated his promise to fulfill the democratic desire of the population to exit the EU. While Corbyn's negotiating team set to work on getting a better Brexit deal out of Brussels, the market would quickly turn its attention to the reality that Corbyn is not kidding about socialism.16 The result would be a selloff in the pound. Bottom Line: BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has pointed out that the pound remains well below its fair value (Chart 13). However, as BCA's chief FX strategist Mathieu Savary points out, the valuation technicals may be misleading as the currency has entered a new economic, trade, and political paradigm. A Corbyn premiership is not clearly positive for Brexit, while opening up a completely different question: is the U.K. also exiting the free-market, laissez-faire paradigm that it has helped lead since May 1979? Black Swan 4: Italy Is A Black Swan Hiding In Plain Sight The spread between Italian and German 10-year government bonds has narrowed 72 basis points since April, suggesting that investors have grown comfortable with the risks associated with the Italian election due by May (Chart 14). There are three reasons why we agree with the market: Chart 13Pound Valuation Reflects Post-Brexit Paradigm Chart 14Investors Not Worried About Italy New electoral rules passed in October make it highly likely that a center-right alliance will take shape between the Forza Italia of former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and the mildly Eurosketpic Lega Nord. These two could form a government alone, or in a grand coalition with the center-left Democratic Party (PD) (Chart 15). Both Lega Nord and the anti-establishment Five Star Movement (M5S) have moved to the center on the questions of European integration and membership in the currency union; The European migration crisis is over and its supposedly constant impact on Italy is waning (Chart 16). Meanwhile, Italy's economy is on the mend, with its banking sector finally following the Spanish trajectory with a drop in non-performing loans (Chart 17). Chart 15Italy Set For A Hung Parliament Chart 16Migration Crisis Is Over (Yes, Even In Italy) Chart 17Italian Recovery Is Just Starting That said, we continue to warn clients that the underlying support for the common currency is lagging in Italy. The support level is just above 55%, despite a strong rally in the rest of the Euro Area (Chart 18). Similarly, over 40% of Italians appear confident in the country's future outside of the EU (Chart 19). Chart 18Italians Stand Out For Distrust Of Euro Chart 19Italians Not Enthusiastic About EU Our baseline case is that Italian elections will produce a weak and ineffective government, though crucially not a Euroskeptic one. How could we be wrong? Easy: one of the three reasons why we agree with the market could shift. For example, M5S could alter its pledge to remain in the Euro Area and surprisingly win on a Euroskeptic platform. Why would the party do something like that? Because it makes sense! Polls are already showing that M5S's recent moderation on the euro is not paying political dividends, with its support sharply sliding since the summer. With power quickly slipping out of reach for the party, why wouldn't they put a down-payment on the next election by trusting the underlying trend in opinion polling and investing in a Euroskeptic platform that might pay political dividends in the future? If we think that this strategy makes sense based on the data, then the M5S leadership might as well. Chart 20Can MIB Keep Outperforming? Another scenario is a major terror attack perpetrated by recent migrants from North Africa. Italy has been spared from radical Islamic terror. As such, the country may not be as desensitized to it as other European nations. A strong showing by Lega Nord and the far-right Fratelli d'Italia could force Forza Italia to move to the right as well. On our travels, we have noticed that few investors want to talk about Italy. There is wide acknowledgement of the structural trends pointing to a rise of Euroskepticism in the country, but also an appearance of consensus that this is a problem for a later date. We agree with this consensus, but our conviction is low. Bottom Line: Italian election risk is completely unappreciated by the markets. The country's equity market is one of the best performing this year (Chart 20), while government bonds are pricing in no political risk as the election approaches. We believe that shorting both would present a good hedging opportunity. Black Swan 5: Bloodbath In Latin America Our last black swan risk is not really a black swan to us but a forecast we believe will happen. As we outlined last month, we fear that Chinese policy-induced credit contraction will be negative for emerging markets, as BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy data asserts (Chart 21). BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy has pointed out in its latest missive that its "Carry Canary Indicator" - performance of EM/JPY crosses - is signaling that a sharp deceleration in global growth is coming in Q1 2018 (Chart 22).17 Latin America (especially Chile, Peru, and Brazil) is the region most exposed to the combination of a slowing China and a China-induced drop in commodity prices. Chart 21When China Sneezes, EM Gets The Flu Chart 22Ominous Signal From EM/JPY From a political perspective, this is most negative for Brazil and Mexico. Both countries hold elections in 2018, with the Mexican election further complicated by the ongoing NAFTA renegotiations. We believe that the future of NAFTA hangs in the balance, with a high probability that the Trump administration will decide to abrogate the deal.18 Currently, anti-market political forces are in the lead in both countries. In Brazil, no pro-market candidate is leading in the polls (Chart 23). In fact, anti-market options have a 48% lead on the centrists. Granted, there are ten months until the election, but we are skeptical that the Brazilian population will change its mind and support reformers. If the "median voter" in Brazil supported reforms, the current Temer administration would have passed them already. In Mexico, anti-establishment candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (also known as AMLO) is leading in the polls (Chart 24), as is his new party Morena (Chart 25). If Morena wins the most seats in the Mexican Congress, it will be more difficult for the opposition parties to combine to counter it.19 Chart 23There Is No Pro-Market Option In Brazil Chart 24AMLO Is In The Lead ... Chart 25...As Is Morena In 2017, we argued that politics were not a tailwind for EM asset performance. Instead, investors chased yield in the favorable economic context of Chinese economic stimulus, low developed market yields, and a weak U.S. dollar. In reality, politics was just as dire in much of EM as it was in prior years of asset underperformance, but the surge of global liquidity in 2018 masked the problems. We do not think the EM rally is sustainable in 2018. As the global economic and market context shifts, investors will start paying attention. Suddenly, political problems will enter into focus. Here we argue that Brazil and Mexico are likely to be the main targets of portfolio outflows, but a strong case could be made for South Africa and Turkey as well.20 Bottom Line: Political risk in Latin America will return. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "U.S. Election: Outcomes & Investment Implications," dated November 9, 2016, and "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, "How Long Can The 'Trump Put' Last?" dated June 14, 2017, and "Is King Dollar Back?" dated October 4, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Geopolitics - From Overstated To Understated Risks," dated November 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 President Clinton launched the largest NATO military operation against Yugoslavia amidst impeachment proceedings against him while President George H. W. Bush ordered U.S. troops to Somalia a month after losing the 1992 election. Ironically, President George H. W. Bush intervened in Somalia in order to lock in the supposedly isolationist Bill Clinton, who had defeated him three weeks earlier, into an internationalist foreign policy. President George W. Bush ordered the "surge" of troops into Iraq in 2007 after losing both houses of Congress in 2006; President Obama arranged the Iranian nuclear deal after losing the Senate (and hence Congress) to the Republicans in 2014. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Break Glass In Case Of Impeachment," dated May 17, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Particularly vulnerable, in our view, will be Cory Gardner (R, Colorado), Joni Ernst (R, Iowa), Susan Collins (R, Maine), and Thom Tillis (R, North Carolina). 7 U.S. Treasury Under Secretary for International Affairs David Malpass recently claimed that high-level talks had "stalled" and re-emphasized the U.S.'s structural complaints: "We are concerned that China's economic liberalization seems to have slowed or reversed, with the role of the state increasing ... State-owned enterprises have not faced hard budget constraints and China's industrial policy has become more and more problematic for foreign firms. Huge export credits are flowing in non-economic ways that distort markets." The growing presence of Communist Party cells within corporations is another important structural concern that puts the administration at loggerheads with China's leaders. Please see Andrew Mayeda and Saleha Mohsin, "US Rebukes China For Backing Off Market Embrace," Bloomberg, November 30, 2017, available at www.bloomberg.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy, "A Timeline For The Next Five Years: Part II," dated December 1, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see "North Korea: From Overstated To Understated" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2016: Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. A notable coup attempt occurred in 1995-96 in North Hamgyong; something like a coup attempt may have occurred in 2013; and defectors from North Korea have reported various stories of plots and conspiracies against the regime. 12 After all, Peter predicted that Donald Trump would be a serious candidate for the U.S. presidency back in September 2015! 13 Still worried, that is, even after Kim Jong-un's supposed "consolidation of power" in 2013-14 when he executed his influential and China-aligned uncle, Jang Song Thaek, and purged the latter's faction. There were reports of rogue military operations at that time. With low troop morale reported by North Korean defectors, the possibility of insubordination cannot be ruled out. 14 A North Korean submarine sank the South Korean corvette Cheonan in 2010, and North Korean artillery shelled two islands killing South Korean civilians later that year, but these attacks were still within the norm of North Korean provocations. The two countries are still technically at war and have contested maritime as well as land borders. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 To help investors get ready for a Corbyn premiership, we thought his appearance on President Nicolás Maduro's weekly radio show would be a good place to start: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eL8_wtS-0I 17 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy, "Canaries In The Coal Mine Alert: EM/JPY Carry Trades," dated December 1, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Emerging Markets Strategy "Update On Emerging Markets: Malaysia, Mexico, And The United States Of America," dated August 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "South Africa: Crisis Of Expectations," dated June 28, 2017, and "Turkey: Military Adventurism And Capital Controls," dated December 7, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar

Highlights Recommendation Allocation The global growth outlook remains strong, with corporate earnings likely to beat expectations for a couple more quarters. Inflation and Fed policy are key to asset allocation. We expect inflation to recover, which will push up interest rates and the dollar. But uncertainty is rising too: for example the composition of the FOMC next year, Chinese policy post the Party Congress, Geopolitics. We keep our pro-risk tilts, particularly overweights in euro area and Japanese equities, U.S. high-yield bonds, private equity, and cyclical sectors. But we reduce portfolio risk by bringing some allocations closer to benchmark, for example downgrading U.S. equities to neutral and reducing the underweight in EM. Feature Overview Growth Is Picking Up - But So Is Uncertainty The outlook for global economic growth remains almost unarguably positive (Chart 1). The key for asset allocation, then, comes down to whether inflation in the U.S. will rebound, and whether therefore the Fed will continue to tighten monetary policy in line with its current projections. This would likely cause long-term interest rates to rise and the dollar to appreciate, which would be positive for developed market equities and credit, but negative for government bonds, emerging market equities and commodities. This scenario has been our expectation - and the basis of our recommendations - for some time, and it remains so. In September, the market started coming around to our view - after months of pricing in that inflation would stay sluggish (which, therefore, had caused the euro and yen, government bonds, EM equities and commodities to perform well). In just a couple of weeks, the futures-market-priced probability of a December Fed hike has moved from 31% to 75%. This was triggered by little more than stabilization of core CPI (Chart 2), due mainly to shelter inflation, which anyway has a low weight in the core PCE inflation data that the Fed most closely watches. To us, this demonstrates just how sensitive the market is to any slight pickup in inflation, due to the fact that its expectations of Fed rate hikes over the next 12 months are so far below what the FOMC is signaling (Chart 3). Chart 1Lead Indicators Looking Good Chart 2Is The Softness In Inflation Over? Chart 3The Market Still Doesn't Believe The Fed However, a risk to BCA's view is that the Fed turns dovish. Even Janet Yellen, in the press conference after the FOMC meeting on 20 September, admitted that the Fed needs "to figure out whether the factors that have lowered inflation are likely to prove persistent". If they do, she said, "it would require an alteration of monetary policy." FOMC member (and notable dove) Lael Brainard, in an important speech earlier in September, laid out the argument that, since inflation has missed the Fed's 2% target for five years, inflation expectations have been damaged (Chart 4) and that only a period during which inflation overshot could repair them. With Yellen's term due to expire next February and four other vacancies on the FOMC, personnel changes could significantly change the Fed's direction. Online prediction sites give a somewhat high probability to President Trump's replacing Yellen, with (the rather more hawkish) Kevin Warsh, a Fed governor in 2006-11 (Chart 5). However, presidents tend to like loose monetary policy - President Trump has said as much himself - which raises the possibility of his trying to steer the Fed in a direction that is more tolerant of rising inflation. A possible scenario, then, is of an accommodative Fed which allows equities markets to have a final meltup for this cycle, similar to 1999. Chart 4Have Inflation Expectations Been Damaged? Chart 5Who Will Trump Choose To Lead The Fed? Another current source of uncertainty is China. Money supply growth there has slowed sharply this year, after being pushed upwards by the government's reflationary policies in late 2015. This historically has been a good lead indicator of growth and, indeed, many cyclical indicators have surprised to the downside recently (Chart 6). It is also hard to predict whether, after October's five-yearly Communist Party congress, newly re-elected President Xi Jinping will move ahead with implementing structural reforms, even at the expense of a short-term slowdown of growth.1 We continue to think that risk assets have further upside for this cycle. Growth is likely to remain strong, the probability of a U.S. tax cut is rising, and corporate earnings should surprise to the upside for another couple of quarters (Q3 S&P500 EPS consensus forecasts remain cautious at 5% YoY, versus our model which suggests double-digit growth). Nonetheless, the cycle is now mature, global equities have already produced a total return of almost 40% since their recent bottom in February last year, and valuations in almost every asset class are stretched (Chart 7). Moreover, geopolitical risks - such as that from North Korean missiles - will not disappear quickly. We continue to pencil in the possibility of a recession in 2019 or 2020, caused by a sharp rise in inflation, especially in the U.S., which the Fed - whoever is running it - would have to stamp on by raising rates above the equilibrium level. Chart 6Is A Downturn Coming In China? Chart 7Nothing Looks Cheap Therefore, on the 12-month horizon we continue to recommend pro-risk and pro-cyclical positioning, for example an overweight in equities versus fixed income. However, given the rising uncertainty, we are reducing the scale of our bets a little and so, for example among our equity country and regional recommendations, move a little closer to benchmark by lowering the U.S. to neutral and reducing the degree of our underweight in EM. Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com What Our Clients Are Asking How worried should we be about North Korea? Chart 8Threats - But Eventually A Diplomatic Solution President Obama reportedly warned President Trump just prior to inauguration that North Korea would be his biggest headache. After 15 missile launches and a nuclear test this year (Chart 8, panel 1), investors are beginning to think the same. How big is the risk that the tension turns into warfare? BCA's Geopolitical strategists have written about the subject extensively.2 They conclude that military action is unlikely. An U.S. attack on North Korean missile or nuclear sites would simply provoke an attack with conventional weapons on Seoul, which is only 50 km from the border. Kim Jong-un undoubtedly knows that if he were to attack Guam or Japan, his country would be wiped out. In the end, then, a diplomatic solution is likely - but this will only be achieved after tension has risen sufficiently to force the two sides to the negotiating table. The analogy is Iran in 2012-15, where sanctions finally forced it to agree to a 10-year freeze in its nuclear plans. For the moment, sanctions seem unlikely to bite. North Korea's trade with China is not yet notably slowing (Chart 8, panel 2) and its GDP growth actually accelerated last year, albeit from stagnating levels, according to estimates from the Bank of Korea (Chart 8, panel 3). So the cycle of new threats and tougher sanctions will continue for a while. Historically, North Korean provocations caused related markets (such as South Korea stocks) to fall sharply for a few days, but this always represented a buying opportunity (Chart 8, panel 4). Given the likelihood of a diplomatic outcome, we think this remains a good rule of thumb. What will happen after China's 19th Party Congress, and will there be a slowdown in the economy? China's twice-a-decade National Party Congress will be held October 18-25. The outcome of the meeting could have important economic and market consequences. The key purpose of the Congress is to rotate China's political leaders. The 19th Party Congress is crucial because it marks the passing of a generation: President Xi Jinping will receive a second five-year term, but is predicted to consolidate his power by placing a younger generation of leaders who support his structural reforms into key positions. When Xi came to power, his reform agenda included de-emphasizing GDP targets; injecting private capital, competition and market discipline into the state-owned corporate sector; and fighting pollution. This agenda has since been compromised, with Xi reverting to infrastructure spending and credit growth to avoid painful adjustments. However, recently, there have been signs of a pullback in reflationary policies (Chart 9). Financial tightening is a key to reviving reform. Tighter controls on banks and leverage will translate into greater market discipline, and will put pressure on the sector most in need of change: SOEs. During the twice-a-decade National Financial Work Conference In late July, Yang Weimin, a key economic policymaker who is close to Xi, said, "The nation can't let leverage rise for the purpose of boosting economic expansion," signaling that the administration is willing to tackle difficult reform issues. He also mentioned the potential risks in the economy such as shadow banking, property bubbles, high leverage in SOEs, and local government debt, adding that the nation should set out its priorities and tackle them. Though it is impossible to predict the precise outcome of the Congress, the leadership reshuffle is likely to benefit Xi's reform agenda. The new leadership is likely to work on rebalancing growth toward consumption and services while encouraging private entrepreneurship and cutting back state-owned enterprises and, most importantly, deleveraging corporate debt. If China's credit impulse rolls over, the recent improvement in industrial profits and domestic demand will come under threat (Chart 9). As a result, China's cyclical growth is set to slow in 2018 as Xi reboots reform. Although economic risks will rise as the reform takes place, we still believe China H shares are attractive relative to other EM markets. In the long run, Xi's renewed reform drive should help China to get out of the "middle income trap'', which could help Chinese stocks to outperform EMs such as South Africa, Turkey and Brazil, where reforms are absent.3 Are Indian equities still a buy? In the three years since Prime Minister Narendra Modi's election, Indian stock prices have outperformed their emerging market peers by more than 20%. But the underlying growth dynamics do not justify this performance. We are turning cautious on India and downgrade Indian equities to neutral for the following reasons. India's GDP growth rate fell to a three-year low of 5.7% yoy in the April-June quarter. The administration's "Make In India" campaign is having limited impact, as seen in the near-zero growth of the manufacturing sector. Capital spending by firms has been dismal, further weighing on the outlook for productivity. Increasing layoffs and business shutdowns have produced considerable slack in the economy. Non-performing loans in the banking system have reached 11.8% of assets. As a result, credit growth to business has fallen almost to zero. This has slowed infrastructure development, as seen in the high level of stalled capital projects. The Reserve Bank of India has only just started the process of pushing banks to raise provisioning for distressed assets. The negative impact of last year's demonetization program is finally showing through. Less than 10% of Indians have ever used non-cash payment methods, and so demand for cyclical goods is slowing. Finally, Indian stocks have risen significantly in recent years, making them expensive relative to EM peers. In addition, profit growth has slowed, and return on equity converged with the EM average. Indian equities have been riding on expectations of reforms from the Modi administration. But, with the exception of the Goods & Services Tax (GST), the reform progress has been disappointing. We are turning cautious on Indian equities until we see improvements in the macro backdrop (Chart 10). Chart 9Sign of slowdown in Chinese Economy Chart 10India: Loosing Steam? How should global equity investors hedge foreign currency exposures? Chart 11Dynamic Hedging Outperforms Static Hedging There have been many conflicting views on how to hedge foreign currency exposures in a global equity portfolio. Full hedge,4 no hedge,5 or simply 50% hedge?6 Or should all investors hold the reserve currencies (USD, euro and Swiss Franc), avoid commodities currencies (AUD and CAD) while being neutral on GBP and JPY?7 As published in a Special Report 8 on September 29, 2017, our research has found that not only should investors with different home currencies manage their foreign currency exposures differently, but also a dynamic hedging framework based on the indicators from BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy service's Intermediate Timing Model (ITTM)9 outperforms all the static hedging strategies for all investors with six different home currencies (USD, EUR, JPY, GBP, AUD and CAD) (Chart 11). A few key observations from Chart 11 Static hedges reduces risk with little impact on returns for the USD and JPY investors only. Unlike the CAD investors, the AUD investors are much better off to hedge than not to, on a risk adjusted basis, even though AUD is also a commodity currencies, like the CAD. The 50% "least regret" hedge ratio has lived up to its reputation as it reduced risk by more than 50% without severely jeopardizing returns. And for the USD based investors, the 50% static hedge has a similar risk/return profile as the dynamic hedge. For all other five home currencies, however, the 50% static hedge underperforms the dynamic hedge. Global Economy Overview: Globally growth has accelerated, with inflation quiescent. We expect growth to continue to be strong, but U.S. inflation will start to normalize, which should trigger further Fed hikes and a rise in long-term rates. Japanese and euro zone growth will be less inflationary, given continued slack in these economies. U.S.: Growth has rebounded sharply after the seasonally weak Q1 and excessive expectations following the presidential election. The Citi Economic Surprise Index (Chart 12, panel 1) shows strong upward surprises. First-half GDP growth came in at 2.2% (above trend, which is estimated at 1.8%), and the manufacturing ISM reached 57.7 in September. The two big hurricanes will probably knock around 0.5 points off Q3 growth but the lesson from previous disasters is that this will be more than made up over the following three quarters. Rebounding capex, and consumption aided by a probable acceleration in wages, should keep GDP growth strong. Euro Area: Due to Europe's greater cyclicality and dependence on the global cycle, growth momentum is unsurprisingly even stronger than in the U.S., with Q2 GDP growth 2.3% YoY and the manufacturing PMI at 57.4. German growth has been particularly robust with the IFO index at 115.9, close to an all-time high, and German manufacturing wages growing by 2.9% YoY. The credit impulse suggests that the strong growth should continue, although the euro appreciation this year (and consequent tightening of financial conditions) might dampen it a little. Japan: Growth continues to be good in the external sector (with exports rising 18% YOY and industrial production 5%), but weak in the domestic economy, where household spending and core inflation continue to flatline. We do, though, see some first tentative signs of inflation: the Bank of Japan's estimate suggests the output gap has now closed, and the tight labor market is showing through in part-time hourly wages, which are rising 2.9%. Emerging Markets: China's PMI has oscillated around 50 all year (Chart 13, panel 3), as the authorities tried to stabilize growth ahead of October's Party Congress. But money supply and credit growth have been slowing all year, and this is now showing through in downside surprises in fixed asset investment and retail sales data. Especially if the congress moves towards structural reform and short-term pain, growth may slow further. This would be negative for other emerging markets, which depend on China for growth. Bank loan growth and domestic consumption generally remain weak throughout EM ex China. Chart 12Global Growth Is Accelerating... Chart 13...Propelling Europe And Japan Interest Rates: Inflation has been soft this year in the U.S. but is likely to pick up in coming months reflecting stronger economic growth and dollar depreciation. We expect the Fed to raise rates in December and confirm its three hikes next year. That should be enough to push the 10-year Treasury yield up to close to 3%. In Japan and the euro area, however, underlying inflationary pressures are much weaker. So we expect the Bank of Japan to stick to its yield curve control policy, and for the ECB to emphasize, when it announces in October next year's (reduced) asset purchase program, that it will be cautious about raising rates. Global Equities Chart 14Earnings Have Been Strong... Q3 2017 was the second quarter in a row when the price appreciation in global equities was driven entirely by earnings growth, since the forward price-to-earnings ratio contracted by 2% compared to Q2 (Chart 14). Chart 15No Compelling Reasons To Make Large Bets The scope of the improvement in earnings so far in 2017 has been wide. Not only are forward earnings being revised up, but 12-month trailing earnings growth has also been very strong, with all 10 top-level sectors registering positive earnings growth. Margins have steadily improved globally from the lows in early 2016. Despite the slight multiple compression in Q3, equity valuations are not cheap by historical standards. As an asset class, however, equities are still attractively valued compared to bonds, especially after the recent safe-haven buying drove global bond yields to very depressed levels. We remain overweight equities versus bonds on the 9-12 month horizon. Within equities, however, we think it's prudent to reduce portfolio risk by bringing allocations closer to benchmark weighting because 1) equities are not cheap, 2) volatility is low, 3) geopolitical tension is rising, and 4) year-on-year earnings growth over coming quarters may not be as strong as it has been so far this year because earnings in the first half of the 2016 were very depressed. As such, we downgrade the U.S. to neutral from overweight (+3 percentage points), and reduce the underweight in EM (to -2 from -5). We remain overweight the euro area and Japan (but hedge the yen exposure). Within EM, we have been more positive on China and remain so on a 6-9 month horizon. Sector-wise, we maintain our pro-cyclical tilt. Country Allocations: Downgrade U.S. To Neutral We started the year being "cautiously optimistic" with a maximum overweight (+6 ppts) in U.S. equities.10 We added risk at the end of the first quarter by reducing by half the U.S. overweight in order to upgrade the higher-beta euro area to overweight (+3) from neutral.11 The change has worked well, as the euro area outperformed the U.S. by 542 basis points (bps) in Q2 and then by 370 bps in Q3 in unhedged USD terms. Our DM-only quant model also started the year with a maximum overweight in the U.S., but the overweight was gradually reduced each month until July when the model indicated a benchmark weight for the U.S. The model continued its shift away from the U.S. in August and September, and now the U.S. is the largest underweight in the model. As we have previously stated, we use the quant model as one key input into our decision-making process, but we do not follow it slavishly because 1) no model can capture all the ever-changing driving forces in the market, and 2) the model moves more often than we prefer. In light of the rising geopolitical risks and low levels of volatility in all asset classes, we conclude that there are no longer compelling reasons to make large bets among the countries (Chart 15). Valuation in the U.S. is stretched, but neither is it cheap in EM anymore; both trailing and forward earnings growth in the U.S. are below the global average. Forward earnings in the EM look likely to outpace the global average, but EM trailing earnings growth seems to be losing steam. As such, we recommend investors to be neutral in the U.S. and use the funds to reduce the underweight in EM. Sector Allocation: Stay Underweight Global Utilities Overall, our sector positioning retains its tilt towards cyclicals and against defensives (see Table 1). Our global sector quant model, however, in September reduced its underweight in defensives by upgrading utilities to overweight from underweight, mainly due to the momentum factor. We have decided to overwrite the model result and maintain our underweight recommendation for the following reasons. In October, the model again downgraded utilities to underweight. In the most recent cycle post the Global Financial Crisis (GFC), the relative performance of utilities has been closely correlated with the performance of bonds vs. equities (Chart 16, top panel). This is not surprising given the bond-like nature of the sector. The sector enjoys a higher dividend yield than the global average: other than during the GFC, the excess yield has been in the range of 1-2%. In a low bond-yield environment, this yield pick-up is no doubt attractive. However, our house view is for global bond yields to rise over the next 9-12 months and we maintain our overweight on equities vs. bonds. As such, underweight utilities is in line with our overall risk/return assessment. In addition, even though the utilities sector has a higher dividend yield, the current reading is not particularly attractive compared to the five-year average (panel 4); valuation measures such as price to book (panel 3) show a neutral reading as well. The other sector where we override our quant model is Healthcare, which we favor as a long-term play because of favorable demographic trends, while the quant model points to an underweight due to short-term factors such as momentum and valuation. Smart Beta Update Year-to-date, the equal-weighted multi-factor portfolio has outperformed the global benchmark by 54 basis point (bps). (Table 1 and Chart 17) Among the five most enduring factors - size, value, quality, minimum volatility, and momentum - momentum is the only factor that has prevailed in both DM and EM universes, while quality has outperformed in the DM, but underperformed in EM. (Table 1) Chart 16Maintain Underweight Utilities Chart 17MSCI ACW: Factor Relative Performance Value has underperformed growth across the board (Table 1). The size performance, however, has large regional divergences in both value and growth spaces. Small cap has outperformed large cap consistently in both the value and growth spaces in the higher-beta euro area, Japan and U.K., while underperforming in the lower-beta U.S. (Table 2) We maintain our neutral view on styles and prefer to use sector positioning to implement the underlying factors given the historically close correlation between styles and cyclicals versus defensives (Chart 17, bottom two panels). Year-to-date cyclicals have outperformed defensives (Table 1). Table 1YTD Relative Performance* Table 2YTD Total Returns* (%) Small Cap - Large Cap Government Bonds Maintain Slight Underweight Duration. U.S. bond yields declined significantly in Q3 to below fair-value levels in response to heightened geopolitical risks and hurricanes (Chart 18, top panel). This safe-haven buying spread globally, despite ample evidence of faster global growth (middle panel) and less accommodative monetary policies from the major central banks. There is now considerable upside risk for global bond yields from these current low levels. Maintain Overweight TIPS Vs. Treasuries. The fall in nominal U.S. Treasury yields, however, was concentrated in the real yields, as 10-year break-even inflation widened in Q3 (Chart 18, panel 3). In terms of relative value, TIPS are now fairly valued vs. nominal bonds. However, our U.S. Bond Strategy's core PCE model, which closely tracks the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate (Chart 18, panel 3), is sending the message that inflationary pressures are building in the economy and that core PCE should reach the Fed's 2% target by the end of this year. This suggests that the bond markets are not providing adequate compensation for the inflationary economic backdrop. Underweight Canadian Government Bonds. The Bank of Canada (BOC) delivered another surprise 25 bps rate hike in September, due to "the impressive strength of the Canadian economy" and "the more synchronized global expansion that was supporting higher industrial commodity prices." BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy has been underweight Canada in its hedged global portfolio and recommends investors not to fight the BOC despite little inflation pressure in the Canadian economy (Chart 19). Chart 18Poor Value in Nominal Government Bonds Chart 19Bank of Canada: Shock Hawks Corporate Bonds As inflation recovers and the Fed moves ahead with rate hikes, we expect long-term risk-free rates to rise moderately. Fair value for the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield is currently close to 2.7%. In the context of rising rates and continued economic expansion, we continue to prefer spread product over government bonds. Investment grade bonds in the U.S. trade at an average option-adjusted spread over Treasuries of 110 bps. While Aaa corporate spreads are expensive, other investment grade credit tiers appear fairly valued. Given the deterioration in our U.S. Corporate Health Monitor (Chart 20), amid a rise in leverage, over the past two years (Chart 21) we do not expect the spread to contract further or fall back close to historic lows. However, investors should still be moderately attracted by the carry in a low interest rate environment. Our preference is for U.S. investment-grade corporate bonds over European ones, since the latter could be negatively impacted when the ECB announces its tapering of asset purchases in October. High-yield bonds look attractive after a small rise in spreads and an improvement in the cyclical outlook over the past quarter. The current spread of U.S. high-yield, 360 bps, translates into a default-adjusted yield (assuming a 2.6% default rate and 49% recovery rate over the next 12 months) of 250 bps - close to the long-run average (Chart 22). European junk debt looks less attractive from a valuation perspective. Chart 20Corporate Health Is A Worry In The U.S. Chart 21IG Spreads Unlikely To Contract Further Chart 22High-Yield Debt Valuations Look Attractive Commodities Chart 23Mixed View Towards Commodities Secular perspective: Bearish We hold a bearish secular outlook for commodities, mainly due to our view on China's slowing economic growth and the increasing shift from traditional energy sources to alternatives. Cyclical perspective: Neutral Our short-term commodities view remains neutral since oil inventory drawdowns will push up the crude oil price further, and because low real interest rates will keep gold from falling this year. But industrial metals are likely to react negatively to the winding down of China's reflation after the Party Congress in mid-October. Precious metal: Short-term bullish, long-term bearish. We expect the Fed to tighten rates only slowly which, over time, will mean the central bank finds itself behind the curve on inflation. Real rates are expected to remain relatively low for the foreseeable future, which will be supportive of gold. Rising tension between North Korea and the U.S. could also give gold a lift. Industrial metals: Bearish The copper price has rallied by 10% during Q3 2017, thanks to supply-side disruptions at some of the world's largest copper mines, along with better-than-expected performance of the Chinese economy. However, mine interruptions will be transitory, and the world copper market is already back in balance (Chart 23, panel 3). Although the rebound in the Chinese PMI is keeping metal prices up, we believe China after the Party Congress will try to reengineer its economy towards being more consumption and services-led, which will temper demand for industrial metals. Energy: Bullish We believe that market has been overly pessimistic on oil, and that this will change due to declining inventories and better demand and supply dynamics. (Chart 23) The U.S. Energy Information Administration revised down its shale production forecast for 2H 2017 by 200,000 barrels/day, which should lower investors' concerns over shale overproduction. Libyan oil production, the biggest threat to our bullish oil view, faltered by 300,000/day in August, keeping OPEC in compliance with its promised cuts. Currencies U.S. Dollar: Year to date, the dollar is down by 8% on a trade-weighted basis (Chart 24). However, after a period of underperformance, the U.S. economy is improving relative to its G10 peers, as seen by the strong rebound in the U.S. ISM manufacturing index. Additionally, the pick-up in money velocity points to a recovery in core inflation. As inflation starts to pick up again, markets will discount additional Fed rate hikes. Stay bullish U.S. dollar over the next 12 months. Chart 24U.S. Dollar Recovery? Pound: After a weak start to the year, sterling has recovered all its losses. Strong net FDI inflows have pushed the basic balance back into positive territory. However, Brexit negotiations will impact the financial sector, the largest target for FDI. Additionally, the recent sharp increase in inflation came from the pass-through effect of the weaker currency, and is not reflective of domestic economic activity. We expect increased political uncertainty to weigh down on future growth, forcing the Bank of England to maintain a dovish stance. Stay bearish over the next 12 months. Dollar: On a trade-weighted basis the currency is up 4% year to date, primarily driven by the rally in select metal prices. OECD's measure of output gap still points to substantial slack in the domestic economy, as seen in the downtrend in core inflation and nominal retail sales. However, despite improvements in global trade and domestic real estate activity, the Reserve Bank of Australia will keep policy easy in response to volatile commodity markets. Stay bearish over the next 12 months. Canadian Dollar: Driven by net portfolio inflows near record highs, the currency is up 6% on a trade-weighted basis so far this year. With improving economic activity, as seen in strong retail sales, the Bank of Canada expects the output gap to close in 2018. However, going forward, oil prices are unlikely to double again, and the combination of elevated indebtedness, bubby house prices and rising rates will create headwinds for the household sector. Stay bearish over the next 12 months. Alternatives Chart 25Favor PE, Real Assets Return Enhancers: Favor private equity vs. hedge funds In 2017 so far, private equity has returned 9%, whereas hedge funds have managed only a 3.5% return (Chart 25). Given their strong performance, private equity firms are raising near-record amounts of capital from investors starved for yield. By contrast, hedge funds continue to underperform both global equities and private equity, as is typical outside of recessions or bear markets. However, increasing concerns about valuations in private markets have pushed private equity dry powder to new highs of $963 billion. We continue to favor private equity over hedge funds, albeit with a more cautious outlook. Within the hedge fund space, we favor event-driven funds over the cycle, and macro funds heading into a recession. Inflation Hedges: Favor direct real estate vs. commodity futures In 2017 to date, direct real estate has returned 3.3%, whereas commodity futures are down over 10%. With energy markets likely to continue to recover lost ground over the coming months, we stress the structural nature of our negative recommendation on commodities. Depressed interest rates will keep financing cheap, making the spread between real estate and fixed income yields attractive. However, the slowdown in commercial real estate has made us more cautious on the overall real estate space. With regards to the commodity complex, the long term transition of China to a service-based economy will continue the structural decline in commodity demand. Continue to favor direct real estate vs. commodity futures. Volatility Dampeners: Favor farmland & timberland vs. structured products In 2017 to date, farmland and timberland have returned 2.2% and 1.5% respectively, whereas structured products have returned 1.4%. Farmland continues to outperform timberland given the latter's lower correlation with growth. Timberland returns have also lagged farmland given the weak recovery in the U.S. housing market. Investors can reduce the volatility of a multi-asset portfolio with the inclusion of farmland and timberland. With regards to structured products, rising rates and deteriorating credit quality in the auto loan market will weigh on returns. Given the Fed's plans to start unwinding its balance sheet this year, increased supply will put upward pressure on spreads. Risks To Our View Our pro-risk positioning would be incorrect if global growth were to slow sharply. But we see little sign that this is a significant risk over the next six to 12 months. Of our three favorite indicators of recession risk, global PMIs remain strong, and the U.S. 10-minus-2 year yield curve is still solidly positive at around 80 BP. Only a small blip up in junk bond spreads in August (Chart 26) is of any concern, and it was probably caused just by geopolitical tensions. With U.S. and European consumption and capex looking strong, probably the biggest risk to global growth would come from China, similar to 2015, if October's Party Congress signals a shift to short-term pain to achieve structural reforms. Perhaps more likely is an upside surprise to growth, with BCA's models - based on consumer and business sentiment - pointing to around 3% real GDP growth in the U.S. and 2½% in the euro area over the coming couple of quarters (Chart 27). Such an acceleration of growth would raise the risk of upside surprises to inflation, which could cause a bigger sell off in bond markets than we currently anticipate. Chart 26Any Need To Worry About Credit Spreads? Chart 27Could Growth Surprise On The Upside? Chart 28Suppose Inflation Stays Stubbornly Low Our positioning is not based on inflation remaining chronically low. But structural changes in the economy could cause this. While the Philips curve has not broken down completely, wage growth in the U.S. is 1-1½% lower than in previous expansions when the unemployment gap was at its current level (Chart 28). Could the Nairu be lower than the Fed's estimate of 4.6%? Has the gig economy somehow changed worker and employer behavior? 1 Please see What Our Clients Are Asking: "What Will Happen After China's 19th Party Congress, And Will There Be A Slowdown In The Economy?" of this report. 2 For their most comprehensive analysis, please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "China: Looking Beyond The Party Congress'' dated July 19, 2017. available at gps.bcaresearch.com). 4 Perold, A and E. Schulman, 1988, "The free lunch in currency hedging: Implications for investment policy and performance standards," Financial Analyst Journal 44, 45-50. 5 Froot K., 1993, "Currency hedging over long horizons," NBER working paper 4355. 6 Michenaud, S., and B., Solnik, 2008, "Applying Regret Theory to Investment Choices: Currency Hedging Decisions," Journal of International Money and Finance 27, 677-694. 7 Campbell, J., K. de Medeiros and L. Viceira, 2010, "Global Currency Hedging," Journal of Finance LXV, 87-122. 8 Please see Global Asset Allocation Special Report, "Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Equity Investors," dated September 29, 2017, available at gaa.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy "In Search of A Timing Model," dated July 22, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see Global Asset Allocation, "Quarterly - December 2016," dated December 15, 2016. 11 Please see Global Asset Allocation, "Quarterly - April 2017," dated April 3, 2017. GAA Asset Allocation

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights We highlighted last month that investors should remain slightly overweight risk assets, but should also hold safe havens given the preponderance of risks. Some of the risks have since faded and the sweet spot for equities is continuing, but the potential for a correction remains elevated. Geopolitics will no doubt remain a threat for 'risk on' trades, although we may be at peak tensions with respect to North Korea. Our models point to an acceleration in growth in the major economies. Our capital spending indicators suggest that animal spirits are stirring in the business sector. In the U.S., fiscal stimulus is back on the table and investors are looking beyond the negative short-term impact of the hurricanes to the growth-enhancing rebuilding that will follow. It is also positive for the stock-to-bond return ratio that our bullish oil scenario is playing out. Stay long oil-related plays. There is a good chance that this year's downtrend in the dollar and government bond yields is over. The rise in both may be halting, but the risks are to the upside now that disappointments on U.S. growth and inflation have likely ended (notwithstanding the hurricane-distorted economic data in the near term). The Phillips curve is not dead. We do not expect Fed balance sheet normalization on its own to be a major headwind for risk assets. The bigger threat is a sudden and sharp re-assessment of the outlook for interest rates in the major countries. Our base-case view is that inflation will only grind higher in the major countries. It should be slow enough that the associated backup in bond yields does not derail the rally in risk assets, but the danger of a sharper bond market adjustment means that investors should continue to be on the conservative side. Feature It was 'risk on' in financial markets in September, despite a less dovish tone among the major central banks. The reason is that the synchronized global growth outlook continues to gather momentum, supporting the earnings backdrop, but inflation remains dormant in the major countries outside of the U.K. Investors believe that calm inflation readings will allow central banks to proceed cautiously and avoid taking risks with growth, extending the expansion in GDP and earnings. The North Korean situation changes from day to day, but investors appear to be more comfortable with it at the margin. In the U.S., fiscal stimulus is back on the table and investors are looking beyond the negative short-term impact of the hurricanes to the growth-enhancing rebuilding that will follow. Finally, rising oil prices will lift earnings in the energy patch. These developments spurred investors to embrace risk assets and carry trades again in September. However, value is poor and signs of froth are accumulating. For example, equity investors are employing record amounts of margin debt to lever up investments. The Bank for International Settlements highlighted in its Quarterly Review that margin debt outstanding in 2015 was higher than during the dotcom boom (and it has surely increased since then). The global volume of outstanding leveraged loans continues to set new highs even as covenant standards slip. Risk assets are being supported by a three-legged stool: solid earnings growth, low bond yields and depressed bond market volatility. The latter is a reflection of current market expectations that dormant inflation will continue to constrain central bankers. We agree that the economic growth and earnings outlook is positive on a 6-12 month horizon. The main item that could upset the sweet spot for risk assets, outside of a geopolitical event, is an awakening in inflation. This would shatter the consensus view that the bond market will remain well behaved. Markets are priced for little change in the inflation backdrop even in the long term. Our base-case view is that inflation will grind higher in the major countries, although it should be slow enough that the associated backup in bond yields does not derail the rally in risk assets in the next 6-12 months. But the risk of a sharper bond market adjustment means that investors should continue to be conservative (although slightly tilted to risk-over-safety). Getting Used To North Korea It appears that investors are becoming increasingly desensitized to provocation from the rogue state. Our geopolitical experts argued that the risk of a full-out war with the U.S. was less than 10%, but they warned that there could be a market-rattling political crisis or even a military skirmish before Pyongyang returned to the negotiating table. However, we may be at peak tensions now, based on several key developments over the past month. First, both China and Russia, two North Korean allies, have turned up the pressure. China appears to be enforcing sanctions according to Chinese trade data vis-à-vis North Korea (Chart I-1). Both China and Russia have also agreed to reduce fuel supplies. And there is evidence that U.S. and North Korea have held unofficial diplomatic talks behind the scenes. The implication is that North Korea is responding to pressure now that its critical fuel supplies are at risk. Chart I-1China Getting Tougher With NK We cannot rule out more goading from Kim Jong Un, especially with a busy political calendar in Asia this fall: the Korean Worker's Party's anniversary on October 10, the Chinese midterm leadership reshuffle on October 11-25, Japanese elections on October 22, and Trump's visit to the region in mid-November. Nevertheless, it would require a major provocation (i.e. a direct attack on the U.S. or its allies) for Pyongyang to escalate tensions from current levels. This would require the North to be very reckless with its own strategic assets, given that the U.S. would likely conduct a proportional retaliation against any serious attack. The recent backup in Treasury yields and yen pullback suggest that investors do not think tensions will escalate that far. We agree, but obviously the situation is fluid. Trump Trades Back In Play? U.S. politics have also become more equity-friendly and bond-bearish at the margin. The risk of a debt ceiling standoff has been delayed until December following President Trump's deal with the Democrats. We do not think that this represents a radical shift toward bipartisanship, but it is warning from the President that the GOP had better get cracking on tax legislation. The House Budget committee passed a FY2018 budget resolution in late July that included "reconciliation instructions" for tax legislation. Such a budget resolution approved by the Congress as a whole would allow for tax cuts that are not fully offset by spending cuts, with the proviso that the tax reductions sunset after a defined number of years. It is difficult to see tax legislation being passed before year end, but the first quarter of 2018 is certainly possible. Markets will begin to price in the legislation well before it is passed, which means that the so-called Trump trades are likely to see a revival. In particular, the legislation should favor small caps and boost the dollar. This year's devastating hurricane activity will also lift U.S. growth in 2018. History shows that natural disasters have only a passing effect on the U.S. economy and financial markets. Following the short-term negative economic impact, rebuilding adds to growth with the Federal government footing part of the bill. A 2016 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report found that federal spending after major hurricanes can add as much as 0.6% to GDP. CBO notes that the lion's share of the economic impact is in the first year after a storm, with most of those expenditures helping victims to obtain food and shelter, fund search and rescue operations, and protect critical infrastructure. Federal outlays for public infrastructure occur after the first year and provide a much smaller lift to GDP (Chart I-2). Chart I-2Federal Government Outlays For Hurricane Relief Oil: Inventories Are Correcting Chart I-3Oil Inventory Correction To Lift Prices It is also positive for the stock-to-bond return ratio that our bullish oil scenario is playing out. Our energy strategists highlight that global oil demand is booming, at a time when the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) lowered its estimated shale oil output by 200,000 bpd for the third quarter. This confirms our contention that the EIA has overestimated the pace of the shale production response during 2017. Taken together, these factors helped to improve the global net demand/supply balance by 600,000 bpd. The drawdown in global oil inventories is thus likely to continue (Chart I-3). Looking to next year, crude prices could go even higher with an extension of the OPEC/Russian production cuts beyond March 2018 and continued strong growth in global oil demand. The synchronized global expansion is reflected in rising oil demand from all parts of the world. Soft Industrial Production Readings Won't Last We have highlighted global and regional industrial production as important indicators of both economic growth corporate earnings. It is therefore a little disconcerting that our aggregate for industrial production in the advanced economies has suddenly lost momentum (Chart I-4). We are inclined to fade the recent softening for a few reasons. First, much of it is due to weakness in the U.S. where hurricanes affected the August figures. Second, most of our leading indicators remain very constructive. Chart I-5 present a simple model for real GDP growth for the G4 economies based on our consumer and capital spending indicators. Real GDP growth will continue to accelerate for the G4 economies as a group according to the model. Our aggregate consumer indicator appears to have peaked at a high level, but the capex indicator is blasting off. The bullish capital spending reading is unanimous across the major economies (Chart I-6). Chart I-4Animal Spirits Are Stirring... Chart I-5...Contributing To Stronger G4 Economic Growth Chart I-6Capital Goods Indicators Are Surging The Eurozone is particularly strong on both the consumer and business fronts, suggesting that euro strength has not undermined growth. Conversely, the U.K. is at the weak end of the spectrum based on the drop in its consumer spending indicator. This is the main reason why we do not believe the Bank of England will be able to make good on its warning of a rate hike this year (see below). Robust capital goods imports for our 20-country aggregate supports the view that animal spirits are stirring in boardrooms in the advanced economies (Chart I-4, third panel). These imports and our capital spending indicators suggest that the small pullback in advanced-economy industrial production will not last, purchasing managers' indexes will remain elevated, and the acceleration in global export activity is just getting started. Even U.S. small business sector has shifted into a higher gear in terms of hiring and capital spending according to the NFIB survey. These trends will favor industrial stocks, especially versus utilities. Central Banks Shedding Dovish Feathers The synchronized global growth pickup is also reflected in our Central Bank Monitors, which are all near or above the zero line (Chart I-7). The Monitors gauge pressure on central banks to adjust policy. Current readings are consistent with the relatively more hawkish tone by central bankers in Canada, the U.S., the Eurozone and the U.K. Chart I-7Central Bank Monitors Support Less Dovish Policymakers The violent reaction in the gilt market to the Bank of England's hint that it could hike rates in the next few months highlights the vulnerability of bond markets to any shift by central bankers in a less dovish direction. In this case, we do not believe the BoE will be able to follow through with its rate hike plan. The leading economic indicators are softening and inflation is about to roll over now that the pound has bottomed. In contrast, bunds are quite vulnerable to a more hawkish tilt at the European Central Bank (ECB). Eurozone policymakers confirmed at their September meeting that they plan to announce in October a reduction in the asset purchase program, to take effect in 2018. The ECB revised up its growth forecast for 2017, and left the subsequent two years unchanged. The inflation forecast was trimmed by 0.1 percentage points in 2018 and 2019. The fact that this year's surge in the euro was not enough to move the needle much on the ECB's projections speaks volumes about the central bank's confidence in the current European economic expansion, as well as its comfort level with the rising currency. Our fixed income strategists believe that the full extent of ECB tapering is not yet fully discounted in the European bond market. Phillips Curve: It's Not Dead, Just Resting Chart I-8U.S. Inflation Turning to the Fed, the bond market did not get the dovish tone it was expecting from September's FOMC meeting. Policymakers left a December rate hike on the table, as Chair Yellen downplayed this year's lagging inflation data as well as the impact of the hurricanes on the economy. Not surprisingly, the odds of a December rate hike have since jumped to 70%. The Fed announced its plan to begin shrinking its balance sheet beginning in October. In the press conference, Yellen tried to disassociate balance sheet policy from the rate outlook. Balance sheet adjustment will be on autopilot, such that short-term interest rates will be the Fed's main policy instrument going forward. While the Fed plans to deliver another rate increase in December, it will require at least a small rise in inflation. Policymakers were no doubt pleased that annual CPI core inflation edged up in August and the 3-month rate of change has moved back to 2% (Chart I-8). The CPI diffusion index also moved above the zero line, indicating that the soft patch in the inflation data may be over, although the diffusion index for the PCE inflation data fell back to the zero line. Table I-1 presents the major contributors to the 0.9 percentage point decline in the year-over-year headline CPI inflation rate since February. Energy accounts for the majority of the decline, at 0.6 percentage points. New cars, shelter, medical services and wireless telephone services account for the remainder. The deflationary wireless price effect is now unwinding, but medical services is a wildcard and our shelter model suggests that this large part of the CPI index will probably not help to lift inflation this year. Thus, higher inflation must come largely from non-shelter core services, which is the component most closely correlated with wages. Investors remain unconvinced by Yellen's assertion that the soft patch in the inflation data reflects transitory factors. Indeed, market-based long-term inflation expectations remain well below the Fed's target, and they even fell a little following the FOMC meeting. Table I-1Contribution To Change In Headline ##br##Inflation (February -August, 2017) One FOMC member is becoming increasingly alarmed by the market's disbelief that the Fed will hit the 2% target even in the long run (Chart I-9). In a recent speech, Governor Brainard noted that both market-based and survey evidence on inflation expectations have drifted lower in the post-Lehman years. More recently, long-term inflation breakeven rates and CPI swaps have been surprisingly sticky in the face of the rebound in oil prices. In the Fed's view, monetary policy can be used effectively in response to shifts in the cyclical drivers of inflation. However, if inflation expectations were to become unanchored, then inflation's long-run trend would be altered and monetary policy would become less effective. Japan is a glaring example of what could be the endpoint. Brainard's fears have not yet affected the FOMC consensus, which is loath to throw the Phillips curve model into the dust bin just yet. We agree that the Phillips curve is not dead. Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist for the BCA Global Investment Strategy Service, argued in a recent Special Report that the often-cited reasons for why the Phillips curve has become defunct - decreased union bargaining power, a more globalized economy, and technological trends - are less convincing than they appear. The Fed simply has to be patient because the U.S. is only now reaching the kinked part of the Phillips Curve (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Worrying Trends For The FOMC Chart I-10U.S. Wage Growth Accelerates Once The Unemployment Rate Falls Below 5% (1997-2017) Moreover, our global fixed income team has made the case that the global output gap must be taken into consideration.1 Chart I-11 presents the percentage of OECD economies that have an unemployment rate below the NAIRU rate, along with inflation in the services and goods sectors of the developed markets. While the correlation between this global NAIRU indicator and realized inflation rates declined in the years after the recession, the linkages have improved over the past couple of years. The fact that the global NAIRU indicator is only now back to pre-Lehman levels suggests that inflationary pressure could finally be near an inflection point. Market expectations for the path of real GDP growth and the unemployment rate are roughly in line with the FOMC's central tendency forecast. However, the wide gulf between the FOMC and the market on the path of interest rates remains a potential catalyst for a correction in risk assets if market rates ratchet higher. Fed balance sheet runoff could also be problematic in this regard. QE Unwind: How Much Of A Risk? Many investors equate the surge in asset prices in the years after the Great Financial Crisis with central bank largesse. Won't a reversal of this policy be negative for both bonds and stocks? Fed balance sheet runoff, together with ECB tapering and less buying by the Bank of Japan, will certainly change the supply/demand backdrop for the G4 government bond markets in 2018. We have updated our projection for the net flow of government bonds available to the private sector, taking into consideration the supply that is absorbed by central banks and other official institutions (Chart I-12). The top panel shows that the net supply of Treasurys to the private sector never contracted in recent years, but the bottom panel highlights that the net supply of G4 government bonds as a group was negative for 2015, 2016 and 2017. Central banks and other official buyers had to bid-away bonds from the private sector during these years. Chart I-11Global Slack Matters Chart I-12Major Swing In Government ##br##Bond Supply In 2018 We project that the net supply will swing from a contraction of almost $600 billion in 2017 to a positive net flow of almost US$200 billion next year. The Fed's projected runoff accounts for most of the swing. The supply/demand effect might push up term premia a little. Nonetheless, as discussed in this month's Special Report beginning on page 19, the balance sheet unwind is not the key threat to bonds and stocks. Rather, the main risk is the overly benign central bank outlook that is priced into the bond market. Real 5-year bond yields, five years forward, are still extremely depressed because the market has discounted negative real short-term interest rates out to 2022 in the U.S. and 2026 in the Eurozone (Chart I-13). Chart I-13Real Forward Short-Term Rates Time For The Nikkei To Shine Equity bourses took September's backup in bond yields in stride. Indeed, the S&P 500 and Nikkei broke to new highs during the month. The Euro Stoxx 50 also sprang to life, although has not yet reached fresh highs in local currency terms. The solid earnings backdrop remains a key support for the market. We highlighted our EPS forecasts in last month's report. Nothing of significance has changed on this front. The latest data suggest that operating margins may be peaking, but the diffusion index does not suggest an imminent decline (Chart I-14). Meanwhile, our upbeat economic assessment discussed above means that top line expansion should keep EPS growing solidly into the first half of 2018 at the global level. EPS growth will likely decelerate toward the end of next year to mid-single digits. Chart I-14Operating Margins Approaching A Peak? We still see a case for the Nikkei to outperform the S&P 500, at least in local currencies. Japan is on the cheap side according to our top-down indicator (Chart I-15). Japanese earnings are highly geared to economic growth at home and abroad. Japanese EPS is in an uptrend versus the U.S. in both local and common currencies (Chart I-16). We do not expect to see a peak in EPS growth until mid-2018, a good six months after the expected top in the U.S. Moreover, an Abe win in the October 22 election would mean that policy will remain highly reflationary in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. Chart I-15Valuation: Japan Cheap To The U.S., But Not Europe Chart I-16Japanese Earnings Outperforming The U.S. European stocks are a tougher call. On the plus side, the economy is flying high and there are no warning signs that this is about to end. There is hope for structural reform in France after Macron's election win this year. We give Macron's proposed labor market reforms high marks because they compare favorably with those of Spain and Germany, which helped to diminish structural unemployment in those two countries. Many doubt that Macron's reforms will see the light of day, but our geopolitical team believes that investors are underestimating the chances. The German election in September poured cold water on recent enthusiasm regarding accelerated European integration. This is because Merkel will likely have to deal with a larger contingent of Euroskeptics in the grand coalition that emerges in the coming months. However, we do not expect political developments in Germany to be a headwind for the Eurozone stock market. On the negative side, European stocks do not appear cheap to the U.S. after adjusting for the structural discount (Chart I-15). Moreover, this year's euro bull phase will take a bite out of earnings. As noted in last month's Overview, euro strength so far this year will lop three to four percentage points off of EPS growth by the middle of next year. Our model suggests that this will be overwhelmed by the robust economic expansion at home and abroad, but profit growth could fall to 5%, which is likely to be well short of that in the U.S. and Japan (local currency). Still, a lot of the negative impact of the currency on profits may already be discounted as forward earnings have been revised down. On balance, we remain overweight European stocks versus the U.S. (currency hedged). However, it appears that Japan has more latitude to outperform. Dollar: Finally Finding A Floor? Chart I-17Has The Dollar Found Bottom? The Fed's determination to stick with the 'dot plot' may have finally placed a floor under the dollar. Before the September FOMC meeting, the market had all but priced out any rate hikes between now and the end of 2018. Both the U.S. economic surprise index and the inflation surprise index have turned up relative to the G10 (Chart I-17). The dollar has more upside if we are past the period of maximum bond market strength and moving into in a window in which U.S. economic and inflation surprises will 'catch up' with the other major economies. Technically, investors appear to be quite short the dollar, especially versus the euro. Bullish sentiment on the euro is highlighted by the fact that the currency has deviated substantially from the interest rate parity relationship. Euro positioning is thus bullish the dollar from a contrary perspective. Nonetheless, our currency experts are more bullish the dollar versus the yen. Given that inflation expectations have softened in Japan and wage growth is still lacking, the Bank of Japan will have to stick with its zero percent 10-year JGB target. The yen will be forced lower versus the dollar as the U.S. yield curve shifts up. We also like the loonie. The Bank of Canada (BoC) pulled the trigger in September for the second time this year, lifting the overnight rate to 1%. Policymakers gave themselves some "wiggle room" on the outlook, but more tightening is on the way barring a significant slowdown in growth, another spike in the C$, or a housing meltdown. The statement said that the loonie's rise partly reflected the relative strength of the Canadian economy, which implies that it is justified by the fundamentals. It does not appear that the C$ has reached a "choke point" in the eyes of the central bank. Investment Conclusions: We highlighted in our last issue that investors should remain slightly overweight risk assets, but should also hold safe haven assets given the preponderance of risks. Some of the risks have since faded and the sweet spot for risk assets is continuing. We remain upbeat on global economic growth and earnings. Nonetheless, both stocks and bonds remain vulnerable to any upside surprises on inflation, especially in the U.S. While the positive trends in stock indexes and corporate bond spreads should continue over the coming 6-12 months, there is a good chance that this year's downtrend in the dollar and government bond yields is over. The rise in both may be halting, but the risks are to the upside now that disappointments on U.S. growth and inflation have likely ended (notwithstanding the hurricane-distorted economic data in the near term). The Phillips curve is not dead, which means that it is only a matter of time before inflation begins to find a little traction. Higher oil prices will also provide a tailwind for headline inflation. Geopolitics will no doubt remain a threat for 'risk on' trades, but we may be past the worst in terms of North Korean tension. We also do not expect Fed balance sheet normalization to be a major headwind for risk assets. Nonetheless, the anticipated swing the supply of G4 government bonds to private investors would serve to add to selling pressure in the fixed-income space if inflation is rising in the U.S. and/or Europe at the same time. In other words, the risk relates more to expected policy rates than the Fed's balance sheet. Stay overweight stocks versus bonds, long oil related plays, slightly short in duration in the fixed income space, and long inflation protection. We also recommend returning to long positions on the U.S. dollar. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst September 28, 2017 Next Report: October 26, 2017 1 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Phillips Curve Dead Or Dormant?" dated September 22, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com II. Liquidity And The Great Balance Sheet Unwind Liquidity is the lifeblood of the economy and financial markets, but it is a slippery concept that means different things to different people. Liquidity falls into four categories: monetary, balance sheet, financial market transaction liquidity, and funding liquidity. Overall liquidity conditions are reasonably constructive for risk assets at the moment. Financial market and balance sheet liquidity are adequate. Monetary policy is extremely easy, although the low level of money and credit growth underscores that the credit channel of monetary policy is still somewhat impaired. Funding liquidity is as important as monetary liquidity for financial markets. It has recovered from the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) lows, but it is far from frothy. Unwinding the Fed's balance sheet represents a risk to investors because QE played such an important role in reducing risk premia in financial markets. The unwind should not affect transactions liquidity or balance sheet liquidity. It should not affect the broad monetary aggregates either. The bond market's reaction will be far more important than balance sheet shrinkage. As long as the Fed can limit the bond market damage via forward guidance, then funding liquidity should remain adequate and risk assets should take the Fed's unwind in stride. It will be a whole different story, however, if inflation lurches higher. The technical impact of balance sheet unwind on the inner workings of the credit market is very complicated. Asset sales could lead to a shortage of short-term high-quality assets, unless it is offset with increased T-bill issuance. However, a smaller balance sheet could, in fact, improve funding liquidity to the extent that it frees up space on banks' balance sheets. Liquidity has been an integral part of BCA's approach to financial markets going back to the early days of the company under the tutelage of Editor-in-Chief Hamilton Bolton from 1949 to 1968. Bolton was ahead of his time in terms of developing monetary indicators to forecast market trends. Back then, the focus was on bank flows such as the volume of checks cashed because capital markets were still developing and most credit flowed through the banking system. Times changed, monetary policy implementation evolved and financial markets became more important and sophisticated. When money targeting became popular among central banks in the 1970s, central bank liquidity analysis focused more on the broader monetary aggregates. These and other monetary data were used extensively by Anthony Boeckh, BCA's Editor-in-Chief from the 1968 to 2002, to forecast the economy and markets. He also highlighted the importance of balance sheet liquidity (holdings of liquid assets), and its interplay with rising debt levels. Martin Barnes continued with these themes when writing about the Debt Supercycle in the monthly Bank Credit Analyst. "Liquidity" is a slippery concept, and it means different things to different people. In this Special Report, we describe BCA's approach to liquidity and highlight its critical importance for financial markets. We provide a list of indicators to watch, and also outline how the pending shrinkage of the Fed's balance sheet could affect overall liquidity conditions. A Primer On Liquidity We believe there are four types of liquidity that are all interrelated: Central Bank Liquidity: Bank reserves lie at the heart of central bank liquidity. Reserves are under the direct control of the central bank, which are used as a tool to influence general monetary conditions in the economy. The latter are endogenous to the system and also depend on the private sector's desire to borrow, spend and hold cash. Bullish liquidity conditions are typically associated with plentiful bank reserves, low interest rates and strong growth in the monetary aggregates. Balance Sheet Liquidity: A high level of balance sheet liquidity means that plenty of short-term assets are available to meet emergencies. The desire of households, companies and institutional investors to build up balance sheet liquidity would normally increase when times are bad, and decline when confidence is high. Thus, one would expect strong economic growth to be associated with declining balance sheet liquidity, and vice versa when the economy is weak. Of course, deteriorating balance sheet liquidity during good times is a negative sign to the extent that households or business are caught in an illiquid state when the economy turns down, jobs are lost and loans are called. Financial Market Transaction Liquidity: This refers to the ability to make transactions in securities without triggering major changes in prices. Financial institutions provide market liquidity to securities markets through their trading activities. Funding Liquidity: The ability to borrow to fund positions in financial markets. Financial institutions provide funding liquidity to borrowers through their lending activities. The conditions under which these intermediaries can fund their own balance sheets, in turn, depend on the willingness of banks and the shadow banking system to interact with them. The BIS definition of funding liquidity is a broad concept that captures a wide range of channels. It includes the capacity of intermediaries that participate in the securitization chain to access the necessary funding to originate loans, to acquire loans for packaging into securities, and finance various kinds of guarantees. The availability and turnover of collateral for loans is also very important for generating funding liquidity, as we discuss below. These types of liquidity are interrelated in various ways, and can positively or negatively reinforce each other. It is the interaction of these factors that determines the economy's overall ease of financing. See Box II-1 for more details. BOX II-1 How Liquidity Is Inter-Related Central bank liquidity, which is exogenously determined, is the basis for private liquidity creation (the combination of market transaction and funding liquidity). The central bank determines the short-term risk-free rate and the official liquidity that is provided to the banking system. If the central bank hikes rates or provides less official liquidity, appetite for private lending begins to dry up. Private sector liquidity is thus heavily influenced by monetary policy, but can develop a life of its own, overshooting to the upside and downside with swings in investor confidence and risk tolerance. Financial market liquidity and funding liquidity are closely interrelated. When times are good, markets are liquid and funding liquidity is ample. But when risk tolerance takes a hit, a vicious circle between market transaction and funding liquidity develops. The BIS highlights the procyclical nature of private liquidity, which means that it tends to exhibit boom-bust cycles that generate credit excesses that are followed by busts.1 The Great Financial Crisis of 2008 is a perfect example. The Fed lifted the fed funds rate by 400 basis points between 2004 and 2006. Nonetheless, the outsized contraction in private liquidity, resulting from the plunge in asset prices related to U.S. mortgage debt, was a key driver of the crash in risk asset prices. Liquidity Indicators: What To Watch (1) Monetary Liquidity Key measures of central bank liquidity include the monetary base and the broad money aggregates, such as M1 and M2 (Chart II-1). Central banks control the amount of reserves in the banking system, which is part of base money, but they do not control the broad monetary aggregates. The latter is determined by the desire to hold cash and bank deposits, as well as the demand and supply of credit. Box II-2 provides some background on the monetary transmission process and quantitative easing. BOX II-2 The Monetary Transmission Process And Qe Before the Great Recession and Financial Crisis, the monetary authorities set the level of short-term interest rates through active management of the level of bank reserves. Reserves were drained as policy tightened, and were boosted when policies eased. The level of bank reserves affected banks' lending behavior, and shifts in interest rates affected the spending and investment decisions of consumers and businesses. Of course, it has been a different story since the financial crisis. Once short-term interest rates reached the zero bound, the Fed and some other central banks adopted "quantitative easing" programs designed to depress longer-term interest rates by aggressively buying bonds and thereby stuffing the banking system with an excessive amount of reserves. Many feared the onset of inflation when QE programs were first announced because investors worried that this would contribute to a massive increase in credit and the overall money supply. Indeed, there could have been hyper-inflation if banks had gone on a lending spree. But this never happened. Banks were constrained by insufficient capital ratios, loan losses and intense regulation, while consumers and businesses had no appetite for acquiring more debt. The result was that the money multiplier - the ratio of broad money to the monetary base - collapsed (top panel in Chart II-1). Bank lending standards eventually eased and credit demand recovered. Broad money growth has been volatile since 2007 but, despite quantitative easing, it has been roughly in line with the decade before. The broad aggregates lost much of their predictive power after the 1980s. Financial innovation, such as the use of debit cards and bank machines, changed the relationship between broad money on one hand, and the economy or financial markets on the other. Despite the structural changes in the economy, investors should still keep the monetary aggregates and the other monetary indicators discussed below in their toolbox. While the year-to-year wiggles in M2, for example, have not been good predictors of growth or inflation on a one or two year horizon, Chart II-2 shows that there is a long-term relationship between money and inflation when using decade averages. Chart II-1The Monetary Aggregates Chart II-2Long-Run Relationship Between M2 And Inflation Other monetary indicators to watch: M2 Divided By Nominal GDP (Chart II-3): When money growth exceeds that of nominal GDP, it could be interpreted as a signal that there is more than enough liquidity to facilitate economic activity. The excess is then available to purchase financial assets. Monetary Conditions Index (Chart II-3): This combines the level of interest rates and the change in the exchange rate into one indicator. The MCI has increased over the past year, indicating a tightening of monetary conditions, but is still very low by historical standards. Dollar Based Liquidity (Chart II-3): This includes Fed holdings of Treasurys and U.S. government securities held in custody for foreign official accounts. Foreign Exchange Reserves (Chart II-3): Central banks hold reserves in the form of gold, or cash and bonds denominated in foreign currencies. For example, when the People's Bank of China accumulates foreign exchange as part of its management of the RMB, it buys government bonds in other countries, thereby adding to liquidity globally. Interest Rates Minus Nominal GDP Growth (Chart II-4): Nominal GDP growth can be thought of as a proxy for the return on capital. If interest rates are below the return on capital, then there is an incentive for firms to borrow and invest. The opposite is true if interest rates are above GDP growth. Currently, short-term rates are well below nominal GDP, signaling that central bank liquidity is plentiful. Chart II-3Monetary Indicators (I) Chart II-4Monetary Indicators (II) (2) Balance Sheet Liquidity Chart II-5 presents the ratio of short-term assets to total liabilities for the corporate and household sectors. It is a measure of readily-available cash or cash-like instruments that make it easier to weather economic downturns and/or credit tightening phases. The non-financial corporate sector is in very good shape from this perspective. The seizure of the commercial paper market during the GFC encouraged firms to hold more liquid assets on the balance sheet. However, the uptrend began in the early 1990s and likely reflects tax avoidance efforts. Households are also highly liquid when short-term assets are compared to income. Liquidity as a share of total discretionary financial portfolios is low, but this is not surprising given extraordinarily unattractive interest rates. The banking system is being forced to hold more liquid assets under the new Liquidity Coverage Ratio requirement (Chart II-6). This is positive from the perspective of reducing systemic risk, but it has negative implications for funding liquidity, as we will discuss below. Chart II-5Balance Sheet Liquidity Chart II-6Bank Balance Sheet Liquidity (3) Financial Market Transaction Liquidity: Transactions volumes and bid-ask spreads are the main indicators to watch to gauge financial market transaction liquidity. There was a concern shortly after the GFC that the pullback in risk-taking by important market-makers could severely undermine market liquidity, leading to lower transaction volumes and wider bid-ask spreads. The focus of concern was largely on the corporate bond market given the sharply reduced footprint of investment banks. The Fed's data on primary dealer positioning in corporates shows a massive decline from the pre-crisis peak in 2007 (Chart II-7). This represents a decline from over 10% of market cap to only 0.3%. The smaller presence of dealers could create a liquidity problem for corporate debt, especially if market-making dealers fail to adequately match sellers with buyers during market downturns. Yet, as highlighted by BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy team, corporate bond markets have functioned well since the dark days of the Lehman crisis.2 Reduced dealer presence has not resulted in any unusual widening of typical relationships like the basis between Credit Default Swaps and corporate bond spreads. Other market participants, such as Exchange Traded Funds, have taken up the slack. Daily trading volume as a percent of market cap has returned to pre-Lehman levels in the U.S. high-yield market, although this is not quite the case for the investment-grade market (Chart II-8). Chart II-7Less Market Making Chart II-8Corporate Bond Trading Volume That said, it is somewhat worrying that average trade sizes in corporates are smaller now compared to pre-crisis levels - perhaps as much as 20% smaller according to estimates by the New York Fed. This is likely the result of the reduced risk-taking by the dealers and the growing share of direct electronic trading. Thus, it may feel like liquidity is impaired since it now takes longer to execute a large bond trade, even though transaction costs for individual trades have not been increasing. The bottom line is that financial market liquidity is not as good as in the pre-Lehman years. This is not a problem at the moment, but there could be some dislocations in the fixed-income space during the next period of severe market stress when funding liquidity dries up. (3) Funding Liquidity: There are few direct measures of funding liquidity. Instead, one can look for its "footprint" or confirming evidence, such as total private sector credit. If credit is growing strongly, it is a sign that funding liquidity is ample. Box II-3 explains why international credit flows are also important to watch for signs of froth in lending. BOX II-3 The Importance Of International Credit Flows The BIS highlights that swings in international borrowing amplify domestic credit trends. Cross border lending tends to display even larger boom-bust cycles than domestic credit, as can be seen in the major advanced economies in the lead up to the GFC, as well as some Asian countries just before the Asian crisis in the late 1990s (Chart II-9). When times are good, banks and the shadow banking system draw heavily on cross-border sources of funds, such that international credit expansion tends to grow faster during boom periods than the credit granted domestically by banks located in the country. Since G4 financial systems intermediate a major share of global credit, funding conditions within the G4 affect funding conditions globally, as BIS research shows.3 This research also demonstrates that financial cycles have become more highly correlated across economies due to increased financial integration. Booms in credit inflows from abroad are also associated with a low level of the VIX, which is another sign of ample funding liquidity conditions (Chart II-10). These periods of excessive funding almost always end with a financial crisis and a spike in the VIX. Chart II-9International Credit Is Highly Cyclical Chart II-10International Credit Booms Lead Spikes In The VIX Other measures of funding liquidity to watch include: Chart II-11Market Measures Of Funding Liquidity Libor-OIS Spread (Chart II-11): This is a measure of perceived credit risk of LIBOR-panel banks. The spread tends to widen during periods of banking sector stress. Spreads are currently low by historical standards. However, libor will be phased out by 2021, such that a replacement for this benchmark rate will have to be found by then. Bond-CDS Basis (Chart II-11): The basis is roughly the average difference between each bond's yield spread to Treasurys and the cost of insuring the bond in the CDS market. Arbitrage should keep these two spreads closely aligned, but increases in funding costs tied to balance sheet constraints during periods of market stress affect this arbitrage opportunity, allowing the two spreads to diverge. The U.S. high-yield or investment grade bond markets are a good bellweather, and at the moment they indicate relatively good funding liquidity. FX Basis Swap (Chart II-11): This is analogous to the bond-CDS basis. It reflects the cost of hedging currencies, which is critically important for international investors and lending institutions. The basis swap widens when there is financial stress, reflecting a pullback in funding liquidity related to currencies. The FX swap basis widened during the GFC and, unlike other spreads, has not returned to pre-Lehman levels (see below). Bank Leverage Ratios (Chart II-12): The ratio of loans to deposits is a measure of leverage in the banking system. Banks boost leverage during boom times and thereby provide more loans and funding liquidity to buy securities. In the U.S., this ratio has plunged since 2007 and shows no sign of turning up. Primary Dealers Securities Lending (Chart II-13): This is a direct measure of funding liquidity. Primary dealers make loans to other financial institutions with the purpose of buying securities, thereby providing both funding liquidity and market liquidity. Historically, shifts in dealer lending have been correlated with bid-ask spreads in the Treasury market. Securities lending is also correlated with the S&P 500, although it does not tend to lead the stock market. Dealer loans soared prior to 2007, before collapsing in 2008. Total loans have recovered, but have not reached pre-crisis highs, consistent with stricter regulations that forced the deleveraging of dealer balance sheets. Chart II-12U.S. Bank Leverage Chart II-13Securities Lending And Margin Debt NYSE Margin Debt (Chart II-13): Another direct measure of funding liquidity. The uptrend in recent years has been steep, although it is less impressive when expressed relative to market cap. Bank Lending Standards (Chart II-14): These surveys reflect bank lending standards for standard loans to the household or corporate sectors, but their appetite for lending for the purposes of securities purchases is no doubt highly correlated. Lending standards tightened in 2016 due to the collapse in oil prices, but they have started to ease again this year. Table II-1 provides a handy list of liquidity indicators split into our four categories. Taking all of these indicators into consideration, we would characterize liquidity conditions in the U.S. as fairly accommodative, although not nearly as abundant as the period just prior to the Lehman event. Monetary conditions are super easy, while balance sheet and financial market liquidity are reasonably constructive. In contrast, funding liquidity, while vastly improved since the GFC, is still a long way from the pre-Lehman go-go years according to several important indicators such as bank leverage. Moreover, the Fed is set to begin the process of unwinding the massive amount of monetary liquidity provided by its quantitative easing program. Chart II-14Bank Lending Standards Table II-1Liquidity Indicators To Watch Fed Balance Sheet Shrinkage: What Impact On Liquidity? Given that the era of quantitative easing has been a positive one for risk assets, it is unsurprising that investors are concerned about the looming unwind of the Fed's massive balance sheet. For example, Chart II-15 demonstrates the correlation between the change in G4 balances sheets and both the stock market and excess returns in the U.S. high-yield market. Chart II-16 presents our forecast for how quickly the Fed's balance sheet will contract. Following last week's FOMC meeting we learned that balance sheet reduction will begin October 1. For the first three months the Fed will allow a maximum of $6 billion in Treasurys and $4 billion in MBS to run off each month. Those caps will increase in steps of $6 billion and $4 billion, respectively, every three months until they level off at $30 billion per month for Treasurys and $20 billion per month for MBS. Chart II-15G4 Central Bank Balance Sheets Chart II-16Fed Balance Sheet We have received no official guidance on the level of bank reserves the Fed will target for the end of the run-off process. However, New York Fed President William Dudley recently recommended that this level should be higher than during the pre-QE period, and should probably fall in the $400 billion to $1 trillion range.4 In our forecasts we assume that bank reserves will level-off once they reach $650 billion. In that scenario the Fed's balance sheet will shrink by roughly $1.4 trillion by 2021. The level of excess reserves in the banking system will decline by a somewhat larger amount ($1.75 trillion). In terms of the impact of balance sheet shrinkage on overall liquidity conditions, it is useful to think about the four categories of liquidity described above. (1) Monetary Liquidity The re-absorption of excess reserves will mean that base money will contract (i.e. the sum of bank reserves held at the Fed and currency in circulation). However, we do not expect this to have a noticeable impact on the broader monetary aggregates, credit growth, the economy or inflation, outside of any effect it might have on the term premium in the bond market. The reasoning is that all those excess reserves did not have a major impact on growth and inflation when they were created in the first place. This was because the credit channel of monetary policy was blocked by a lack of demand (private sector deleveraging) and limited bank lending capacity (partly due to regulation). Banks were also less inclined to lend due to rising loan losses. Removing the excess reserves should have little effect on banks' willingness or ability to make new loans. In terms of asset prices, some investors believe that when the excess reserves were created, a portion of it found its way out of the banking system and was used to buy assets directly. That is not the case. The excess reserves were left idle, sitting on deposit at the Fed. They did not "leak" out and were not used to purchase assets. Thus, fewer excess bank reserves do not imply any forced selling. Nonetheless, the QE program certainly affected asset prices indirectly via the portfolio balance effect. Asset purchases supported both the economy and risk assets in part via a weaker dollar and to the extent that the policy lifted confidence in the system. But most importantly, QE depressed long-term interest rates, which are used to discount cash flows when valuing financial assets. QE boosted risk-seeking behavior and the search for yield, partly through the signaling mechanism that convinced investors that short-term rates would stay depressed for a long time. The result was a decline in measures of market implied volatility, such as the MOVE and VIX indexes. Could Bond Yields Spike? The risk is that the portfolio balance effect goes into reverse as the Fed unwinds the asset purchases. The negative impact on risk assets will depend importantly on the bond market's response. As highlighted in the Overview section, there will be a sharp swing in the flow of G4 government bonds available to the private sector, from a contraction of US$800 billion in 2017 to an increase of US$600 billion in 2018. Focusing on the U.S. market, empirical estimates suggest that the Fed's shedding of Treasurys could boost the 10-year yield by about 80 basis points because the private sector will require a higher term premium to absorb the higher flow of bonds. However, the impact on yields is likely to be tempered by two factors: Banks are required by regulators to hold more high-quality assets than they did in the pre-Lehman years in order to meet the new Liquidity Coverage Ratio. The BCA U.S. Bond Strategy service argues that growing bank demand for Treasurys in the coming years will absorb much of the net flow of Treasurys that the Fed is no longer buying.5 As the FOMC dials back monetary stimulus it will be concerned with overall monetary conditions, including short-term rates, long-term rates and the dollar. If long-term rates and/or the dollar rise too quickly, policymakers will moderate the pace of rate hikes and use forward guidance to talk down the long end of the curve so as to avoid allowing financial conditions to tighten too quickly. Thus, the path of short-term rates is dependent on the dollar and the reaction of the long end of the curve. It is difficult to estimate how it will shake out, but the point is that forward guidance will help to limit the impact of the shrinking Fed balance sheet on bond yields. Indeed, the Fed is trying hard to sever the link in investors' minds between balance sheet policy and signaling about future rate hikes, as highlighted by Chair Yellen's Q&A session following the September FOMC meeting. The bottom line is that the impact on monetary liquidity of a smaller Fed balance sheet should be minimal, although long-term bond yields will be marginally higher as a result. That said, much depends on inflation. If the core PCE inflation rate were to suddenly shift up to the 2% target or above, then bond prices will be hit hard, the VIX will surge and risk assets will sustain some damage. The prospect of a more aggressive pace of monetary tightening would undermine funding liquidity, compounding the negative impact on risk assets. (2) Funding Liquidity Chart II-17Tri-Party Repo Market Has Shrunk By unwinding its balance sheet, the Fed will be supplying securities into the market and removing cash. This will be occurring at a time when transactions in the tri-party repo market have fallen to less than half of their peak in 2007 due to stricter regulation (Chart II-17). This market has historically been an important source of short-term funding, helping to meet the secular rise in demand for short-term, low-risk instruments, largely from non-financial corporations, asset managers and foreign exchange reserve funds. If the Fed drains reserves from the system and T-bill issuance does not increase substantially to compensate, a supply shortage of short-maturity instruments could develop. We can see how this might undermine the Fed's ability to shift short-term interest rates higher under its new system of interest rate management, where reverse repos and the interest rate paid on reserves set the floor for other short-term interest rates. However, at the moment we do not see the risk that fewer excess reserves on its own will negatively affect funding liquidity. Again, any impact on funding liquidity would likely be felt via a sharp rise in interest rates and pullback in the portfolio balance effect, which would occur if inflation turns up. But this has more to do with rising interest rates than the size of the Fed's balance sheet. Indeed, balance sheet shrinkage could actually improve funding liquidity provided via the bilateral repo market, securities-lending, derivatives and prime brokerage channels. These are important players in the collateral supply chain. A recent IMF working paper emphasizes that collateral flows are just as important in credit creation as money itself.6 Collateral refers to financial instruments that are used as collateral to fund positions, which can be cash or cash-like equivalents. Since pledged collateral can be reused over and over, it can generate significantly more total lending than the value of the collateral itself. The Fed's overnight reverse-repo facility includes restrictions that the collateral accessed from its balance sheet can only be used in the tri-party repo system. Thus, the Fed's presence in the collateral market has reduced the "velocity of collateral." Table II-2 shows that the reuse rate of collateral, or its velocity, has fallen from 3.0 in 2007 to 1.8 in 2015. Table II-2Collateral Velocity The combination of tighter capital regulations and Fed asset purchases has severely limited the available space on bank balance sheets to provide funding liquidity. Regulations force banks to carry more capital for a given level of assets. Fed asset purchases have forced a large portion of those assets to be held as reserves, limiting banks' activity in the bilateral repo market. There is much uncertainty surrounding this issue, but it appears that an unwind the Fed's balance sheet will free up some space on bank balance sheets, possibly permitting more bilateral repo activity and thus a higher rate of collateral velocity. It may also relieve concerns about a shortage of safe-haven assets. Nonetheless, we probably will not see a return of collateral velocity to 2007 levels because stricter capital regulations will still be in place. What About Currency Swaps? Some have argued that this removal of cash could also lead to an appreciation of the U.S. dollar. In particular, Zoltan Pozsar of Credit Suisse has observed a correlation between U.S. bank reserves and FX basis swap spreads.7 There is also a strong correlation between FX swap spreads and the U.S. dollar (Chart II-18). Chart II-18FX Basis Swap And Reserves One possible chain of events is that, as the Fed drains cash from the market, there will be less liquidity in the FX swap market. Basis swap spreads will widen as a result, and this will cause the dollar to appreciate. In this framework, the unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet will put upward pressure on the U.S. dollar. However, it is also possible that the chain of causation runs in the other direction. The BIS has proposed a model8 where a stronger dollar weakens the capital positions of bank balance sheets. This causes them to back away from providing liquidity to the FX swap market, leading to wider basis swap spreads. In this model, a strong dollar leads to wider basis swap spreads and not the reverse. If this is the correct direction of causation, then we should not expect any impact on the dollar from the unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet. At the moment it is impossible to tell which of the above two theories is correct. All we can do is monitor the correlation between reserves, FX basis swap spreads and the dollar going forward. Conclusions: Overall liquidity conditions are reasonably constructive for risk assets at the moment. Financial market and balance sheet liquidity are adequate. Monetary policy is extremely easy, although the low level of money and credit growth underscores that the credit channel of monetary policy is still somewhat impaired and/or constrained relative to the pre-Lehman years. Funding liquidity has recovered from the Great Financial Crisis lows, but it is far from frothy. More intense regulation means that funding liquidity will probably never again be as favorable for risk assets as it was before the crisis. But, hopefully, efforts by the authorities to reduce perceived systemic risk mean that funding liquidity may not be as quick to dry up as was the case in 2008, in the event of another negative shock. Unwinding the Fed's balance sheet represents a risk to investors because QE played such an important role in reducing risk premia in financial markets. However, we believe that the bond market's reaction will be far more important than balance sheet shrinkage. As long as the Fed can limit the bond market damage via forward guidance, then risk assets should take the Fed's unwind in stride. It will be a whole different story, however, if inflation lurches higher. The technical impact of balance sheet unwind on the inner workings of the credit market is very complicated and difficult to forecast. Asset sales could lead to a shortage of short-term high-quality assets. However, this is more a problem in terms of the Fed's ability to raise interest rates than for funding liquidity. A smaller balance sheet could, in fact, improve funding liquidity to the extent that it frees up space on banks' balance sheets. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst Ryan Swift Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy 1 D. Domanski, I. Fender and P. McGuire, "Assessing Global Liquidity," BIS Quarterly Review (December 2011). 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Global Interest Rate Strategy For The Remainder Of 2017," dated July 18, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 3 E. Cerutti, S. Claessens and L. Ratnovski, "A Primer on 'Global Liquidity'," CEPR Policy Portal (June 8, 2014). 4 William C. Dudley, "The U.S. Economic Outlook and the Implications for Monetary Policy," Federal Reserve Bank of New York (September 07, 2017). 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Great Unwind," dated September 19, 2017, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 M. Singh, "Collateral Reuse and Balance Sheet Space," IMF Working Paper (May 2017). 7 Alexandra Scaggs, "Where would you prefer your balance sheet: Banks, or the Federal Reserve?" Financial Times Alphaville (April 13, 2017). 8 S. Avdjiev, W. Du, C. Koch, and Hyun S.Shin, "The dollar, bank leverage and the deviation from covered interest parity," BIS Working Papers No.592 (Revised July 2017). III. Indicators And Reference Charts Equity indexes in the U.S. and Japan broke out to new highs in September. European stocks surged as well. Investors embraced risk assets in the month on a solid earnings backdrop, strong economic indicators, continuing low inflation and revived hopes for fiscal stimulus in the U.S. and Japan, among other factors. Our indicators do not warn of any near-term stumbling blocks for the bull market. Our monetary indicator continues to hover only slightly on the restrictive side. Our equity composite technical indicator may be rolling over, but it must fall below zero to send a 'sell' signal. The speculation index is elevated, but bullish equity sentiment is only a little above the long-term mean. Meanwhile, the S&P 500 tends to increase whenever the 12-month forward EPS estimate is rising. The latter is in a solid uptrend that should continue based on the net revisions ratio and the earnings surprise index. Valuation remains poor, but has not yet reached our threshold of overvaluation. Our new Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) continued on its bullish equity signal in August for the second consecutive month. We introduced the RPI in the July report. It combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators are also bullish on stocks for the U.S., Europe and Japan. These indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. The U.S. and Japanese WTPs are trending sideways, and Europe could be rolling over. While this is a little worrying because they indicate that flows into equity markets have moderated recently, the indicators have to clearly turn down to provide a bearish signal for stocks. Flows into the U.S. appear to be more advanced relative to Japan and the Eurozone, suggesting that there is more "dry powder" available to buy the latter two markets than for the U.S. market. Oversold conditions for the U.S. dollar are being worked off, but our technical indicator is still positive for the currency. The greenback looks expensive based on PPP, but is less so on other measures. We are positive in the near term. Our composite technical indicator for U.S. Treasurys is at neutral. Bond valuation is also at neutral based on our long-standing model. However, other models that specifically incorporate global economic factors suggest that the 10-year Treasury is still more than 30 basis points on the expensive side. Stay below benchmark in duration. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market And Earnings: ##br##Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights U.S. Treasury yields should continue to rise as investors price-out doomsday risk; Tensions surrounding North Korea will continue, but there are signs that negotiations have started and that China is playing ball on sanctions; Meanwhile, our view that tax cuts are coming is finally coming to fruition; Fade renewed European risks regarding Brexit and Catalan independence; But the independence push by Kurds in Iraq could have market impact. Feature Early in the second quarter, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy made two predictions. First, we said that summer would be a time to stay invested in U.S. equities and largely ignore domestic politics.1 Second, that North Korea would become an investment-relevant risk and buoy safe-haven plays but would not lead to a full-scale war (and hence not cause a global correction).2 The summer proved lucrative for both risk-on and risk-off trades, best emblemized by solid returns for both the S&P 500 and 10-year U.S. Treasury (Chart 1 A & B). Chart 1ARisk Assets Have Rallied... Chart 1B...At The Same Time As Safe Havens Can this continue? We do not think so. Geopolitics can influence the 10-year Treasury yield via two mechanisms: safe-haven flows and fiscal policy. On both fronts, we see movements that should support a pickup in yields over the rest of the year, a view corroborated by our colleagues on the fixed-income team. First, investors finally have progress on tax legislation that we have been forecasting since President Trump's election. Given the markets' collective pessimism on corporate tax reform (Chart 2), we expect any good news to change the current narrative. While it is still difficult to envision tax legislation that massively stimulates the economy, it is also difficult to imagine tax legislation that is revenue-neutral. As such, fiscal policy in the U.S. should be at least mildly stimulative in 2018, supporting higher yields. Second, we remain concerned that North Korea could escalate the ongoing tensions in East Asia.3 However, Pyongyang is constrained by its military capacity, which limits what it can realistically do to threaten its neighbors. As we discuss below, there are emerging signs of both diplomatic negotiations and Chinese pressure, key signposts that we have passed the peak on our "Arc of Diplomacy." As such, investors should prepare for the bond rally to reverse and the broader risk-on phase to extend through the end of the year. We expect the "Trump reflation trade" - USD appreciation, yield-curve steepening, and small-cap outperformance (Chart 3) - to restart if our views on the U.S. legislative agenda and North Korean tensions hold. Chart 2Investors Remain Pessimistic On Tax Reform... Chart 3...And On Trump's Policy In General U.S. Treasuries: Fade The Doomsday Trade Our colleagues at BCA's fixed-income desk have shown that flows into safe havens over the summer have widened the disconnect between global yields and economic fundamentals (Chart 4).4 Chief Fixed-Income Strategist Rob Robis points out that BCA's own valuation model for the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield indicates that "fair value" sits at 2.67%, nearly 55bps higher than current market levels (Chart 5).5 This is a level of overvaluation that even exceeds the extreme levels seen after the U.K. Brexit vote in July of 2016. Rob believes that the summer bond rally is about safe-haven demand, depressed investor sentiment, and underwhelming inflation, in that order. It is certainly not about growth expectations, which remain buoyant (Chart 6). Chart 4Falling Yields Reflect Save Haven Demand,##br## Not Slower Growth Chart 5U.S. Treasuries ##br##Are Overvalued Chart 6Global Growth##br## Remains Buoyant To prove that underwhelming inflation has not spurred the latest rally in Treasuries, Rob decomposes developed market bond yield changes since the July 7 peak in U.S. yields. The benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury yield has risen 20bps off those September lows as investors have priced out doomsday risk. Table 1 shows that yields declined everywhere but Canada (where the central bank has been hiking interest rates). Yet the vast majority of the yield decline has come from falling real yields and not lower inflation expectations, which have actually stabilized over the summer. This has also occurred via a bull-flattening move in government bond yield curves, which suggests it is risk-aversion that has driven yields lower. Table 1Changes In DM Bond Yields Over The Summer (From July 7th Peak In U.S. Treasury Yields) The conclusion of our fixed-income team is that there is now considerable upside risk in global yields. We agree. While North Korea could retaliate against the just-imposed UN sanctions in various ways, it is difficult to see the market reacting with the same vigor as it did in July and August. Investors are becoming desensitized to North Korean provocations, especially as the latter remain confined to "expected and accepted" forms of belligerence, even in the current context of heightened tensions. Future North Korean safe-haven rallies will be of shorter amplitude and duration. The September 15 missile launch over Japan (the fourth time this has happened) has shown this to be the case. Chart 7Position For A Tactically Wider UST-Bund Spread Bottom Line: BCA's bond team remains short duration, a position that our political analysis supports. We will keep our 2-year/30-year Treasury curve-steepener trade open, despite it being in the red by 34.3bps. In addition, we are closing our short Fed Funds January 2018 futures position (for a gain of 0.51bps) and opening a new short Fed Funds December 2018 position. Any sign of emerging bipartisanship should also favor higher fiscal spending, as policymakers almost always come together to spend money rather than cut spending. In addition, we are recommending that our clients put on a U.S. Treasury-German Bund spread widening trade.6 Rob has pointed out that this is a way to profit directly from higher fiscal spending in the U.S., particularly since there is no sign that Germany will change its government spending following its unremarkable election campaign. The data also supports a tactical widening of the Treasury-Bund spread, which is correlated with the relative data surprises (Chart 7). U.S. Politics: From Impeachable To Ingenious The crucial moment for the Trump presidency was the White House purge of the "Breitbart clique" following the social unrest in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 11-12.7 That move has made headway for upcoming tax legislation and resolution of the debt ceiling imbroglio. While some investors saw the racially motivated rioting in Virginia as a harbinger of a major risk-off episode, we saw it essentially as a "Peak Stupid" moment in U.S. politics. We may not know precisely what goes on in President Trump's mind, but we know that he likes polls. And his polling with Republican voters suffered appreciably following the Charlottesville fiasco (Chart 8). Strong Republican support for President Trump is the main source of his political capital. He can use it to cajole and influence Republicans in Congress via the upcoming Republican primary process ahead of the midterm elections. If he loses that support, his political capital will erode and he could become the earliest "lame duck" president in recent U.S. history. Worse, if support among Republicans were to fall below 70%, Trump could embark upon a Nixonian trajectory that could indeed lead to impeachment (Chart 9). Chart 8Trump's Support With GOP Voters Suffered... Chart 9... But Remains Well Above Nixonian Levels Many clients have asked us about the debt ceiling deal that President Trump made with Democrats and whether it signals a radical shift towards bipartisanship. We do not think so. In fact, we think the deal is mostly irrelevant. As we argued throughout the summer, the idea that there would be another debt ceiling crisis this year was always a figment of the media's imagination. There was never any evidence that a sufficient number of members of the House of Representatives wanted to play brinkmanship with the debt ceiling. First, Democrats in both houses of Congress have been clear throughout the year that they would not play politics with the debt ceiling. Second, investors and the media continuously overestimate the strength of the Freedom Caucus, the fiscally conservative grouping of Tea Party-linked representatives. There are 41 members of the Freedom Caucus, whereas 55 Republicans in the House sit in districts that are at least theoretically vulnerable to a Democratic challenge (Table 2).8 The danger for House Speaker Paul Ryan is not that the Freedom Caucus abandons the establishment line, but that the 55 Republicans listed in Table 2 abandon the Republican line. This, in fact, happened throughout the Obama presidency, with centrist Republicans voting with Democrats in the House on a number of key legislative bills (Chart 10). Table 2Plenty Of Vulnerable Republican Representatives Chart 10The Obama Years: A Governing 'Grand Coalition' This is why Speaker Paul Ryan largely ignored the Freedom Caucus and proposed an eighteen-month extension of the debt ceiling. He was never going to allow the Freedom Caucus to play brinkmanship. That President Trump picked the shorter Democrat version is significant only in so far as it signaled that he was willing to work with Democrats. In other words, the move was a "shot across the bow" of Republicans, a message that they had better get started on tax legislation, or else ... What should investors watch now? There are three main issues to follow: Tax legislation outline: House Speaker Paul Ryan has set the week of September 25 as the deadline for Republicans to outline their tax policy plan. The good news for investors is that the outline will supposedly include an already agreed-upon framework by both the House Ways and Means Committee - Chaired by Representative Kevin Brady (R, TX) - and the Senate Finance Committee - Chaired by Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT). Brady and Hatch are serious players and their comments on tax policy should be followed closely. Both favor legislation that would be retroactively applied to FY 2017, even if the bill is actually passed in 2018. They are also part of the Republican "Big Six" group on tax policy, along with Speaker Ryan, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn. Reconciliation instructions: The House Budget Committee passed a FY 2018 budget resolution in late July that included "reconciliation instructions" for tax legislation. These instructions allow Republicans to use the reconciliation procedure - a process that allows the Senate to pass legislation without needing 60 votes.9 However, the House version of the budget resolution also included over $200 billion of spending cuts, which is unlikely to pass in the Senate. As such, investors have to carefully watch for the House and Senate Republicans to pass a final budget resolution in order to kick off the reconciliation process. This process will likely happen in October, after the tax legislation package is presented by the Big Six. At that point, the Freedom Caucus will have the ability to extract concessions from establishment Republicans as their votes are needed to pass the budget resolution. We suspect that no Democrats will support the budget resolution given that they have not been involved in the tax policy process thus far. Trump's involvement: President Ronald Reagan's personal support and lobbying for the 1986 tax reform proved critical in getting the bill through Congress.10 President Trump's focus and energy will have to be on par with that of Reagan's if he plans to accomplish the same. A headwind for Trump is the lack of legislative experience in his White House (Chart 11). However, since the appointment of Chief of Staff General John F. Kelly, there has been a clear shift of focus on the legislative process. Chart 11Trump Administration Is On The Low End Of Congressional Experience Bottom Line: We expect investors to start gleaning the outlines of tax policy by late September, with the budget resolution containing reconciliation instructions being passed by both houses of Congress by the end of November. It may be too much to ask Congress to have an actual bill ready to pass by the end of the year, as we originally expected,11 particularly as there is now a potential immigration deal to negotiate with Democrats and last-minute effort to repeal and replace Obamacare. As such, we still think that it will take until the end of Q1 2018 for tax legislation to pass Congress (Q2 in the worst-case scenario for Republicans). Investors, however, will begin to price in a higher probability of tax policy as soon as the outline of the bill emerges in October. As such, we are reiterating our recommendation that investors go long U.S. small caps relative to large caps. Tax policy should overwhelmingly benefit small caps, which actually pay the 35% corporate tax rate. In addition, we would expect the USD to arrest its decline and rally by the end of the year. North Korea: At The Apogee Of "The Arc Of Diplomacy" To illustrate the current North Korean predicament to readers, we have referred to an "arc of diplomacy" (Chart 12), which we illustrate by referencing the rise and fall of U.S. tensions with Iran from 2010-15. The pattern is for the U.S. to increase tensions deliberately in order to convince its enemy that the military option is "on the table." Only once a "credible threat" of war has been established can the negotiations begin in earnest. Chart 12A Lesson From Iran: Tensions Ramp Up As Nuclear Negotiations Begin We are at or near the peak of this process. First: what is the worst-case scenario for markets if the North causes a crisis short of a devastating war? Using our short list of geopolitical crises (Table 3),12 our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou, chief strategist of BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy, notes that while the average peak-to-trough drop of a major crisis is 9%, equity returns also tend to rise 5% within six months and 8% within twelve months after the crisis. To illustrate the trend, Anastasios has constructed an S&P 500 profile of the average geopolitical crisis, and the picture is encouraging (Chart 13). It shows that the market is likely to grind higher even if North Korea does something truly out of the box. Table 3Geopolitical Crises And SPX Returns Nor is a geopolitical incident (again, short of total war) likely to cause a U.S. or global recession. Aside from direct shocks to oil, such as in 1973 and 1990, only the U.S. Civil War (that is, a war waged on U.S. turf) caused a recession at the outset. Other major wars (WWI, WWII, the Korean War) caused recessions when they concluded because of the sharp drop in federal spending as a result of reduced military spending. What makes us think we are at or near the peak of North Korea's belligerent threats? China appears to be enforcing sanctions: at least according to China's official statistics (Chart 14). There is no doubt there are discrepancies and black market activity, but it makes sense for China to dial up the pressure (while never imposing crippling sanctions) and that appears to be occurring. China and Russia agreed to reduce fuel supplies. Both sides agreed to new UN sanctions on September 11 that would partially cut off North Korean fuel. This is a significant step, given that Chart 14 indicates China is already moving in this direction. The U.S. and North Korea have begun diplomatic talks. According to Japan's NHK press on September 14, former U.S. diplomat Evans Revere met with Choe Kang-Il, the deputy director general of the North American bureau of North Korea's foreign ministry in Switzerland over the past week. The U.S. State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert all but confirmed that some kind of communication is underway, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has described his diplomatic initiative as highly active. The last efforts at negotiations, via the longstanding New York channel, were discontinued in June after the death of a U.S. prisoner in North Korea. Those were focused on retrieving U.S. citizens, whereas the new talks allegedly centered on the latest UN sanctions, i.e. a crux of the relationship. The implication is that North Korea is responding to pressure now that its critical fuel supplies are at risk. South Korea is offering aid. South Korea's new government is looking to give the North humanitarian aid, as expected, and will decide on September 21 about a special package for pregnant women and infants. It is suggesting that such aid has no conditionality on the North's behavior. At the same time, the U.S. administration is talking down Trump's recent threat to discontinue the U.S.-South Korean free trade agreement - meaning that the U.S. may even condone the South Korean administration's more diplomatic approach to the North. Chart 13Who Is Afraid Of Geopolitical Crises? Chart 14Is China Finally Playing Ball? At the same time, North Korea is running out of options for provocations that it can commit without provoking a costly response from the U.S. and its allies. The September 15 missile test over Japan was essentially the fourth of its kind, and the market shrugged it off. Here are some options, drawn from our list of scenarios and probabilities (Table 4): Table 4North Korean Scenarios Over The Next Year More of the same: Nuclear and missile tests could continue, or be conducted at higher frequencies or simultaneously. While technical advances may become apparent, they will not change the game. U.S. Territory: The North could create a bigger risk-off move than we saw in July-August if it shot ICBMs toward Guam, or other U.S. territories, as it has suggested it might do. This is especially risky because the U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis has repeated Trump's warning to North Korea to not even threaten the United States. However, as long as no such missile actually strikes U.S. territory, the U.S. is unlikely to respond with an attack, and thus such a scare seems likely to fade like the others. Attacking South Koreans: The North has a history of state-backed terrorist actions and military actions. An attack limited to South Korea will cause a shock, in the current context, but the military consequences are still likely to be contained given the extensive history of such attacks. If it is an attack against South Korean civilians in a non-disputed territory, it will leave a bigger mark than it otherwise would, but the South is still likely either to retaliate in strict proportionality, or to refrain from action and use the event as a way of galvanizing international sanctions. Attacking Americans or U.S. allies: The true danger in the current climate is an attack that kills U.S. citizens, or U.S. allies who are not as, shall we say, understanding as the South Koreans (such as the Japanese). This could cause the U.S. or Japan or another ally to take a retaliatory action. Even if limited, this could cause a deep correction in the market. The U.S. response would likely still be limited and proportional. Then the question would be whether the North Koreans can afford to escalate. They can't. The military asymmetry is excessive. This is not the case of the Japanese in 1941, who believed they had the potential of defeating the U.S. if they acted quickly enough and the U.S. was distracted in Europe (Diagram 1). Diagram 1North Korea Crisis: A Decision Tree As the foregoing demonstrates, there could still be big ups and downs between now and the resumption of formal international negotiations, let alone a satisfactory diplomatic accord. The tensions could yet reach another peak. Nevertheless, our sense is that the pieces are falling into place for the North to moderate its behavior, sending the signal that it is ready to engage in real negotiations. Since the U.S. has consistently shown its readiness to talk directly with the North - coming from both Trump and Tillerson - we think we could see shuttle diplomacy taking place as early as this winter. Here are some dates and events to watch: Military exercises: Will the U.S., South Korea, and Japan stop or slow down the pace of military exercises? This could open space for North Korea to offer an olive branch in return. October 10 - anniversary of the Worker's Party of Korea: The North may take an extraordinary action, no action, or familiar actions like missile tests. October 11-25 - China's party congress: The North could fall silent ahead of the big event, or could attempt to disrupt it. China, in turn, could take action around this time (particularly afterwards) to send a signal to the North to tone down the belligerence. In previous periods of tension, China has reputedly drawn a harder line on North Korea in the month of December, when end-of-year quotas made certain trade measures more convenient. Late October - Japanese snap election? Rumor has it that Shinzo Abe is thinking of calling a snap election as early as this month. We normally dismiss such rumors but this time there is a certain logic: two North Korean missiles have flown over Hokkaido in as many months, while the Japanese opposition is in total disarray. If Abe calls early polls, it suggests that he thinks Korean fears are peaking. If he delays, and exploits these fears by pushing constitutional revisions through the Diet (our base case), then he may provoke a North Korean response, given that the revisions pave the way for Japan to "re-militarize." November 1 - APEC and Trump's visit to China: Trump is supposed to head to Vietnam for the APEC summit and to China to visit President Xi Jinping. Xi has recently shown his sensitivity to such summits by concluding the Doklam dispute with India just days ahead of the BRICS summit in Xiamen, China in order to ensure that Indian President Narendra Modi would attend. Xi may have also wanted to advertise his ability to negotiate solutions to international showdowns for the world (and U.S.) to see. Thus, progress on North Korea before or after Trump's arrival could improve Xi's authority both with Trump and the rest of the world. November 23 - U.S. Thanksgiving: North Korea likes to be "cute," so we cannot rule out attempts to unsettle the Americans on Thanksgiving or Christmas Day, as with the July 4 ICBM launch. Trump's visit is very consequential and it is more likely under the circumstances that China will receive him warmly, like Nixon, rather than coldly, like Obama last year. Trump is holding serious trade negotiations (via Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross) and at the same time threatening to sanction Chinese companies and imports (via Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin). There are many reasons for Beijing to cooperate on North Korea in order to get advantageous treatment on the economic front. Bottom Line: The market is already discounting North Korea. We may be wrong temporarily if the North ups the ante yet again, but we are very near the peak of the latest round of tensions. The North is running out of options short of instigating a fight it would lose, while China is enforcing sanctions more seriously (including fuel), and Washington has apparently opened direct talks with Pyongyang. We will maintain our portfolio hedge of Swiss bonds and gold, for now. We are also re-opening our long CBOE China ETF volatility index to account for potential rising political uncertainty surrounding the coming October Party Congress and possibly for further North Korea related risks. However, we are closing our short KRW / THB trade for a gain of 5.33%. Europe: More Red Herrings Brexit is no longer market-relevant. Its economic effect was fully priced in when Prime Minister Theresa May announced on January 17 that the U.K. would not seek membership in the Common Market. Since then, the pound has effectively bottomed against both the dollar and the euro, as we argued it would (Chart 15).13 This does not mean that investors should necessarily go long the pound. Rather, we are pointing out that the moves in the U.K. currency have ceased to be Brexit-related since we called its bottom in January. Going forward, investors should make bets on the pound based on macroeconomic fundamentals, not on the U.K.-EU negotiations. The one political risk to the pound going forward is the potential for the Labour Party, headed by opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn, to come to power in the U.K. in the near term. Corbyn is the most left-of-center leader of a developed world economy since French president François Mitterrand in 1981. And he symbolizes a leftward shift on economic policy by the median voter. Nevertheless, the risks to PM May are overstated, for now. A key test for the Prime Minister, the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, passed its first parliamentary hurdle in Westminster on September 12. No Conservatives rebelled, with seven Labour politicians defying Corbyn's instructions to vote against the bill. The bill still faces several days of amendments, but it largely gives May a free hand to negotiate with Europe going forward. Bremain-leaning Tory backbenchers could have posed problems for May had they decided to obstruct the bill. That they did not tells us that nobody wants to challenge May and that she will likely remain the prime minister until the eventual deal with the EU is reached. Our clients often balk at our dismissal of Brexit as an investment-relevant geopolitical event. However, the crucial question post-Brexit was whether any other EU member states would follow the U.K. out of the bloc. We answered this question in the negative, with high conviction, the day of the U.K. referendum.14 Not only did no country follow U.K.'s lead, but the effect of Brexit was in fact the exact opposite of the conventional wisdom, with a slew of defeats for populists around Europe following the referendum. For the U.K. economy and assets, the key two Brexit-related questions were whether the economy's service sector would have unfettered access to the European market via membership in the Common Market (Chart 16); and whether the labor market would have access to the European labor pool (Chart 17). Both questions were answered by May during her January 17 speech in the negative, which is why we continue to cite that moment as the date when U.K. assets fully priced in Brexit. Chart 15Is Brexit##br## Still Relevant? Chart 16U.K. Needs A Free Services Agreement##br## With The EU, Not An FTA! Chart 17Intra-EU Migration Boosts ##br##Labor Force Growth What could change our forecast? We would need to see the negotiations with Europe become a lot more acrimonious. Disputes over the amount of the "exit bill" or the status of the Irish border simply do not count as acrimony. We need to see the threat of a "Brexit cliff" - where the EU-U.K. trade relationship reverts to "WTO rules" - emerge due to a conflict between the two powers. However, this is unlikely to happen as the EU greatly values its trade relationship with the U.K. And London's demand for an FTA actually plays to the EU's strengths, since FTAs normally privilege trade in goods (where Europe is competitive) relative to trade in services (where the U.K. has an advantage). Bear in mind, as well, that the U.K. and EU are negotiating an FTA from a starting point of a high degree of economic integration: this is not the equivalent of two separate economies pursuing an FTA for the first time. Similarly overstated as a risk is the upcoming Catalan independence referendum. As we argued this February, the referendum is a non-event.15 Catalans do not want independence, but rather a renegotiation of the region's relationship with Spain (Chart 18). And as we argued in our net assessment of the issue in 2014, a surge in internal migration since the Second World War has diluted the Catalan share of the total population.16 In fact, only 31% of the population identifies Catalan as their "first language," compared with 55% who identify with Spanish.17 Another 10% identify non-Iberian languages as their first language, suggesting that migrants will further dilute support for sovereignty, as they have done in other places (most recently: Quebec). Chart 18Catalans Do Not Want Independence We expect the turnout of the upcoming referendum to be low. Given that Madrid will not recognize it, the only way for the Catalan referendum to be relevant is if the nationalist government is willing to enforce sovereignty. What does that mean precisely? The globally recognized definition of sovereignty is the "monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a defined territory." To put it bluntly: the Catalan government has to be willing to take up arms in order for its referendum to be relevant to the markets. Without recognition from Spain, and with no support for independence from fellow EU and NATO peers, Catalonia cannot win independence at the ballot box. Bottom Line: Fade Brexit and Catalonia risks. Iraq: An Emergent Risk In 2014, we wrote the following about the future of Iraq:18 "Furthermore, the recent Kurdish occupation of Kirkuk - nominally to secure it from ISIS, in reality to (re)claim it for the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) - will not be acceptable to Baghdad. In our conversations with clients, too much optimism exists over the stability of Kurdistan and its expected oil output. While we are broadly positive on the KRG, there are many challenges. First, three-quarters of Iraqi production is, in fact, located in the Southern part of the country, far from Iraqi Kurdistan. Second, Kirkuk and its associated geography has the potential to boost production, but the Kurds (and their ally Turkey) will eventually have to face-off against Baghdad (and its ally Iran) for control over this territory. Just because the KRG secured Kirkuk today does not mean that it will stay in their control in the future. We are fairly certain that once ISIS is defeated, Baghdad will ask for Kirkuk back." In 2016, we followed up again on the situation in Iraq by pointing out that a series of defeats for the Islamic State were raising the probability that a reckoning was coming between Baghdad and Iraqi Kurds.19 Now that the Islamic State threat is in the rear-view mirror, our forecast is coming to fruition. On September 25, Kurds in Iraq will hold an independence referendum. Opposition to the referendum is uniform across the region, with the U.S. - Kurds' strongest ally - requesting that it not take place. Why should investors care? First, there is the issue of oil production. There are no reliable figures regarding KRG production, but it is thought to be around 550,000 bpd, although KRG officials have themselves downplayed their production. This figure includes production from the Kurdish-controlled Bai Hassan and Avana fields in the Kirkuk province, which is not formally part of the KRG territory but which Kurds nominally control due to their 2014 anti-ISIS intervention. A conflict over Kurdish independence could impact this production, particularly if war breaks out over Kirkuk. However, the bigger risk to global oil supply is what it would do to future efforts to boost Iraqi production. Iraq is the last major oil play on the planet that can cheaply and easily, with 1920s technologies, access significant new production. If a major war breaks out in the country, it is difficult to see how Iraq would sustain the necessary FDI inflows to develop its fields to boost production, even if the majority of production is far from the Kurdish region. Given steady global oil demand, the world is counting on Iraq to fill the gap with cheap oil. If it cannot, higher oil prices will have to incentivize tight-oil and off-shore production. Second, there are problematic regional dynamics. There are about six million Kurds in Iraq, about 20% of the total population. The Kurdish Regional Government controls the northeast corner of Iraq, but fighting against the Islamic State has allowed the Kurds to extend their control further south and almost double their territory (Map 1). Turkey has largely supported the KRG over the years, as the ruling party in the autonomous province is relatively hostile to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which Turkey considers a terrorist organization. However, Turkey is opposed to the independence of the KRG due to fears that it would start the ball rolling on the independence of Kurds in Syria and potentially one day in Turkey as well. Also opposed to KRG secession are Iran (Baghdad's closest ally) and Syria (which is dealing with its own Kurdish question). Map 1Kurdish Gains Threaten Conflicts With Iraqi Government ... And Turkey On the other hand, the KRG does have international support. Russia just recently concluded a major oil deal with KRG, promising to buy Kurdish oil and refine it in Germany. Moscow will also invest US $3 billion in KRG territory. Russia also supplied the KRG Peshmerga - armed forces - with weapons during their fight against the Islamic State. From Russia's perspective, any conflict in the Middle East is a boon. It stalls investment in the region, curbs its oil production, and potentially adds a risk premium to oil prices. In addition, a close alliance with the KRG would allow Russia to gain another ally in the region. Bottom Line: While it is difficult to see how the independence referendum will play out in the short term, we have had a high-conviction view that Iraq's stability will not improve with the fall of the Islamic State. For investors, rising tensions in Iraq are significant because they could curb investment in the long term and potentially even impact production in the short term. Unlike the Islamic State, which never threatened oil production in the Middle East in any significant way, Iraq and the KRG are both oil producers. In fact, their main conflict is over an oil-producing region centered on Kirkuk. Tensions in the region support BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy's bullish view on oil prices.20 Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Buy In May And Enjoy Your Day!" dated April 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "North Korea: Beyond Satire," dated April 19, 2017; "North Korea: No Longer A Red Herring" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Donald Trump Is Who We Thought He Was," dated March 8, 2017; and "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Can Pyongyang Derail The Bull Market?" dated August 16, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "Have Bond Yields Peaked For The Cycle? No," dated September 12, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 5 BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy 10-year Treasury yield model only uses the global manufacturing PMI and sentiment towards the U.S. dollar as inputs. 6 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Global Duration 'Hot Potato' Shifts Back To The U.S.," dated August 8, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The 'Trump Put' Over?" dated August 23, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 We use the Cook Political Report for their assessment of how U.S. electoral districts lean. Charlie Cook is Washington's foremost election handicapper with a long record of accomplishment. Anyone interested in closely following the U.S. midterm elections should consider his research, which is found on http://www.cookpolitical.com/ 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see Joseph A. Pechman, "Tax Reform: Theory and Practice," The Journal of Economic Perspectives 1:1 (1987), pp. 11-28 (15). 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see footnote 3 above. 13 The GBP/USD bottomed then and there. The GBP/EUR has recently hit a new low, for reasons other than Brexit. This bottom is only slightly below its previous lows in October 2016, when May confirmed that her government would seek to leave the EU in accordance with the referendum result, and in January 2017, when May admitted what the GBP/EUR had already reflected, that this meant leaving the Common Market. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World," dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-EXIT?" dated July 13, 2016, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Coming EXITentialist Crisis," dated June 24, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "Secession In Europe: Scotland And Catalonia," dated May 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see "Language Use of the Population of Catalonia," Generalitat de Catalunya Institut d'Estadustuca de Catalunya, dated 2013, available at web.gencat.cat 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Middle East: Paradigm Shift (Update)," dated July 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 Please see BCA Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Hurricane Recovery Obscures OPEC 2.0's Forward Guidance," dated September 14, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com.