Policy

Dear Client, Instead of our Weekly Report, we are sending you this Special Report written by my colleague Marko Papic, BCA's Chief Geopolitical Strategist. Marko argues that while there is considerable risk that NAFTA is abrogated, the Trump administration would quickly move to alleviate the effects to trade flows. The risk to our view is that President Trump is a genuine populist, a view that his actions thus far do not support. I hope you will find this report both interesting and informative. Best regards, Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist Global Investment Strategy Highlights NAFTA is truly at risk - as currency markets suggest; NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy is positive but marginal; The key question is whether Trump is a true populist or a "pluto-populist"; If the former, then NAFTA's failure is likely and portends worse to come; NAFTA's collapse would be bearish MXN, bearish U.S. carmakers versus DM peers, and supportive of higher inflation in the U.S. Feature Fifty years ago at the end of World War II, an unchallenged America was protected by the oceans and by our technological superiority and, very frankly, by the economic devastation of the people who could otherwise have been our competitors. We chose then to try to help rebuild our former enemies and to create a world of free trade supported by institutions which would facilitate it ... Make no mistake about it, our decision at the end of World War II to create a system of global, expanded, freer trade, and the supporting institutions, played a major role in creating the prosperity of the American middle class. - President Bill Clinton, Remarks at the Signing Ceremony for the Supplemental Agreements to the North American Free Trade Agreement, September 14, 1993 No Free Trade Agreement (FTA) has been more widely maligned than the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It is, after all, the world's preeminent FTA. Signed in December 1992 by President George H. W. Bush and implemented in January 1994, it preceded the founding agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and launched a two-decade, global expansion of FTAs (Chart 1). By including environmental and labor standards, as well as dispute settlement mechanisms, it created a high standard for all subsequent FTAs. President Trump's presidency began with much fear that his populist preferences would imperil globalization and trade deals such as NAFTA. Other than his withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, much of the concern has been proven to be misplaced - including our own.1 Even Sino-American trade tensions have eased, with President Trump and President Xi Jinping enjoying a good working relationship so far. So should investors relax and throw caution to the wind? Chart 1NAFTA: Tailwind To Globalization NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 2U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA In this report, we argue that the answer is a resounding no. The White House rhetoric on NAFTA - a trade deal that has been mildly positive for the U.S. economy and, at worst, neutral for its workers - suggests that greater trade conflicts loom, not only within NAFTA but also with China and others. Furthermore, a rejection of NAFTA would be a symbolic blow to free trade at least as consequential as the concrete ramifications of nixing the deal itself. The deal with Mexico and Canada is not as significant to the U.S. economy as its proponents suggest (Chart 2), but by mathematical logic its detractors therefore overstate its negatives. The opposition to NAFTA by the Trump administration therefore reveals preferences that would become far more investment-relevant if applied to major global economies like China. If NAFTA negotiations are merely a ploy to play to the populist base, however, then the impact of its demise will be temporary and muted. At this time, however, it is unclear which preference is driving the Trump White House strategy and thus risks are to the downside. The Decaying Context Behind NAFTA The North American Free Trade Agreement is more than a trade deal: it is the symbolic beginning of late twentieth-century globalization. According to our trade globalization proxy, this period has experienced the fastest pace of globalization since the nineteenth century (Chart 3). Both NAFTA and the WTO enshrined new rules and standards for global trade upon which trade and financial globalization are based. Underpinning this surge in globalization was the apex of American geopolitical power and the collapse of the socialist alternative, the Soviet Union. As President Clinton's remarks from 1993 suggest (quoted at the beginning of the report), NAFTA was the culmination of a "creation myth" for an American Empire. The myth narrates how the geopolitical and economic decisions made by the U.S. in the aftermath of its victory in World War II laid a foundation for both American prosperity and a new global order. With the ruins of Communism still smoldering in the early 1990s, the U.S. decided to double-down on those same, globalist impulses. Today those impulses are waning if not completely dead. As we argued in our 2014 report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," three trends have conspired to turn the tides against globalization:2 Chart 3Globalization Has Peaked Globalization Has Peaked Globalization Has Peaked Chart 4Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Multipolarity - Every period of intense globalization has rested on strong pillars of geopolitical "hegemony," i.e. the existence of a single world leader. Chart 3 shows that the most recent such eras consisted of British and American hegemony, respectively. However, the relative decline of American geopolitical power has imperiled this process, as rising powers look to carve out regional spheres of influence that are by definition incompatible with a globalized political and economic framework. In parallel, the hegemon itself - the U.S. - has begun to vacillate over whether the framework it designed is still beneficial to it, given its declining say in how the global system operates. Great Recession - The 2008 global financial crisis cracked the ideological, macroeconomic, and policy foundations of globalization. Deflation - Globalization is deflationary, which works swimmingly when real household incomes are rising and debts falling. Unfortunately, neither of those has been the case for American households over the past forty years (Chart 4). This is in large part the consequence of globalization, which opened trade with emerging markets and thus suppressed low-income wage growth in developed economies. What is striking about the U.S. is that its social safety net has done such a poor job redistributing the gains of free trade, at least compared to its OECD peers (Chart 5). Chart 5The "Great Gatsby" Curve NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 6America Belongs To The Anti-Globalization Bloc NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism President Donald Trump shrewdly understood that the tide had turned against free trade in the U.S. (Chart 6). Ahead of the 2016 election, no one (except BCA!) seriously believed that trade and globalization would become the fulcrum of the election.3 Candidate Trump, however, returned to it repeatedly, and singled out NAFTA as "the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere."4 Bottom Line: President Trump's opposition to globalization did not fall from the sky. Trump is the product of his time and geopolitical and macroeconomic context. Trends we identified in 2014 are today headwinds to globalization. Myths About NAFTA The geopolitical and macroeconomic context may be dire for globalization, but does NAFTA actually fit that narrative? The short answer is no. The long answer is that there are three myths about NAFTA that the Trump administration continues to propagate. We assume that U.S. policymakers can do simple math. As such, their ignorance of the below data suggests a broad strategy toward free trade that is based in ideology, not factual reality. Alternatively, flogging NAFTA may be motivated by narrower, domestic, political concerns and may not be indicative of a deeply held worldview. Time will tell which is true. Myth #1: NAFTA Has Widened The U.S. Trade Deficit NAFTA has resulted in a huge trade deficit for the United States and has cost us tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. The agreement has become very lopsided and needs to be rebalanced. We of course have a five-hundred-billion-dollar trade deficit. So, for us, trade deficits do matter. And we intend to reduce them. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 Chart 7Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities When it comes to the U.S. trade deficit, NAFTA has had a negligible impact. Three facts stand out: The U.S. has an insignificant trade deficit with Canada - 0.06% of GDP in 2016, or $12 billion. It has a larger one with Mexico - 0.33% of GDP, or $63 billion. However, when broken down by sectors, the deepest trade deficit has been in energy. The U.S. has actually run a surplus in manufactured products with Mexico and Canada for much of the post-2008 era, which only recently dipped back into deficit (Chart 7). The U.S. has consistently run a trade deficit with the rest of the world since 1980, but the size of its trade deficit with Mexico and Canada did not significantly increase as a share of GDP post-implementation of NAFTA. The real game changer has been the widening of the trade deficit with China and the rest of the EM economies outside of China and Mexico (Chart 8). The trade relationship with Mexico and Canada, relative to that with the rest of the world, therefore remains stable. The net energy trade balance with Mexico and Canada has significantly improved due to surging U.S. shale production (Chart 9). Rising shale production has accomplished this both by lowering the need for imports from NAFTA peers, surging refined product exports to Mexico, and by inducing lower global energy prices. In addition, Canada-U.S. energy trade is governed by NAFTA's Chapter 6 rules, which prohibit the Canadian government from intervention in the normal operation of North American energy markets.5 Chart 8U.S. Trade Imbalance Is Not About NAFTA NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 9Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Myth #2: NAFTA Has Destroyed The U.S. Auto Industry Before NAFTA went into effect ... there were 280,000 autoworkers in Michigan. Today that number is roughly 165,000 - and would have been heading down big-league if I didn't get elected. - Donald Trump, U.S. President, March 15, 2017 Chart 10NAFTA Has Made U.S. Auto Manufacturing More Competitive NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism What about the charge that NAFTA has negatively impacted the U.S. automotive industry by shipping jobs to Mexican and, to lesser extent, Canadian factories? Again, this reasoning is flawed. In fact, NAFTA appears to have allowed the U.S. automotive industry to remain highly competitive on a global scale, more so than its Mexican and Canadian peers. U.S. exports outside of NAFTA as a percent of total exports have surged since the early 2000s and have remained buoyant recently. Meanwhile, Mexican exports to the rest of the world have fallen, suggesting that Mexico is highly reliant on servicing Detroit (Chart 10). The truth is that the American automotive industry's share of overall manufacturing activity has risen since 2008. In part, this is because American manufacturers have been able to integrate with Canadian and Mexican plants, allowing production to remain on the continent and move seamlessly across the value chain. In other words, Mexico serves as a low-wage outlet for the least-skilled part of the production chain, allowing the rest of the manufacturing process to remain in the U.S. and Canada. Without that cheap "escape valve," the entire production chain might have migrated to EM Asia. Or, worse, the American automotive industry would have become uncompetitive relative to European and Japanese peers. Either way, the U.S. would have potentially faced greater job losses were it not for easier access to Mexican auto production. Both European and Japanese manufacturers have similar low-skilled, low-cost, "labor escape valves" in the region. For Germany and France, this escape valve is in Spain and Central and Eastern Europe; for Japan, it is in Thailand. Myth #3: Mexico And Canada Cannot Retaliate Against The U.S. As far as I can tell, there is not a world oversupply of agricultural products. Unless countries are going to be prepared to have their people go hungry or change their diets, I think it's more of a threat to try to frighten the agricultural community. - Wilbur Ross, Commerce Secretary, October 11, 2017 Chart 11Mexico's Growing Population Is A Potential Market NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico only account for about 2.6% of GDP, whereas exports to the U.S. from Mexico and Canada account for 28% and 18% of GDP respectively. Nonetheless, this does not mean that the U.S. suffers from NAFTA. As we discussed above, NAFTA has been a boon for the global competitiveness of the U.S. automotive industry. In addition, NAFTA gives American and Canadian exporters access to a large and growing Mexican middle class (Chart 11). Furthermore, the U.S. would gain little benefit from leaving NAFTA vis-à-vis Canada and Mexico. By reverting back to WTO tariff levels, the U.S. would be able to raise tariffs from 0% (under NAFTA) to the maximum of 3.4%, where the U.S. average "bound tariff" would remain. Bound tariffs differ across products and countries and represent the maximum rate of tariffs under WTO rules (i.e., without violating those rules). They are indicative of a hostile trade relationship, as trade would otherwise be set at much lower "most favored nation" tariff levels. As Table 1 shows, however, Canada and particularly Mexico have the ability to raise their bound tariffs considerably higher than the U.S. can do. Mexico, in fact, has one of the highest average bound tariff rates for an OECD member state, at a whopping 36.2%! This means that, if NAFTA were to be abrogated, the U.S. would be allowed to raise tariffs, on average, to 3.4%, whereas Mexico would be free to do so by ten times more. Given that Mexico is America's main export destination for steel and corn output, the retaliation would be non-negligible for these two politically powerful sectors. This aspect of the WTO agreement is a latent geopolitical risk, as it feeds into the Trump administration's broader antagonism toward the WTO itself. Table 1WTO Tariff Schedule NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Despite the hard evidence, we suspect that the Trump administration is driven by ideological and strategic goals and therefore the probability of a calamitous end to the ongoing NAFTA negotiations is high. Nevertheless, the data shows: The North American Free Trade Agreement has allowed trade between its member states to accelerate at a faster pace than global trade for much of the first decade after its signing and at the average global pace over the past decade (Chart 12); U.S. manufacturing employment as a percent of total labor force has been declining for much of the past half-century, with absolute numbers falling off a cliff as China joined the WTO and, along with EM Asia, became integrated into the global supply chain (Chart 13); Employment in auto-manufacturing follows the same pattern as overall manufacturing employment (Chart 13, bottom panel), suggesting that it was not NAFTA that caused job flight but rather competition from the rest of the world along with automation. In fact, auto-manufacturing employment has recovered post-2008, as American car manufacturers underwent structural reforms to improve competitiveness. Chart 12NAFTA Trade Has Beaten Global Trade NAFTA Trade Has Beaten Global Trade NAFTA Trade Has Beaten Global Trade Chart 13Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment: China Or NAFTA? Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment: China Or NAFTA? Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment: China Or NAFTA? As with any free trade agreement, some wages in some sectors may have been lowered by NAFTA's implementation and some jobs were definitely lost due to the agreement. However, the vast majority of academic studies point out that the negative labor market impacts of NAFTA have been negligible. The most authoritative work on the subject, by economists Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, found that the upper-bound of NAFTA-related job losses in the U.S. is 1.9 million over the first decade of the agreement. Given that U.S. employment rose by 34 million over the same period, the job losses represent "a fraction of one percent of jobs 'lost' through turnover in the dynamic U.S. economy over a decade."6 A June 2016 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) provides a good review of academic studies on the trade deal since 2002. Overall, it concludes that NAFTA led "to a substantial increase in trade volumes for all three countries; a small increase in U.S. welfare [overall economic benefit]; and little to no change in U.S. aggregate employment."7 In addition, NAFTA had "essentially no effect on real wages in the United States of either skilled or unskilled workers." This academic work could, of course, be the product of a vast conspiracy by globalist, neo-liberal academics financed by the deep state and its corporate overlords. However, the other side of the debate has little to offer as a counter to the empirical evidence. For example, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, a notable trade hawk, posited that the U.S. government had "certified" that 700,000 Americans had lost their jobs owing to NAFTA. This would represent 30,000 job losses per year over the 24 years of NAFTA's existence. Lighthizer also did not say whether he was speaking in net or gross terms, probably because it is practically impossible to competently answer that question! If that is the best retort to the academic research, there is then no real counter to the conclusion that NAFTA has had a mildly positive effect on the U.S. economy and labor market. Bottom Line: NAFTA has had some positive effects on the U.S. automotive sector, allowing it to integrate the low-cost Mexican labor into its production chain and thus remain competitive vis-à-vis Asian and European manufacturers. It also holds the promise of future export gains to Mexico's growing middle class. Its overall effects on the U.S. budget deficit, wages, and employment are largely overstated. If the impact of NAFTA has largely been marginal to the U.S. economy outside of a select few sectors, why is the Trump administration so dead-set on renegotiating it? And why has the process been so acrimonious? What Does The Trump White House Want? Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed by the resistance to change from our negotiating partners ... As difficult as this has been, we have seen no indication that our partners are willing to make any changes that will result in a rebalancing and reduction in these huge trade deficits. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 Chart 14NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. trade representative, closed the fourth round of negotiations with a bang, implying that Canada and Mexico would have to help the U.S. close its $500 billion trade deficit, even though the U.S. trade deficit with its two NAFTA partners is only 15% of the total. The Canadian dollar and the Mexican peso fell by 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively, in the subsequent week of trading. In fact, both the CAD and MXN have faced extended losses since the third round of NAFTA negotiations ended on September 27 (Chart 14). Is the market overreacting? We do not think so. First, the list of demands presented by the White House are quite harsh, with the first two below considered deal-breakers: Dispute Settlement: The White House wants to end the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism (under Chapter 11), which allows corporations to sue governments for breach of obligations under the treaty.8 More importantly, the U.S. also wants to eliminate trade dispute panels (under Chapter 19), which allow NAFTA countries to protest anti-dumping and countervailing duties. The real issue is that Chapter 19 trade dispute panels have acted as a constraint on the U.S. administration in imposing antidumping and countervailing duties in the past. Sunset clause: The White House has also proposed that NAFTA automatically expire unless it is approved by all three countries every five years. Buy American: The White House wants its "Buy American" rules in government procurement to be part of the new NAFTA deal, and yet for Canadian and Mexican government contracts to remain open to U.S. businesses. Rules of origin: The White House has called for an increase in NAFTA's regional automotive content requirement from the current 62.5% to 85%, including that 50% of the value of all NAFTA-produced cars, trucks, and large engines come from the U.S.9 Second, the U.S. Commerce Department - headed by trade hawk Wilbur Ross - has signaled that it is open to aggressively pursuing trade disputes on behalf of American companies. Since President Trump's inauguration, U.S. policy interventions have on balance harmed the commercial interests of its G20 trade partners by higher frequency than during the last three years of Barack Obama's presidency (Chart 15).1 0Specific to NAFTA partners, the Commerce Department has slapped a 20% tariff on Canadian softwood lumber in April and a 300% tariff on Bombardier C-Series in October. When combined with the demand to end trade dispute panels under NAFTA's Chapter 19 - which would resolve such trade disputes - the pickup in activity by the Commerce Department is a clear signal that the new U.S. administration intends to break the spirit of NAFTA whether the agreement remains in place or not. Chart 15Trump: Game Changer In U.S. Trade Policy NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Third, and more broadly speaking, the Trump administration is playing a "two-level game."11 Two-level game theory posits that domestic politics creates acceptable "win-sets," which are then transported to the geopolitical theatre. Politicians cannot conclude foreign agreements that are outside of those domestic win-sets. For President Trump, his win-set on NAFTA negotiations is set by a domestic coalition that allowed him to win the election. This includes voters in the Midwest states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania where Trump outperformed polls by 10%, 3%, and 3% respectively (Chart 16), and where Secretary Hillary Clinton garnered less votes in 2016 than President Barack Obama in 2012 (Chart 17). Trump promised this blue-collar base a respite from globalization and he has to deliver it if he intends to win in four years' time. Chart 16Trump Owes The Midwest Trump Owes The Midwest Trump Owes The Midwest Chart 17Hillary Lost Rust Belt Voters NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism At the same time, Trump's domestic policy has thus far fallen far short of other campaign promises. First, there has been no movement on immigration or the promised border wall. Second, the Obamacare repeal and replace effort has failed in Congress. Third, proposed tax cuts are likely to benefit the country's elites, as previous tax reform efforts have tended to do. As such, we fear that the Trump White House may double down on playing hardball with NAFTA in order to fulfill at least one of its promised strategies. But why single out NAFTA if its impact on U.S. jobs and wages is miniscule compared to, for example, the U.S.-China trade relationship?12 There are two ways to answer this question: Pluto-populist scenario: President Trump is in fact a pluto-populist and not a genuine populist, i.e. he is not committed to economic nationalism.13 As such, he does not intend to fulfill any of the demands he has promised to his voters, as the current corporate and household tax cuts suggest. Given NAFTA's limited impact on the U.S. economy, abrogating that deal would have far less detrimental impact than if President Trump went after other trade relationships. As such, the NAFTA deal will either be renegotiated, or, at worst, abrogated and quickly replaced with bilateral deals with both Canada and Mexico. It is a "cheap" and "safe" way to satisfy voter demands without actually hurting business or the economy. Genuinely populist scenario: President Trump is a genuine populist and NAFTA renegotiations are setting the stage for a 2018 in which trade protectionism becomes a genuine, global market risk. Bottom Line: President Trump's negotiation stance on NAFTA is non-diagnostic. We cannot establish with any certainty whether his demands mark the start of a broader, global, protectionist trend, or whether he is merely bullying two trade partners who will ultimately have to kowtow to U.S. demands. Nonetheless, we agree with the market's pricing of a higher probability that NAFTA is abrogated, as witnessed by the currency markets. In both of our political scenarios, NAFTA's fate is uncertain. If Trump is a pluto-populist, NAFTA is an easy target and its abrogation will score domestic political points with limited economic impact. If he is a genuine economic nationalist, failed NAFTA renegotiations are the first step on the path to clashing with the WTO and rewriting global trade rules. Investment And Geopolitical Implications Can President Trump withdraw from NAFTA unilaterally? The short answer is yes. As Table 2 illustrates, Congress has passed several laws that delegate authority to the executive branch to administer and enforce trade agreements and to exercise prerogative amid exigencies.14 Article 2205 of NAFTA states that any party to the treaty can withdraw within six months after providing notice of withdrawal. We see no evidence in U.S. law that the president has to gain congressional approval of such withdrawal. Table 2Trump Faces Few Constraints On Trade NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Moreover, the past century has produced a series of laws that give President Trump considerable latitude - not only the right to impose a 15% tariff for up to 150 days, as in the Trade Act of 1974, but also unrestricted tariff and import quota powers during wartime or national emergencies, as in the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917.15 The White House has already signaled that it considers budget deficits a "national security issue," which suggests that the White House is preparing for a significant tariff move in the future.16 Could President Trump's moves be challenged by Congress or the courts? Absolutely. However, time is on the executive's side. Even assuming that Congress or the Supreme Court oppose the executive, it will likely be too late to avoid serious ramifications and retaliations from abroad. Other countries will not wait on the U.S. system to auto-correct. Congress is unlikely to vote to overrule the president until the damage has already been done - especially given Trump's powers delegated from Congress. As for the courts, the executive could swamp them with justifications for its actions; the courts would have to deem the executive likely to lose every single one of these cases in order to issue a preliminary injunction against each of them and halt the president's orders. Any final Supreme Court ruling would take at least a year. International law would be neither speedy nor binding. What are the investment implications of a NAFTA collapse? Short term: Short MXN; short North American automotive sector relative to European/Asian peers. We would expect more downside risk to MXN from a collapse in NAFTA talks, similar in magnitude to the decline of the GBP after the Brexit vote. The Mexican central bank would likely take on a dovish stance towards monetary policy, creating a negative feedback loop for the peso. The automotive sectors across the three economies that make up NAFTA would obviously suffer, given the benefits of the integrated supply-chains, as would U.S. steel and select agricultural producers that export to NAFTA peers. Medium term: Canadian exports largely unaffected, buy CAD on any NAFTA-related dip. Given that 20% of Canadian exports to the U.S. are energy - and thus highly unlikely to come under higher tariffs post-NAFTA - we do not expect exports to decline significantly.17 In fact, the 1987 Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, which laid the foundation for NAFTA, could quickly be resuscitated given that it was never formally terminated, only suspended. Canada and the U.S. have a balanced trade relationship, which means that it is highly unlikely that America's northern neighbor is in the sights of the White House administration. Long term: marginally positive for inflation. Economic globalization and immigration have both played a marginally deflationary role on the global economy. If abrogation of NAFTA is the first step towards less of both trends, than the economic effect should be mildly inflationary. This could feed into inflation expectations, reversing their recent decline. In broader terms, it is impossible to assess the long-term impact of NAFTA abrogation until we answer the question of whether the Trump administration is pluto-populist or genuinely populist. If pluto-populist, NAFTA's demise would be largely designed for domestic political consumption and would be the end of the matter. No long-term implications would really exist as, the Trump White House would conclude bilateral deals with Canada and Mexico to ensure that trade is not interrupted and that crucial constituencies - Midwest auto workers and farmers - do not turn against the administration. If genuinely populist, however, the White House would likely have to abrogate WTO rules as well in order to make a real dent to its trade deficit. The U.S. has no way to raise tariffs above an average bound tariff of 3.4%, other than for selective imports and on a temporary basis, or through a flagrant rejection of the WTO's authority. Given the likely currency moves post-NAFTA's demise, those levels would have an insignificant effect on U.S. trade with its North American neighbors. President Trump hinted as much when he sent a 336-page report to Congress titled "The President's Trade Policy Agenda," which argued that the administration would ignore WTO rules that it deems to infringe on U.S. sovereignty. The NAFTA negotiations, put in the context of that document, are a much more serious matter that might be part of a slow rollout of global trade policy that only becomes apparent in 2018.18 From a geopolitical perspective, ending NAFTA would make the U.S. less geopolitically secure. If the U.S. turned its back on its own neighbors, one of which is its closest military ally, then Canada and Mexico may seek closer trade relations with Europe and China. This could lead to the diversification of their export markets, including - most critically for U.S. national security - energy. In addition, Canada could allow significant Chinese investment into its technology sector, particularly in AI and quantum computing where the country is a global leader. Additionally, any negative consequences for the Mexican economy would likely be returned tenfold on the U.S. in the form of greater illegal immigration flows, a greater pool of recruits for Mexican drug cartels, and a rise in anti-Americanism in the country. The latter is particularly significant given the upcoming July 2018 presidential election and current solid polling for anti-establishment candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (Chart 18). Obrador is in the lead, but his new party - National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) - is unlikely to gain a majority in Congress (Chart 18, bottom panel). However, acrimonious NAFTA negotiations and a nationalist U.S. could change the fortunes for both Obrador and MORENA. Ultimately, everything depends on whether Trump's campaign rhetoric on trade is real. At this point, we lean towards Trump being a pluto-populist. The proposed tax cuts are clearly not designed with blue-collar workers in mind. They are largely a carbon-copy of every other Republican tax reform plan in the past and thus we assume that their consequences will be similar. If the signature legislation of the Trump White House through 2017-2018 will be a tax plan that skews towards the wealthy (Chart 19), than why should investors assume that its immigration and free trade rhetoric are real? Chart 18Populism On The March In Mexico NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 19Tax Cuts Are Not Populist Tax Cuts Are Not Populist Tax Cuts Are Not Populist If ending NAFTA is merely red meat for the Midwestern base, and is quickly replaced with bilateral "fixes," then long-term implications will be muted. If, on the other hand, it is pursued as a new U.S. policy, then the significance will be much greater: it will mark the dawn of a new trend of twenty-first century mercantilism coming from the former bulwark of international liberalism. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Candidate Donald Trump made this comment during his first debate with Secretary Hillary Clinton. The September 26 debate focused heavily on free trade and globalization. 5 Mexico is exempt from several crucial articles in Chapter 6 due to the political sensitivity of the domestic energy industry. 6 Please see Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, "NAFTA Revisited," dated October 1, 2007, available at piie.com, and Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, NAFTA Revisited, New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. 7 Please see United States International Trade Commission, "Economic Impact of Trade Agreements Implemented Under Trade Authorities Procedures," Publication Number: 4614, June 2016, available at usitc.gov. First accessed via Congressional Research Service, "The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)," dated May 24, 2017, available at fas.org. 8 Since 1994, Canada has been sued 39 times and has paid out a total of $215 million in compensation. The U.S. is yet to lose a single case! 9 On average, vehicles produced in NAFTA member states average 75% local content; therefore, the first part of the demand is reachable if the White House is willing to budge. 10 Please see Evenett, Simon J. and Johannes Fritz, "Will Awe Trump Rules?" Global Trade Alert, dated July 3, 2017, available at globaltradealert.org. 11 Please see Robert Putnam, "Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games," International Organization 42:3 (summer 1988), pp. 427-460. 12 Please see Autor, David H., David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Reviews of Economics, dated August 8, 2016, available at annualreviews.org. 13 Pluto-populists use populist rhetoric that appeals to the common person in order to pass plutocratic policies that benefit the elites. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 See in particular the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232b), the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 301), the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 (Section 5b), and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. 16 Peter Navarro, director of the White House's National Trade Council, has argued throughout March that the U.S. chronic deficits and global supply chains were a threat to national security. 17 Unless President Trump and his advisors ignore the reality that the U.S. still imports 40% of its energy needs and will likely be doing so for the foreseeable future. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights NAFTA is truly at risk - as currency markets suggest; NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy is positive but marginal; The key question is whether Trump is a true populist or a "pluto-populist"; If the former, then NAFTA's failure is likely and portends worse to come; NAFTA's collapse would be bearish MXN, bearish U.S. carmakers versus DM peers, and supportive of higher inflation in the U.S. Feature Fifty years ago at the end of World War II, an unchallenged America was protected by the oceans and by our technological superiority and, very frankly, by the economic devastation of the people who could otherwise have been our competitors. We chose then to try to help rebuild our former enemies and to create a world of free trade supported by institutions which would facilitate it ... Make no mistake about it, our decision at the end of World War II to create a system of global, expanded, freer trade, and the supporting institutions, played a major role in creating the prosperity of the American middle class. - President Bill Clinton, Remarks at the Signing Ceremony for the Supplemental Agreements to the North American Free Trade Agreement, September 14, 1993 No Free Trade Agreement (FTA) has been more widely maligned than the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It is, after all, the world's preeminent FTA. Signed in December 1992 by President George H. W. Bush and implemented in January 1994, it preceded the founding agreements of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and launched a two-decade, global expansion of FTAs (Chart 1). By including environmental and labor standards, as well as dispute settlement mechanisms, it created a high standard for all subsequent FTAs. President Trump's presidency began with much fear that his populist preferences would imperil globalization and trade deals such as NAFTA. Other than his withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, much of the concern has been proven to be misplaced - including our own.1 Even Sino-American trade tensions have eased, with President Trump and President Xi Jinping enjoying a good working relationship so far. So should investors relax and throw caution to the wind? In this report, we argue that the answer is a resounding no. The White House rhetoric on NAFTA - a trade deal that has been mildly positive for the U.S. economy and, at worst, neutral for its workers - suggests that greater trade conflicts loom, not only within NAFTA but also with China and others. Furthermore, a rejection of NAFTA would be a symbolic blow to free trade at least as consequential as the concrete ramifications of nixing the deal itself. The deal with Mexico and Canada is not as significant to the U.S. economy as its proponents suggest (Chart 2), but by mathematical logic its detractors therefore overstate its negatives. Chart 1NAFTA: Tailwind To Globalization NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 2U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA U.S. Economy: Largely Unaffected By NAFTA The opposition to NAFTA by the Trump administration therefore reveals preferences that would become far more investment-relevant if applied to major global economies like China. If NAFTA negotiations are merely a ploy to play to the populist base, however, then the impact of its demise will be temporary and muted. At this time, however, it is unclear which preference is driving the Trump White House strategy and thus risks are to the downside. The Decaying Context Behind NAFTA The North American Free Trade Agreement is more than a trade deal: it is the symbolic beginning of late twentieth-century globalization. According to our trade globalization proxy, this period has experienced the fastest pace of globalization since the nineteenth century (Chart 3). Both NAFTA and the WTO enshrined new rules and standards for global trade upon which trade and financial globalization are based. Chart 3Globalization Has Peaked Globalization Has Peaked Globalization Has Peaked Chart 4Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Globalization And Its Indebted Discontents Underpinning this surge in globalization was the apex of American geopolitical power and the collapse of the socialist alternative, the Soviet Union. As President Clinton's remarks from 1993 suggest (quoted at the beginning of the report), NAFTA was the culmination of a "creation myth" for an American Empire. The myth narrates how the geopolitical and economic decisions made by the U.S. in the aftermath of its victory in World War II laid a foundation for both American prosperity and a new global order. With the ruins of Communism still smoldering in the early 1990s, the U.S. decided to double-down on those same, globalist impulses. Today those impulses are waning if not completely dead. As we argued in our 2014 report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," three trends have conspired to turn the tides against globalization:2 Multipolarity - Every period of intense globalization has rested on strong pillars of geopolitical "hegemony," i.e. the existence of a single world leader. Chart 3 shows that the most recent such eras consisted of British and American hegemony, respectively. However, the relative decline of American geopolitical power has imperiled this process, as rising powers look to carve out regional spheres of influence that are by definition incompatible with a globalized political and economic framework. In parallel, the hegemon itself - the U.S. - has begun to vacillate over whether the framework it designed is still beneficial to it, given its declining say in how the global system operates. Great Recession - The 2008 global financial crisis cracked the ideological, macroeconomic, and policy foundations of globalization. Deflation - Globalization is deflationary, which works swimmingly when real household incomes are rising and debts falling. Unfortunately, neither of those has been the case for American households over the past forty years (Chart 4). This is in large part the consequence of globalization, which opened trade with emerging markets and thus suppressed low-income wage growth in developed economies. What is striking about the U.S. is that its social safety net has done such a poor job redistributing the gains of free trade, at least compared to its OECD peers (Chart 5). Chart 5The 'Great Gatsby' Curve NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 6America Belongs To The Anti-Globalization Bloc NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism President Donald Trump shrewdly understood that the tide had turned against free trade in the U.S. (Chart 6). Ahead of the 2016 election, no one (except BCA!) seriously believed that trade and globalization would become the fulcrum of the election.3 Candidate Trump, however, returned to it repeatedly, and singled out NAFTA as "the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere."4 Bottom Line: President Trump's opposition to globalization did not fall from the sky. Trump is the product of his time and geopolitical and macroeconomic context. Trends we identified in 2014 are today headwinds to globalization. Myths About NAFTA The geopolitical and macroeconomic context may be dire for globalization, but does NAFTA actually fit that narrative? The short answer is no. The long answer is that there are three myths about NAFTA that the Trump administration continues to propagate. We assume that U.S. policymakers can do simple math. As such, their ignorance of the below data suggests a broad strategy toward free trade that is based in ideology, not factual reality. Alternatively, flogging NAFTA may be motivated by narrower, domestic, political concerns and may not be indicative of a deeply held worldview. Time will tell which is true. Myth #1: NAFTA Has Widened The U.S. Trade Deficit Chart 7Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities Long-Term Trade Deficit Is About Commodities NAFTA has resulted in a huge trade deficit for the United States and has cost us tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs. The agreement has become very lopsided and needs to be rebalanced. We of course have a five-hundred-billion-dollar trade deficit. So, for us, trade deficits do matter. And we intend to reduce them. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 When it comes to the U.S. trade deficit, NAFTA has had a negligible impact. Three facts stand out: The U.S. has an insignificant trade deficit with Canada - 0.06% of GDP in 2016, or $12 billion. It has a larger one with Mexico - 0.33% of GDP, or $63 billion. However, when broken down by sectors, the deepest trade deficit has been in energy. The U.S. has actually run a surplus in manufactured products with Mexico and Canada for much of the post-2008 era, which only recently dipped back into deficit (Chart 7). The U.S. has consistently run a trade deficit with the rest of the world since 1980, but the size of its trade deficit with Mexico and Canada did not significantly increase as a share of GDP post-implementation of NAFTA. The real game changer has been the widening of the trade deficit with China and the rest of the EM economies outside of China and Mexico (Chart 8). The trade relationship with Mexico and Canada, relative to that with the rest of the world, therefore remains stable. The net energy trade balance with Mexico and Canada has significantly improved due to surging U.S. shale production (Chart 9). Rising shale production has accomplished this both by lowering the need for imports from NAFTA peers, surging refined product exports to Mexico, and by inducing lower global energy prices. In addition, Canada-U.S. energy trade is governed by NAFTA's Chapter 6 rules, which prohibit the Canadian government from intervention in the normal operation of North American energy markets.5 Chart 8U.S. Trade Imbalance Is Not About NAFTA NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 9Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Shale Revolution Is A Game Changer Myth #2: NAFTA Has Destroyed The U.S. Auto Industry Before NAFTA went into effect ... there were 280,000 autoworkers in Michigan. Today that number is roughly 165,000 - and would have been heading down big-league if I didn't get elected. - Donald Trump, U.S. President, March 15, 2017 What about the charge that NAFTA has negatively impacted the U.S. automotive industry by shipping jobs to Mexican and, to lesser extent, Canadian factories? Again, this reasoning is flawed. In fact, NAFTA appears to have allowed the U.S. automotive industry to remain highly competitive on a global scale, more so than its Mexican and Canadian peers. U.S. exports outside of NAFTA as a percent of total exports have surged since the early 2000s and have remained buoyant recently. Meanwhile, Mexican exports to the rest of the world have fallen, suggesting that Mexico is highly reliant on servicing Detroit (Chart 10). Chart 10NAFTA Has Made U.S. Auto##br## Manufacturing More Competitive NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism The truth is that the American automotive industry's share of overall manufacturing activity has risen since 2008. In part, this is because American manufacturers have been able to integrate with Canadian and Mexican plants, allowing production to remain on the continent and move seamlessly across the value chain. In other words, Mexico serves as a low-wage outlet for the least-skilled part of the production chain, allowing the rest of the manufacturing process to remain in the U.S. and Canada. Without that cheap "escape valve," the entire production chain might have migrated to EM Asia. Or, worse, the American automotive industry would have become uncompetitive relative to European and Japanese peers. Either way, the U.S. would have potentially faced greater job losses were it not for easier access to Mexican auto production. Both European and Japanese manufacturers have similar low-skilled, low-cost, "labor escape valves" in the region. For Germany and France, this escape valve is in Spain and Central and Eastern Europe; for Japan, it is in Thailand. Myth #3: Mexico And Canada Cannot Retaliate Against The U.S. As far as I can tell, there is not a world oversupply of agricultural products. Unless countries are going to be prepared to have their people go hungry or change their diets, I think it's more of a threat to try to frighten the agricultural community. - Wilbur Ross, Commerce Secretary, October 11, 2017 U.S. exports to Canada and Mexico only account for about 2.6% of GDP, whereas exports to the U.S. from Mexico and Canada account for 28% and 18% of GDP respectively. Nonetheless, this does not mean that the U.S. suffers from NAFTA. As we discussed above, NAFTA has been a boon for the global competitiveness of the U.S. automotive industry. In addition, NAFTA gives American and Canadian exporters access to a large and growing Mexican middle class (Chart 11). Furthermore, the U.S. would gain little benefit from leaving NAFTA vis-à-vis Canada and Mexico. By reverting back to WTO tariff levels, the U.S. would be able to raise tariffs from 0% (under NAFTA) to the maximum of 3.4%, where the U.S. average "bound tariff" would remain. Bound tariffs differ across products and countries and represent the maximum rate of tariffs under WTO rules (i.e., without violating those rules). They are indicative of a hostile trade relationship, as trade would otherwise be set at much lower "most favored nation" tariff levels. Table 1WTO Tariff Schedule NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism As Table 1 shows, however, Canada and particularly Mexico have the ability to raise their bound tariffs considerably higher than the U.S. can do. Mexico, in fact, has one of the highest average bound tariff rates for an OECD member state, at a whopping 36.2%! This means that, if NAFTA were to be abrogated, the U.S. would be allowed to raise tariffs, on average, to 3.4%, whereas Mexico would be free to do so by ten times more. Given that Mexico is America's main export destination for steel and corn output, the retaliation would be non-negligible for these two politically powerful sectors. This aspect of the WTO agreement is a latent geopolitical risk, as it feeds into the Trump administration's broader antagonism toward the WTO itself. Despite the hard evidence, we suspect that the Trump administration is driven by ideological and strategic goals and therefore the probability of a calamitous end to the ongoing NAFTA negotiations is high. Nevertheless, the data shows: The North American Free Trade Agreement has allowed trade between its member states to accelerate at a faster pace than global trade for much of the first decade after its signing and at the average global pace over the past decade (Chart 12); U.S. manufacturing employment as a percent of total labor force has been declining for much of the past half-century, with absolute numbers falling off a cliff as China joined the WTO and, along with EM Asia, became integrated into the global supply chain (Chart 13); Employment in auto-manufacturing follows the same pattern as overall manufacturing employment (Chart 13, bottom panel), suggesting that it was not NAFTA that caused job flight but rather competition from the rest of the world along with automation. In fact, auto-manufacturing employment has recovered post-2008, as American car manufacturers underwent structural reforms to improve competitiveness. Chart 12NAFTA Trade Has ##br##Beaten Global Trade NAFTA Trade Has Beaten Global Trade NAFTA Trade Has Beaten Global Trade Chart 13Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment:##br## China Or NAFTA? Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment: China Or NAFTA? Who Hurt U.S. Manufacturing Employment: China Or NAFTA? As with any free trade agreement, some wages in some sectors may have been lowered by NAFTA's implementation and some jobs were definitely lost due to the agreement. However, the vast majority of academic studies point out that the negative labor market impacts of NAFTA have been negligible. The most authoritative work on the subject, by economists Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, found that the upper-bound of NAFTA-related job losses in the U.S. is 1.9 million over the first decade of the agreement. Given that U.S. employment rose by 34 million over the same period, the job losses represent "a fraction of one percent of jobs 'lost' through turnover in the dynamic U.S. economy over a decade."6 A June 2016 report by the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) provides a good review of academic studies on the trade deal since 2002. Overall, it concludes that NAFTA led "to a substantial increase in trade volumes for all three countries; a small increase in U.S. welfare [overall economic benefit]; and little to no change in U.S. aggregate employment."7 In addition, NAFTA had "essentially no effect on real wages in the United States of either skilled or unskilled workers." This academic work could, of course, be the product of a vast conspiracy by globalist, neo-liberal academics financed by the deep state and its corporate overlords. However, the other side of the debate has little to offer as a counter to the empirical evidence. For example, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, a notable trade hawk, posited that the U.S. government had "certified" that 700,000 Americans had lost their jobs owing to NAFTA. This would represent 30,000 job losses per year over the 24 years of NAFTA's existence. Lighthizer also did not say whether he was speaking in net or gross terms, probably because it is practically impossible to competently answer that question! If that is the best retort to the academic research, there is then no real counter to the conclusion that NAFTA has had a mildly positive effect on the U.S. economy and labor market. Bottom Line: NAFTA has had some positive effects on the U.S. automotive sector, allowing it to integrate the low-cost Mexican labor into its production chain and thus remain competitive vis-à-vis Asian and European manufacturers. It also holds the promise of future export gains to Mexico's growing middle class. Its overall effects on the U.S. budget deficit, wages, and employment are largely overstated. If the impact of NAFTA has largely been marginal to the U.S. economy outside of a select few sectors, why is the Trump administration so dead-set on renegotiating it? And why has the process been so acrimonious? What Does The Trump White House Want? Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed by the resistance to change from our negotiating partners ... As difficult as this has been, we have seen no indication that our partners are willing to make any changes that will result in a rebalancing and reduction in these huge trade deficits. - Robert Lighthizer, U.S. trade representative, October 17, 2017 Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. trade representative, closed the fourth round of negotiations with a bang, implying that Canada and Mexico would have to help the U.S. close its $500 billion trade deficit, even though the U.S. trade deficit with its two NAFTA partners is only 15% of the total. The Canadian dollar and the Mexican peso fell by 1.2% and 1.9%, respectively, in the subsequent week of trading. In fact, both the CAD and MXN have faced extended losses since the third round of NAFTA negotiations ended on September 27 (Chart 14). Chart 14NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant NAFTA Negotiations Are FX-Relevant Is the market overreacting? We do not think so. First, the list of demands presented by the White House are quite harsh, with the first two below considered deal-breakers: Dispute Settlement: The White House wants to end the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism (under Chapter 11), which allows corporations to sue governments for breach of obligations under the treaty.8 More importantly, the U.S. also wants to eliminate trade dispute panels (under Chapter 19), which allow NAFTA countries to protest anti-dumping and countervailing duties. The real issue is that Chapter 19 trade dispute panels have acted as a constraint on the U.S. administration in imposing antidumping and countervailing duties in the past. Sunset clause: The White House has also proposed that NAFTA automatically expire unless it is approved by all three countries every five years. Buy American: The White House wants its "Buy American" rules in government procurement to be part of the new NAFTA deal, and yet for Canadian and Mexican government contracts to remain open to U.S. businesses. Rules of origin: The White House has called for an increase in NAFTA's regional automotive content requirement from the current 62.5% to 85%, including that 50% of the value of all NAFTA-produced cars, trucks, and large engines come from the U.S.9 Second, the U.S. Commerce Department - headed by trade hawk Wilbur Ross - has signaled that it is open to aggressively pursuing trade disputes on behalf of American companies. Since President Trump's inauguration, U.S. policy interventions have on balance harmed the commercial interests of its G20 trade partners by higher frequency than during the last three years of Barack Obama's presidency (Chart 15).10 Chart 15Trump: Game Changer In U.S. Trade Policy NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Specific to NAFTA partners, the Commerce Department has slapped a 20% tariff on Canadian softwood lumber in April and a 300% tariff on Bombardier C-Series in October. When combined with the demand to end trade dispute panels under NAFTA's Chapter 19 - which would resolve such trade disputes - the pickup in activity by the Commerce Department is a clear signal that the new U.S. administration intends to break the spirit of NAFTA whether the agreement remains in place or not. Third, and more broadly speaking, the Trump administration is playing a "two-level game."11 Two-level game theory posits that domestic politics creates acceptable "win-sets," which are then transported to the geopolitical theatre. Politicians cannot conclude foreign agreements that are outside of those domestic win-sets. For President Trump, his win-set on NAFTA negotiations is set by a domestic coalition that allowed him to win the election. This includes voters in the Midwest states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania where Trump outperformed polls by 10%, 3%, and 3% respectively (Chart 16), and where Secretary Hillary Clinton garnered less votes in 2016 than President Barack Obama in 2012 (Chart 17). Trump promised this blue-collar base a respite from globalization and he has to deliver it if he intends to win in four years' time. Chart 16Trump Owes The Midwest Trump Owes The Midwest Trump Owes The Midwest Chart 17Hillary Lost Rust Belt Voters NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism At the same time, Trump's domestic policy has thus far fallen far short of other campaign promises. First, there has been no movement on immigration or the promised border wall. Second, the Obamacare repeal and replace effort has failed in Congress. Third, proposed tax cuts are likely to benefit the country's elites, as previous tax reform efforts have tended to do. As such, we fear that the Trump White House may double down on playing hardball with NAFTA in order to fulfill at least one of its promised strategies. But why single out NAFTA if its impact on U.S. jobs and wages is miniscule compared to, for example, the U.S.-China trade relationship?12 There are two ways to answer this question: Pluto-populist scenario: President Trump is in fact a pluto-populist and not a genuine populist, i.e. he is not committed to economic nationalism.13 As such, he does not intend to fulfill any of the demands he has promised to his voters, as the current corporate and household tax cuts suggest. Given NAFTA's limited impact on the U.S. economy, abrogating that deal would have far less detrimental impact than if President Trump went after other trade relationships. As such, the NAFTA deal will either be renegotiated, or, at worst, abrogated and quickly replaced with bilateral deals with both Canada and Mexico. It is a "cheap" and "safe" way to satisfy voter demands without actually hurting business or the economy. Genuinely populist scenario: President Trump is a genuine populist and NAFTA renegotiations are setting the stage for a 2018 in which trade protectionism becomes a genuine, global market risk. Bottom Line: President Trump's negotiation stance on NAFTA is non-diagnostic. We cannot establish with any certainty whether his demands mark the start of a broader, global, protectionist trend, or whether he is merely bullying two trade partners who will ultimately have to kowtow to U.S. demands. Nonetheless, we agree with the market's pricing of a higher probability that NAFTA is abrogated, as witnessed by the currency markets. In both of our political scenarios, NAFTA's fate is uncertain. If Trump is a pluto-populist, NAFTA is an easy target and its abrogation will score domestic political points with limited economic impact. If he is a genuine economic nationalist, failed NAFTA renegotiations are the first step on the path to clashing with the WTO and rewriting global trade rules. Investment And Geopolitical Implications Can President Trump withdraw from NAFTA unilaterally? The short answer is yes. As Table 2 illustrates, Congress has passed several laws that delegate authority to the executive branch to administer and enforce trade agreements and to exercise prerogative amid exigencies.14 Article 2205 of NAFTA states that any party to the treaty can withdraw within six months after providing notice of withdrawal. We see no evidence in U.S. law that the president has to gain congressional approval of such withdrawal. Table 2Trump Faces Few Constraints On Trade NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Moreover, the past century has produced a series of laws that give President Trump considerable latitude - not only the right to impose a 15% tariff for up to 150 days, as in the Trade Act of 1974, but also unrestricted tariff and import quota powers during wartime or national emergencies, as in the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917.15 The White House has already signaled that it considers budget deficits a "national security issue," which suggests that the White House is preparing for a significant tariff move in the future.16 Could President Trump's moves be challenged by Congress or the courts? Absolutely. However, time is on the executive's side. Even assuming that Congress or the Supreme Court oppose the executive, it will likely be too late to avoid serious ramifications and retaliations from abroad. Other countries will not wait on the U.S. system to auto-correct. Congress is unlikely to vote to overrule the president until the damage has already been done - especially given Trump's powers delegated from Congress. As for the courts, the executive could swamp them with justifications for its actions; the courts would have to deem the executive likely to lose every single one of these cases in order to issue a preliminary injunction against each of them and halt the president's orders. Any final Supreme Court ruling would take at least a year. International law would be neither speedy nor binding. What are the investment implications of a NAFTA collapse? Short term: Short MXN; short North American automotive sector relative to European/Asian peers. We would expect more downside risk to MXN from a collapse in NAFTA talks, similar in magnitude to the decline of the GBP after the Brexit vote. The Mexican central bank would likely take on a dovish stance towards monetary policy, creating a negative feedback loop for the peso. The automotive sectors across the three economies that make up NAFTA would obviously suffer, given the benefits of the integrated supply-chains, as would U.S. steel and select agricultural producers that export to NAFTA peers. Medium term: Canadian exports largely unaffected, buy CAD on any NAFTA-related dip. Given that 20% of Canadian exports to the U.S. are energy - and thus highly unlikely to come under higher tariffs post-NAFTA - we do not expect exports to decline significantly.17 In fact, the 1987 Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, which laid the foundation for NAFTA, could quickly be resuscitated given that it was never formally terminated, only suspended. Canada and the U.S. have a balanced trade relationship, which means that it is highly unlikely that America's northern neighbor is in the sights of the White House administration. Long term: marginally positive for inflation. Economic globalization and immigration have both played a marginally deflationary role on the global economy. If abrogation of NAFTA is the first step towards less of both trends, than the economic effect should be mildly inflationary. This could feed into inflation expectations, reversing their recent decline. In broader terms, it is impossible to assess the long-term impact of NAFTA abrogation until we answer the question of whether the Trump administration is pluto-populist or genuinely populist. If pluto-populist, NAFTA's demise would be largely designed for domestic political consumption and would be the end of the matter. No long-term implications would really exist as, the Trump White House would conclude bilateral deals with Canada and Mexico to ensure that trade is not interrupted and that crucial constituencies - Midwest auto workers and farmers - do not turn against the administration. If genuinely populist, however, the White House would likely have to abrogate WTO rules as well in order to make a real dent to its trade deficit. The U.S. has no way to raise tariffs above an average bound tariff of 3.4%, other than for selective imports and on a temporary basis, or through a flagrant rejection of the WTO's authority. Given the likely currency moves post-NAFTA's demise, those levels would have an insignificant effect on U.S. trade with its North American neighbors. President Trump hinted as much when he sent a 336-page report to Congress titled "The President's Trade Policy Agenda," which argued that the administration would ignore WTO rules that it deems to infringe on U.S. sovereignty. The NAFTA negotiations, put in the context of that document, are a much more serious matter that might be part of a slow rollout of global trade policy that only becomes apparent in 2018.18 From a geopolitical perspective, ending NAFTA would make the U.S. less geopolitically secure. If the U.S. turned its back on its own neighbors, one of which is its closest military ally, then Canada and Mexico may seek closer trade relations with Europe and China. This could lead to the diversification of their export markets, including - most critically for U.S. national security - energy. In addition, Canada could allow significant Chinese investment into its technology sector, particularly in AI and quantum computing where the country is a global leader. Additionally, any negative consequences for the Mexican economy would likely be returned tenfold on the U.S. in the form of greater illegal immigration flows, a greater pool of recruits for Mexican drug cartels, and a rise in anti-Americanism in the country. The latter is particularly significant given the upcoming July 2018 presidential election and current solid polling for anti-establishment candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador (Chart 18). Obrador is in the lead, but his new party - National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) - is unlikely to gain a majority in Congress (Chart 18, bottom panel). However, acrimonious NAFTA negotiations and a nationalist U.S. could change the fortunes for both Obrador and MORENA. Ultimately, everything depends on whether Trump's campaign rhetoric on trade is real. At this point, we lean towards Trump being a pluto-populist. The proposed tax cuts are clearly not designed with blue-collar workers in mind. They are largely a carbon-copy of every other Republican tax reform plan in the past and thus we assume that their consequences will be similar. If the signature legislation of the Trump White House through 2017-2018 will be a tax plan that skews towards the wealthy (Chart 19), than why should investors assume that its immigration and free trade rhetoric are real? Chart 18Populism On The March In Mexico NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism Chart 19Tax Cuts Are Not Populist Tax Cuts Are Not Populist Tax Cuts Are Not Populist If ending NAFTA is merely red meat for the Midwestern base, and is quickly replaced with bilateral "fixes," then long-term implications will be muted. If, on the other hand, it is pursued as a new U.S. policy, then the significance will be much greater: it will mark the dawn of a new trend of twenty-first century mercantilism coming from the former bulwark of international liberalism. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “The Apex Of Globalization – All Downhill From Here,” dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, “Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know,” dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com, and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “U.S. Election: The Great White Hype,” dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Candidate Donald Trump made this comment during his first debate with Secretary Hillary Clinton. The September 26 debate focused heavily on free trade and globalization. 5 Mexico is exempt from several crucial articles in Chapter 6 due to the political sensitivity of the domestic energy industry. 6 Please see Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, "NAFTA Revisited," dated October 1, 2007, available at piie.com, and Hufbauer, Gary Clyde and Jeffrey J. Schott, NAFTA Revisited, New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. 7 Please see United States International Trade Commission, "Economic Impact of Trade Agreements Implemented Under Trade Authorities Procedures," Publication Number: 4614, June 2016, available at usitc.gov. First accessed via Congressional Research Service, "The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)," dated May 24, 2017, available at fas.org. 8 Since 1994, Canada has been sued 39 times and has paid out a total of $215 million in compensation. The U.S. is yet to lose a single case! 9 On average, vehicles produced in NAFTA member states average 75% local content; therefore, the first part of the demand is reachable if the White House is willing to budge. 10 Please see Evenett, Simon J. and Johannes Fritz, "Will Awe Trump Rules?" Global Trade Alert, dated July 3, 2017, available at globaltradealert.org. 11 Please see Robert Putnam, "Diplomacy and domestic politics: the logic of two-level games," International Organization 42:3 (summer 1988), pp. 427-460. 12 Please see Autor, David H., David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning from Labor-Market Adjustment to Large Changes in Trade," Annual Reviews of Economics, dated August 8, 2016, available at annualreviews.org. 13 Pluto-populists use populist rhetoric that appeals to the common person in order to pass plutocratic policies that benefit the elites. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, “Constraints & Preferences Of The Trump Presidency,” dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 See in particular the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232b), the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 301), the Trading With The Enemy Act of 1917 (Section 5b), and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977. 16 Peter Navarro, director of the White House's National Trade Council, has argued throughout March that the U.S. chronic deficits and global supply chains were a threat to national security. 17 Unless President Trump and his advisors ignore the reality that the U.S. still imports 40% of its energy needs and will likely be doing so for the foreseeable future. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, “Political Risks Are Understated In 2018,” dated April 12, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights China's mini-cycle has peaked, which has raised concerns among global investors that China may return to below-trend growth over the coming year, similar to what occurred in 2015. In our view, the severe slowdown in the Chinese economy in 2015 was due to overly tight monetary policy coupled with a severely weak external demand environment. A monetary conditions approach has done an excellent job of predicting industrial activity in China over the past several years. While monetary policy has tightened somewhat since the beginning of the year, none of the monetary conditions indexes that we track have come close to returning to 2015 levels. In short, an uncontrolled and sharp deceleration in the Chinese economy is not in the cards. This favors the performance of Chinese stocks, both in absolute and relative terms. Stay overweight. Feature Last week's report was replaced by a Special Report prepared by my colleague Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President of our Geopolitical Strategy team.1 The report presented a full "postmortem" on the Party Congress, and outlined how stepped up reform efforts in China are likely over the coming year, and beyond. By "reforms", our geopolitical team specifically means deleveraging in the financial sector accompanied by a more intense anti-corruption campaign focused on the shadow-banking sector, as well as ongoing restructuring in the industrial sector. The implications of the "reform reboot" scenario presented in last week's report are negative for emerging markets (EM) and other plays on China's industrial sector (such as industrial metals). We agree that a "status quo" scenario of no significant reforms is highly unlikely given that President Xi has succeeded in amassing tremendous political capital and that he has an agenda for reform. But the intensity of reforms pursued over the coming year will have to be closely monitored by policymakers, to avoid a repeat of the significant slowdown that occurred in 2014/2015. As such, the view of BCA's China Investment Strategy service is that the reform efforts over the coming year will be structured at a pace that is sufficient to avoid a meaningful deceleration in China's industrial sector, even though the momentum of China's "mini" economic cycle of the past two years has very likely peaked. However, the potential for a brisk pace of reforms to cause a more acute decline in industrial activity is a risk to our view that the slowdown in China's economy is likely to be benign and controlled. Monitoring reform progress is likely to be a key theme for this publication over the coming year. Over the nearer term, the potential impact of reform efforts is not the only risk to the economy, as many market participants appear to be worried that the peak in China's mini-cycle presages a destabilizing decline in economic activity. This week's report is the second of two parts examining the key differences facing China today from what prevailed in mid-2015,2 when the Chinese economy operated below what investors and market participants considered to be a "stable" pace of growth. In Part II we focus on monetary policy, and outline how the monetary environment remains stimulative despite a significant rise in corporate bond yields over the past year. China's Monetary Policy Stance: A Brief Review Chart 1 presents the one-year policy lending rate over the past decade, and highlights the four distinct phases that have prevailed since the global financial crisis in 2008: Chart 1A Brief Review Of China's Monetary Policy Stance A Brief Review Of China's Monetary Policy Stance A Brief Review Of China's Monetary Policy Stance A long period of significant easing that began during the Great Recession and lasted until late-2010 A material rate tightening cycle that began in late-2010 and ended in mid-2012 A half-reversal of the 2011/2012 rate cycle, which happened quickly in the summer of 2012 and was followed by a long pause until late-2014, and A significant series of rate cuts over the course of 2015, followed by a 2-year pause at current levels. We contend that policymakers were too timid in responding to economic weakness in China at the end of the third monetary policy phase highlighted in Chart 1, and that this hesitation magnified the impact of the serious deterioration in China's external demand environment that we discussed in Part I of this report. Chart 2Monetary Conditions Predict ##br##Chinese Industrial Activity Monetary Conditions Predict Chinese Industrial Activity Monetary Conditions Predict Chinese Industrial Activity Of course, in a large, trade-sensitive, economy like that of China, interest rates are not the only determinant of the degree of monetary accommodation. In order to capture the effects of the exchange rate and other factors affecting the efficacy of monetary policy, we have tended to show a Monetary Conditions Index (MCI) as a stand-in for the policy stance. As shown in Chart 2, the Bloomberg MCI has done an excellent job of leading industrial activity in China over the past several years, particularly during the mini-cycle of the past two years. While the MCI appears to have peaked early this year, it remains well above (i.e. more accommodative) the levels reached in mid-2015 when policymakers finally became serious about easing monetary conditions. Looking Forward Chart 3 presents a few alternative MCIs for China alongside Bloomberg's measure. Analysts tend to employ a variety of approaches when calculating monetary conditions indexes, but the real interest rate and the real effective exchange rate almost always feature prominently. Of the three alternative measures, Citigroup's MCI is the most bearish, as it includes the year-over-year growth rate of M2 which has recently languished. The remaining two measures are BCA calculations, one that deflates interest rates using producer prices, and one that uses core consumer prices. Both of our measures employ an equal split between the real interest rate and the exchange rate. Chart 3 highlights that all four MCIs have either peaked or are now falling, suggesting that a tightening in financial conditions earlier this year has somewhat reduced the degree of monetary accommodation to the economy. However, there are three key points to consider when judging the likely impact of monetary tightening on China's economy over the coming 6-12 months: None of the MCIs shown in Chart 3 have returned to their 2015 low, implying that the policy tightening that has occurred over the past year is not likely to cause Chinese industrial activity to crash in over the coming 6-12 months. Most of the appreciation in the RMB this year has occurred versus the dollar, not against the euro or in trade-weighted terms (Chart 4). In fact, in trade-weighted the RMB remains 6.5% below where it was in August 2015 prior to the currency devaluation. This highlights that the recent appreciation largely reflects dollar weakness, rather than policy-induced strength in the RMB. Chart 3Monetary Conditions Have Not Returned##br## To 2015 Levels Monetary Conditions Have Not Returned To 2015 Levels Monetary Conditions Have Not Returned To 2015 Levels Chart 4Recent RMB Appreciation##br## Reflects Dollar Weakness Recent RMB Appreciation Reflects Dollar Weakness Recent RMB Appreciation Reflects Dollar Weakness Average lending rates have only increased approximately 40 bps over the past year, in comparison to the 200 bps of easing that occurred from 2014 to 2016 (Chart 5). In real terms (when deflated by core consumer prices), average interest rate have barely risen at all this year. The still modest rise in average lending rates is an important consideration, because it contrasts with the rise in Chinese bond yields, both in the government and corporate sectors. For example, Chart 6 shows that corporate bond yields have risen by 160 bps since late-2016 and are 25 bps higher than they were in early-2015. Chart 5Average Lending Rates ##br##Have Risen Only Modestly Average Lending Rates Have Risen Only Modestly Average Lending Rates Have Risen Only Modestly Chart 6Corporate Bond Yields##br## Have Tightened Materially Corporate Bond Yields Have Tightened Materially Corporate Bond Yields Have Tightened Materially But our view is that average lending rates are a more important driver of debt service payments for China's non-financial sector. In fact, Table 1 highlights that while corporate bond financing is a growing component of Chinese private social financing, it is still quite small. The table presents a breakdown of adjusted social financing, which highlights that the sum of local currency loans, foreign currency loans in RMB, trust and entrusted loans equals roughly 85% of total social financial excluding equity issuance. Corporate bonds, by contrast, account for only about 10%, suggesting that the economic impact of the rise in bond yields this year will be relatively small. Table 1Corporate Bonds Account For A Small Percent Of China's Social Financing China's Economy - 2015 Vs Today (Part II): Monetary Policy China's Economy - 2015 Vs Today (Part II): Monetary Policy Investment Implications We noted in our October 12 Weekly Report that the acceleration in the Chinese economy that began in mid-2015 has likely peaked (Chart 7), ending the upswing of this "mini" economic cycle. Chart 7A Stylized View Of China's Recent China's Economy - 2015 Vs Today (Part II): Monetary Policy China's Economy - 2015 Vs Today (Part II): Monetary Policy The framework illustrated in Chart 7 presented three distinct scenarios for China over the coming 6-12 months: A re-acceleration of the economy and a continuation of the V-shaped rebound profile, A benign, controlled deceleration and settling of growth into the "stable" growth range, and An uncontrolled and sharp deceleration in the economy that threatens a return to the conditions that prevailed in early-2015 (or worse). In our view, the Chinese economy in early-2015 began to operate below the "stable" growth range shown in Chart 7, owing to a "double whammy" of excessively tight monetary conditions and a synchronized global downturn. While our research suggests that China's export growth will moderate over the coming year and that monetary conditions have tightened somewhat, the magnitude of these changes are not sufficiently large to return the Chinese economy back to 2015-like conditions. To us, this is consistent with the second scenario presented above. From an absolute equity perspective, this conclusion is positive for Chinese stock prices. Chart 8 highlights that the Li Keqiang index correlates fairly well with the growth in earnings for the MSCI China index ex technology; a moderate decline in the pace of growth in China's industrial sector would blunt the earnings growth of these firms, but not enough to cause an outright contraction. The combination of positive ex-tech earnings growth and very cheap valuation (Chart 9) suggests that the absolute uptrend in Chinese ex-technology stocks that began at the beginning of 2016 is likely to continue. Chart 8Ex-Tech EPS Growth Will Moderate, ##br##But Not Contract Ex-Tech EPS Growth Will Moderate, But Not Contract Ex-Tech EPS Growth Will Moderate, But Not Contract Chart 9Excluding Technology, ##br##China Is Extraordinarily Cheap Excluding Technology, China Is Extraordinarily Cheap Excluding Technology, China Is Extraordinarily Cheap In relative terms, the picture is somewhat cloudier, although for now we would continue to favor the China MSCI index versus global and emerging market stocks. Chart 10 highlights that Chinese equities have outperformed global stocks even when excluding tech companies, although it is clear that most of the recent outperformance is due to the IT sector. On the earnings front, while we expect Chinese ex-tech earnings growth to moderate over the coming year, this is also true of overall U.S. equities (Chart 11). Finally, Chart 12 highlights that while Chinese technology firms are richly priced vs their global counterparts, the multi-year relative outperformance trend has been fundamentally-driven, a situation that does not appear to be threatened by a slowdown in China's industrial sector (given the largely domestic & consumer orientation of Chinese technology firms). Chart 10China Is Beating Global,##br## Even Excluding Technology China Is Beating Global, Even Excluding Technology China Is Beating Global, Even Excluding Technology Chart 11U.S. Earnings Growth##br## Is Set To Moderate U.S. Earnings Growth Is Set To Moderate U.S. Earnings Growth Is Set To Moderate Chart 12China's Tech Rally Is ##br##Fundamentally-Driven China's Tech Rally Is Fundamentally-Driven China's Tech Rally Is Fundamentally-Driven Bottom Line: The economic momentum of China's 2-year mini-cycle has probably peaked, but an uncontrolled and sharp deceleration in the economy is not in the cards. This favors the performance of Chinese stocks, both in absolute and relative terms. Stay overweight. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Report, "China: Party Congress Ends ... So What?", dated November 2, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China's Economy - 2015 Vs Today (Part I): Trade", dated October 26, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Chart of the WeekChina Developments Significant##BR##To Base Metal Prices Shifting Gears In China: The Impact On Base Metals Shifting Gears In China: The Impact On Base Metals Reading the tea leaves following China's 19th National Communist Party Congress suggests a looming shift in President Xi Jinping's second term from pro-growth to pro-reform. Having consolidated power, Xi now has the capacity to implement his agenda over the next five years. Given China's outsized role in global base metals production and consumption, the direction of Xi's policy changes will have a profound impact on these markets (Chart of the Week).1 The Party Congress set the tone for economic policy and reforms going forward, from which we can extrapolate future policy direction. However, concrete plans and details will not be revealed until the National People's Congress, scheduled in March 2018. In this report we highlight the main takeaways of the Congress specifically those relevant to base metals. Broadly, these can be summarized as: Xi now has the political capital needed to implement real reform in his second term. Based on Xi's remarks at the Congress during his work-report commentary, we believe the environmental and supply-side reforms initiated during his first five-year term will be continued in his second term. Because these reforms will shrink the domestic production capacity for base metals and steel in China, they likely will be a tailwind for these commodities' prices. However, a focus on sustainable growth - i.e., organic growth that is not dependent on regular injections of credit to keep it going - and the elimination of GDP targets past 2021 risk weighing down base metals demand. Real-estate market fundamentals are more supportive than most perceive. This will prevent tighter policies from triggering a significant construction downturn, which will be supportive for steel and copper prices. China's efforts to expand its economic influence globally through the Belt and Road initiative (BRI) will be insufficient in offsetting a mainland slowdown, should one occur. Feature Balancing Stability And Reform Chart 2Stability Was A Priority...Not Anymore Stability Was A Priority...Not Anymore Stability Was A Priority...Not Anymore Despite reiterating a need for economic reforms, the focus of Xi's first term was maintaining stability and garnering the political capital necessary to implement his desired reforms. Emphasizing stability is a recurrent theme in Chinese politics, regardless of who is at the helm. The 2015-16 state interventions in the economy - including higher infrastructure spending, provincial government bailouts, currency depreciation and capital controls - illustrated the dominance of stability over reforms, during Xi's first term (Chart 2).2 The 19th Party Congress was the capstone event in Xi's effort to accumulate the support needed to implement long-sought reforms. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy points to three outcomes that support this assessment: With the inscription of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era in China's constitution, the president has cemented his position as one of the most powerful leaders of modern China. In fact, according to our geopolitical strategists, this induction signals that he is "second only to Chairman Mao as a philosophical guide in the party."3 Practically speaking, this means his economic initiatives will carry more weight than anything China has seen since at least the 1998-99 intense reform period. The leanings of members of the new Politburo Standing Committee (PSC) also are telling. Each of the three most recent presidents is represented by two protégés on the PSC. This is an almost-ideal configuration for reform.4 Finally, the appointment of Xi loyalist Zhao Leji as chief of the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CDIC), and the creation of the National Supervisory Commission to oversee the anti-corruption campaign give Xi the tools he needs to implement his policies. Thus, Xi has garnered sufficient ammunition to be much more effective in implementing reform policies during his second term. As such, we expect the pace of reform to accelerate. While the policy details are yet to be known, many of the takeaways from the party congress point toward supply- and demand-side changes. Supply-Side Reforms: Short-Term Sacrifice For Long-Term Benefit? While the aim for environmental regulation is not new - an "ecological" section was included in the work report for the first time by Xi's predecessor Hu Jintao in 2012 - we have reason to believe that, given Xi's focus on sustainable development, he will tackle environmental policies with more fervor than in the past. This signals that Xi may prioritize environmental preservation and pollution-reduction measures going forward, which would continue the efforts begun in his first term. In fact, environmental spending was the fastest growing category in central-government spending at the beginning of Xi's first term (Table 1). Table 1Xi Jinping Favors A Greener China Shifting Gears In China: The Impact On Base Metals Shifting Gears In China: The Impact On Base Metals Xi's environmental agenda will get an assist from his anti-corruption campaign. Our Geopolitical strategists highlight Xi's use of the CDIC - the anti-corruption watchdog - in enforcing the reforms as a signal of his resolve to implement change. The stakes are high for noncompliant managers who now risk not only financial penalties, but also arrest and jail time. Chart 3Shifting Gears: From Pro-Growth To Pro-Reform Shifting Gears: From Pro-Growth To Pro-Reform Shifting Gears: From Pro-Growth To Pro-Reform This reinforces the message that Xi is still keen on implementing the supply-side structural reforms first announced in 2015, and that he is willing to change the old-line economic model, forgoing potential growth drivers from traditional industries in favor of greener sectors (Chart 3). As the leading base metals producer in the world, a continuation - and potential intensification - of these reforms will weigh on global production and prop up base metal prices, as they have since last year. In fact, some of these reforms have already materialized in the form of earlier-than-anticipated winter production cuts. Steel production in Tangshan - China's largest steel-producing city - will be halved over the winter, with three other top steel producing cities - Shijiazhuang, Anyang, and Handan - expected to announce similar cuts.5 Similarly, the government of Shandong - a major producer of alumina and aluminum - recently instituted a crackdown program that includes production cuts during the winter months.6 Bottom Line: Xi used his platform at the Party Congress to reiterate his resolve to set China's economy on a more sustainable growth path through supply-side reform. Given that he has accumulated the political capital necessary to implement these changes, we expect to see a renewed push toward a "greener" China. Ceteris paribus, this will weigh on base metals production by reducing global supply and will support prices. "Houses Are Built To Be Inhabited, Not For Speculation" During the party congress, Xi reiterated his resolve to tighten control of the real estate market. In fact, the Chinese government has been trying for years to rein in demand for real estate, which typically involves raising mortgage rates. Tightening measures announced in late September include controls on home sales in eight major cities, which, among other things, prevent the resale of homes within five years of purchase. These controls have weighed on both prices and sales of real estate (Chart 4). More recently, the Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development and the National Development and Reform Commission announced that they will jointly inspect real estate developers and commercial property sales agents, looking for "irregularities," including artificially inflating prices and hoarding unsold homes.7 Nonetheless, our China Investment Strategy desk does not foresee a major slowdown in construction activity.8 Simply put, they argue that strong demand amid declining inventories will prevent a construction slowdown, even in face of tighter policies (Chart 5). In fact, they do not see much excess in China's current property market to begin with, and thus doubt we will witness a major downturn. This will be important to bear in mind going forward, given that construction is the most important source of demand for base metals - copper in particular - and steel in China, accounting for about one-third of copper demand and half of steel demand. Chart 4Real Estate Policies Weigh##BR##On Prices And Sales Real Estate Policies Weigh On Prices And Sales Real Estate Policies Weigh On Prices And Sales Chart 5Housing Destocking Becomes Advanced Fundamentals##BR##Will Prevent A Major Real Estate Downturn Housing Destocking Becomes Advanced Fundamentals Will Prevent A Major Real Estate Downturn Housing Destocking Becomes Advanced Fundamentals Will Prevent A Major Real Estate Downturn Bottom Line: Despite efforts to tighten the property market, a sharp downturn in the construction sector, which is a major metals consumer, is unlikely. Structural tailwinds - most notably from China's continued urbanization - will eventually prevail, and the construction sector will remain a major contributor to China's economy, and base metals and steel consumption. Quality Over Quantity: Deleveraging The renewed focus on "sustainable and sound" growth, especially given the elimination of GDP growth targets beyond 2021, elevates the risk of a potential economic slowdown. The Xi administration has signaled that it is not afraid to prioritize financial regulation - targeting excessive risk and under-regulation - over economic growth. It is likely that it will continue doing so. In fact, Xi singled out systemic financial risk as a hazard to overall stability. While this is not China's first time to announce a deleveraging campaign, given that Xi has consolidated power and will use the CDIC to implement reforms, we expect these efforts to be more effective this time around. Furthermore, China has bounced back from the 2015 - 16 deflationary spiral so well that interest rate hikes and tighter financial controls are now on the table (Chart 6). Chart 6Interest Rate Hikes Are Now On The Table Interest Rate Hikes Are Now On The Table Interest Rate Hikes Are Now On The Table While the reforms are expected to improve Chinese productivity in the long-run, they may shake up the economy in the short run. We are somewhat reassured by the fact that traditionally, Chinese leaders have boosted fiscal spending when faced with slowing credit growth in periods when they aim to combat the negative effects of supply-side structural reforms and deleveraging. However, we remain cautious that, as Xi's priorities have shifted, fiscal stimulus may not be used with the same enthusiasm going forward. Given China's outsized role as a consumer of base metals, a slowdown would have serious repercussions on global markets. Researchers at the IMF find that surprises in the strength of China's economy - measured as the scaled deviation of year-on-year industrial production growth from the median Bloomberg consensus estimates immediately prior to the announcements - have significant impacts on base metals prices.9 This is true for all metals they studied - copper, nickel, lead, tin, and aluminum - with the exception of iron ore, which they put down to the relatively recent financialization of iron ore markets. In fact, they find that the more important China is to a specific base metal's fundamentals, the stronger the impact on prices. Using China's import share as a percent of world total as their measure of China's footprint in each individual market, they find that copper is most impacted by Chinese IP shocks, followed by nickel, lead, tin, and aluminum.10 Bottom Line: Beijing is continuously reassuring markets it will push for reforms - in the form of deleveraging the financial sector, restructuring industry, eliminating overcapacity, and environmental controls - without sacrificing growth. Nonetheless these reforms, which we believe are forthcoming following Xi's consolidation of power post-19th Congress, will be headwinds to growth. It is true that Xi may be willing to tolerate slower growth going forward in order to see his policies go through. Yet in all likelihood, fiscal stimulus will be used if social stability is threatened by reform measures. That said, reform is definitely in the cards. The Revival Of China's Silk Road - Enshrined In The Constitution Along with supply-side reforms, the Belt and Road initiative (BRI) - Xi's solution to a global slowdown through the physical integration of China's trading partners - was written into the constitution. This is a reiteration of Xi's intent to shift China away from being the factory of the world and toward playing a key role in global development. The ambition of the BRI plan is to connect many of China's trading partners in Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Africa through a modern infrastructure of roads, ports, railway tracks, pipelines, airports, transnational electric grids, and fiber-optic lines. The objectives of the project, although speculative, are believed to be two-fold: It is an opportunity to create new markets for Chinese goods - giving the Chinese economy a push even in the event of a mainland slowdown. This is especially relevant, given the need to export excess capacity, most notably in the cases of steel and cement. In fact, Chinese industrial production will also benefit from the secondary effects of an improvement in demand for consumer goods from countries receiving economic aid from China. Furthermore, Xi hopes the project will help revive the economies of China's border regions. There is a possible ancillary benefit, in that heavy industry - e.g., steel mills and aluminum smelters - could be moved away from population centers to support the BRI. Chart 7BRI Investments On The Ascent bca.ces_wr_2017_11_09_c7 bca.ces_wr_2017_11_09_c7 Policymakers foresee the project - which was initiated in 2013 - injecting an estimated $150 billion annually into the construction of massive amounts of infrastructure (Chart 7). BCA's Frontier Markets Strategy (FMS) projects the value of Chinese BRI project investments will reach $168 billion in 2020.11 While this would boost China's economy in general, and base metals, steel and iron ore demand in particular, our FMS strategists argue that at ~ $102 billion, China-funded BRI investment expenditure in 2016 is dwarfed in comparison to China's gross fixed-capital formation (GFCF), which amounted to ~ $4.8 trillion last year. Simply put, the BRI is incapable of offsetting a general slowdown in China, were it to occur. In fact, our FMS desk estimates that a 0.4% contraction in GFCF is all that will be needed to offset BRI-related investments in 2018. Bottom Line: With the Belt and Road Initiative written into the constitution, we expect greater follow-through directed toward meeting the goals specified in it. On its own, this is positive for base metals, which will benefit from greater demand from infrastructure projects, as well as the secondary effects in the form of demand for consumer goods from trading partners. However, the BRI, in and of itself, will not super-charge base metals demand. The BRI will counteract some of the negative impacts of a slowdown in China growth on commodity markets generally. However, since the size of BRI investment expenditure accounts for only a small fraction of China's fixed capital formation, we are skeptical of the extent to which it can offset a slowdown, were it to occur in the mainland. Roukaya Ibrahim, Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com 1 In our modelling of base metal prices, we find China's PMI has a large and significant impact on metal prices. Using year-on-year growth rates since 2010, a 1% increase in China's PMI is associated with a 0.54% increase in the LMEX base metals price index. 2 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy's Special Report titled "China: Party Congress Ends...So What?," dated November 1, 2017. It is available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report titled "Xi Jinping: Chairman Of Everything," dated October 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Li Keqiang and Wang Yang are both from Hu Jintao's Communist Youth League, Han Zheng and Wang Huning are Jiang Zemin followers, and Li Zhanshu and Zhao Leji are Xi Jinping loyalists. 5 While this is positive for steel prices, it would dampen demand for iron ore, weighing down on its prices. 6 Alumina, aluminum, and carbon producers that meet emission discharge standards are ordered to cut production by over 30%, around 30%, and over 50%, respectively. Producers that do not meet emission discharge standards are ordered to halt production. 7 Please see "China to launch nationwide inspection on commercial housing sales," published October 25, 2017, available at www.chinadaily.com.cn. Noted "irregularities" include fabricating information on housing sales, publishing fake advertisements and artificially inflating housing prices, market manipulation, and hoarding unsold homes. 8 Please see BCA Research's China Investment Strategy Weekly Report titled "Chinese Real Estate: Which Way Will The Wind Blow?," dated September 28, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see IMF Spillover Notes, Issue 6 "China's Footprint in Global Commodity Markets," published September 2016, available at www.imf.org. 10 Interestingly, given the U.S.'s role as a harbinger of the global economy, U.S. IP surprises have a similar impact on commodity prices. 11 Please see BCA Research's Frontier Markets Strategy Special Report titled "China's Belt And Road Initiative: Can It Offset A Mainland Slowdown?," dated September 13, 2017, available at fms.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Shifting Gears In China: The Impact On Base Metals Shifting Gears In China: The Impact On Base Metals Trades Closed in 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016

Highlights The bill is bullish for growth and therefore for the equity markets and the U.S. dollar; The bill consists mostly of tax cuts, not reforms, that favor corporations and the wealthiest taxpayers; The bill is bullish for growth in the short term, but also inflationary and hence a risk to growth in the medium term; A non-populist White House is a relief to the markets, particularly on trade policy, but may mean a more hawkish foreign policy. Feature Chart 1Trump: A Boon For##BR##Main Street And Wall Street Trump: A Boon For Main Street And Wall Street Trump: A Boon For Main Street And Wall Street Since the November 2016 election, and particularly since President Donald Trump's inauguration, financial markets have celebrated. This is ironic given that on the campaign trail, Trump often adopted populist rhetoric indistinguishable from that of Bernie Sanders, the bête noire of the business community. Trump's cabinet, however, quickly took on a pro-business outlook following the inauguration. Despite appointing several notable trade hawks, the administration sported half a dozen former Goldman Sachs employees. Business confidence soared, especially among small businesses, while regulatory worries hanging over CEO's melted away (Chart 1). Both Wall Street and Main Street took one look at President Trump's cabinet at the end of January and decided that there was not an iota of genuine populism in the White House. This view was reinforced by three early decisions by the Trump administration: China: President Trump reneged on his promise to designate China a currency manipulator formally on day one of his administration.1 Instead, he hosted President Xi Jinping at the Mar-A-Lago Summit in April and agreed to engage in trade talks over the rest of the year. (He again declined to accuse China of currency manipulation in October.) Budget: President Trump's "skinny budget" proposal in May oozed with Republican Party orthodoxy, bolstering spending on defense and border security, while calling for drastic cuts to domestic programs. The implication was that future tax cuts would ultimately be "paid for" via draconian fiscal austerity in the distant future. "Breitbart clique" ousted: Steve Bannon, the White House Chief Strategist and self-described economic nationalist, was fired in mid-August, with several prominent allies ousted in the wake of his departure. Bannon's departure left Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, chief economic advisor Gary Cohn, and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross firmly in charge of economic policy. Enter Tax Cuts The coup-de-grâce of Republican orthodoxy is the just-proposed tax cut plan. The proposal by the House Ways and Means Committee is heavily stacked in favor of corporations and the top-income brackets. As Table 1 clearly illustrates, the household component of the plan is nearly balanced - and therefore deserving of the moniker "reform" - whereas the corporate side of the ledger is closer to a pure and simple cut. Table 12017-2018 Republican Tax Cut Proposal - House Ways And Means Committee (Oct. 2017) Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Some of the more prominent measures proposed by the House and Ways Committee are: Household Income The highest tax rate remains 39.6%, but would now only kick in at $1 million in taxable income;2 The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) will be repealed, which hurts the upper middle class and wealthy by limiting tax benefits from a variety of deductions; The estate tax will be fully eliminated by 2024; The standard deduction will be doubled from $12,700 to $24,000, one of the few direct benefits to lower-income families; The plan would repeal the state and local income and sales tax deductions, while capping the state and local property tax deduction to $10,000; Almost all itemized deductions will be eliminated - such as medical expenses, property losses, casualty losses, etc.; The mortgage interest rate deduction for future home purchases will be capped, with only homes up to $500,000 covered. Corporate Income The corporate tax rate will be cut from 35% to 20%; Companies will be able to deduct the full amount of business investments in the year that they are made, although the provision would expire at the end of 2022; The tax rate on income from pass-through businesses would fall to 25%, considerably below the top household income tax rate; Several deductions would be eliminated, including the deduction of interest on debt; The "worldwide" tax system would be overhauled and foreign earnings repatriated: U.S. multinational corporations would pay a 12% tax rate on past profits that they repatriate, while future overseas earnings would be taxed at the new 20% corporate rate. We would caution clients from parsing too carefully through the proposal, lest they waste their time. The Senate is likely to pass a completely different set of proposals. The GOP plan is to get to a "conference committee" as fast as possible, where a new draft legislation can be hammered out from the two disparate proposals. We suspect that this entire process will miss the self-imposed target of "before Christmas," and probably last until the end of the first quarter.3 Nonetheless, we can discern the priorities of the House Republicans by gauging the winners and losers of their proposal. Our immediate take is that the tax cuts greatly benefit upper-income filers (households making over $423,000), moderately hurt upper-middle-class / lower-upper-class filers (those making between $260,000 and $423,000), and are largely neutral for the rest of households. First, the highest income groups are the clear beneficiaries: households making between roughly $450,000 and $1,000,000 will see their income tax rates fall by nearly 5%, by far the largest decrease planned. And, obviously, it is upper-income households that benefit from repealing the estate tax. Meanwhile, the upper middle class takes on the brunt of the burden of "reform": households making between $260,000 and $423,000 will see far fewer benefits under the proposed legislation. First, they are the only income bracket that will see a tax increase, from 33% to 35%. Second, they will not necessarily have the wherewithal to reclassify their income as pass-through business income. Third, many of the itemized deductions that will be eliminated will make a real difference in their filings. Fourth, they were the most likely to purchase homes between $500,000 and $1,000,000, which will no longer be eligible for interest-rate deduction. Fifth, the repeal of the estate tax will make less of a difference for this income group. Sixth, if they are domiciled in high-tax rate states and municipalities, these households will now be limited to how much they can deduct from federal taxes.4 Overall, the proposed tax cut plan fits general Republican orthodoxy.5 It tries to stimulate growth by favoring corporations and the wealthy. For economic growth, the plan is bullish in the short term. Particularly bullish is the ability of corporations to fully deduct the amount of business investment for the next five years. This provision could significantly increase investment in the short term, especially given the implicit threat that the opportunity will expire in 2022.6 Will the plan fail? It could, if enough Republican voters turn against it. The latest polling from Pew research - albeit from April of this year - shows that Americans no longer think that they pay too much in taxes (Chart 2). On the other hand, Republican and Republican-leaning voters do have a problem with the complexity of the tax code (Chart 3), and the proposed plan simplifies taxes for some middle-income households by doubling the standard deduction and repealing the AMT. The White House has already begun stressing this feature given that it polls well with voters. Chart 2American Voters Think Taxes Are Fair... Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Chart 3...But Republican Voters Think They Are Too Complex Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Polling suggests that President Trump remains relatively popular with Republican voters despite his dismal polling with the general public (Chart 4). He is polling only slightly below the average of previous Republican presidents at this point in his term in office. As long as Trump remains more popular with Republican voters than his Republican peers in Congress, we think that he will be able to force the tax plan through both the Senate and the House. In fact, we could even see some Democrats in the Senate supporting these tax cuts. Table 2 lists the 2018 Senate races to watch, particularly the vulnerable Democrats campaigning in red states that President Trump carried in 2016. Senators Nelson (D - Florida), Donnelly (D - Indiana), McCaskill (D - Missouri), Tester (D - Montana), Heitkamp (D - North Dakota), Brown (D - Ohio), and Baldwin (D - Wisconsin) are especially vulnerable. That makes seven potential votes for the Trump tax cut, potentially enough "slack" for the Republicans in the Senate to lose one or two votes on the tax bill. Chart 4Trump Remains Popular With GOP Voters Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Table 22018 Senate Races To Watch Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Tax Cuts Are Here... So Much For Populism! Is it even worthwhile to contemplate a scenario in which Republicans pass the tax cuts with Democrat support in the Senate? The short answer is yes. The 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, the first of two Bush-era tax cuts, passed with 58 votes in favor, including 12 Democrats. Of the 12 that voted with Republicans, only three were from blue states, while the other nine were from red states that President Bush had carried in 2000. The 2003 tax-cut bill, Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, also passed with Democratic support with only 51 votes in favor. Senators Bayh (D - Indiana), Miller (D - Georgia), and Nelson (D - Nebraska) all crossed the aisle. Bayh was facing reelection in 2004, as was Nelson in 2006, in their respective red states. Bottom Line: The proposed tax cuts will benefit corporations and the upper-income Americans. The Senate may make some symbolic changes to the proposal to make it more palatable to the median American - given that senators have to capture the median voter in their state to win reelection. For example, the estate tax repeal may be scrapped and rules on deducting state and local taxes may be modified. Regardless of how the horse-trading goes, we believe that the U.S. economy will receive a modest stimulus in the form of a roughly $1.5 trillion tax cut (over ten years). Given that the U.S. economy is at full employment and firing on all cylinders, the proposed tax cuts should be marginally bullish for growth and inflation (Chart 5). Chart 5Regardless Of Tax Cuts, U.S. Economy Is Ripped Regardless Of Tax Cuts, U.S. Economy Is Ripped Regardless Of Tax Cuts, U.S. Economy Is Ripped What Do The Tax Cuts Tell Us About President Trump? We are big believers in the theory of "revealed preferences." While this concept was formally applied by economist Paul Samuelson to consumer behavior, we like to apply it to policymakers. The idea is to ignore the rhetoric and focus on what patterns of behavior reveal about genuine preferences. Politicians talk a lot, particularly during an election campaign. As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump was a clear populist candidate. He only revealed his tax reform plan in late September 2015 and then rarely mentioned it on the campaign trail. While his tax cut proposal languished on the campaign website, Trump focused on rallying voters around a combination of populist promises. These were, in no particular order, to build the border wall (and make Mexico pay for it), to rebuild American infrastructure, to repeal Obamacare, to destroy the Islamic State terrorist movement while disengaging the U.S. from global affairs, and to punish the unfair practices of trade partners like China and Mexico. Fast forward 12 months and we are now half-way to the 2018 mid-term election, with the Republicans controlling all three branches of government, and yet the only electoral promise that President Trump is even close to achieving is the just-announced tax cut.7 The revealed preference of the Trump administration, at least at this point, is Republican orthodoxy. Trump is a pro-growth, pro-business, anti-tax, anti-spending, red-blooded Republican. He has eschewed trade conflict with China, ignored infrastructure proposals, largely toed-the-line of foreign policy orthodoxy, and left hedge fund managers - a punching bag on the campaign trail - alone.8 To put it bluntly, Trump's behavior thus far suggests that he is a pluto-populist. A pluto-populist is someone who rules on the behalf of a plutocracy - an oligarchy controlled by the wealthiest citizens - but whose main tactic is to rally the plebeians (the common people) through populist policies. The House's draft tax plan provides sweeping gains for the wealthiest. It also preserves or expands some benefits for the poorest groups, so as to make it politically achievable. The upper middle class - the professional class - stands to suffer the most under the new tax scheme. If this analysis is correct, what does it reveal about President Trump's strategy going forward? Anti-globalization rhetoric is just talk: The fourth round of NAFTA renegotiations ended with a bang: the U.S. delivered four new demands, two of which both Ottawa and Mexico City have identified as non-starters.9 However, in the pluto-populist scenario, even if NAFTA is ultimately abrogated, the Trump administration will ensure that the critical components are preserved in bilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico. While those agreements are negotiated, the Trump Administration will not raise tariffs to the maximum, "bounded," level as allowed by the WTO. Meanwhile, trade relations with China may still sour in 2018, but they will not produce a trade war. Social unrest could increase: As we argued in a recent Special Report, the American structural context is ripe for more social unrest due to "elite overproduction."10 Trump's policies are likely to feed this condition. Meanwhile, his rhetoric and symbolic gestures will fuel the flames of division in order to play to his base, and force Democrats to argue about how to respond. This would be the populist part of pluto-populism. Hawkish foreign policy: With most of his domestic policies stymied, President Trump will pivot to the foreign theatre. We would particularly watch the growing tensions in the Middle East between Saudi Arabia and Iran, which could soon involve Lebanon.11 President Trump has also decertified the Iran nuclear deal, setting the stage for Congress to decide whether it will impose new sanctions and thus abrogate the deal. Plus, there is always North Korea. Bottom Line: Essentially, President Trump's strategy will be to pass pro-business, pro-market economic policies while distracting his largely anti-business, anti-market voters through ancillary issues. Investment Implications On the one hand, this analysis implies a very bullish policy mix as the Trump administration will not do anything domestically that hurts the ongoing bull market. On the other hand, some of those "ancillary" issues could flare up and impact the market, particularly if they involve a ratcheting up of tensions with Iran and North Korea. Chart 6No Debate: There Is No##BR##Trickle-Down From Tax Cuts No Debate: There Is No Trickle-Down From Tax Cuts No Debate: There Is No Trickle-Down From Tax Cuts The one risk that we remain concerned about is protectionism. We expected Trump to be more disruptive this year, and the above analysis suggests that protectionism, too, is merely hot air. However, Trump has only been in office for ten months. The absence of trade tensions with China may be a function of ongoing negotiations with North Korea: the U.S. needs China's cooperation in order to force North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un to the table. Ironically, then, a resolution of North Korean tensions could increase America's maneuvering vis-à-vis China, allowing Trump to become a lot more protectionist in 2018.12 Moreover, investors may be overemphasizing headline trade negotiations such as NAFTA or the China talks. The Trump administration may pursue protectionist aims through selective tariffs, such as countervailing and anti-dumping duties, in selective fashion. In other words, investors should pay attention to individual tariff decisions rather than overall negotiations.13 As for his electoral base, as long as President Trump can continue to ensure that they are focused on social disputes at home and hawkish rhetoric abroad, they may not notice the lack of movement on domestic promises. In particular, we have a high-conviction view that the just-proposed tax cuts will do nothing to curb income inequality in the U.S., and will likely deepen it, as previous such GOP-efforts did (Chart 6). Will this hurt President Trump in his 2020 reelection bid? We doubt it. But it does portend still greater socio-economic tensions and political populism in the long run. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 The promise was made in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece that then-candidate Trump penned on November 9, 2015. Please see Donald J. Trump, "Ending China's Currency Manipulation," dated November 9, 2015, available at wsj.com. 2 The top marginal tax rate of 39.6% is currently applied to single individuals making more than $418,401, a head of household making more than $444,501, and married couples, filing jointly, making more than $470,701. Technically, according to the current draft bill, the top tax rate in the House plan is supposedly about 45.6% between $1-$1.2 million, after which it falls back to 39.6%. A quirk in the proposal holds that once a filer hits $1 million of income, the IRS starts clawing back the $12,000 that the filer saved from having a 12% tax rate on his first $90,000 of income instead of a 25% tax rate. That clawback comes in the form of 6% surtax on income above $1 million. The $12,000 is completely reclaimed once the filer hits $1.2 million. By extension, everyone who makes over $1.2 million has had to pay that extra $12,000 in taxes. 3 For more on how the reconciliation process works, and how it will affect the timeline, 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. 4 From a political perspective, the GOP may have simply made a bet that high-tax-rate, blue-state households making $260,000-to-$430,000 do not vote Republican. 5 The congressional budget resolution that sets out the reconciliation instructions for these tax cuts also includes draconian spending cuts, which would presumably help balance the books. Although none of those cuts will pass Congress, they reveal the traditional preference of the Republican party: cut taxes, pay for the cuts by means of a smaller government delivering fewer services. 6 And perhaps this investment boost will come just in time to help re-elect Trump in 2020! 7 Although he deserves some credit for bringing to conclusion the pre-existing fight against the Islamic State. 8 In fact, the House tax bill leaves the "carried interest" tax break in the code. 9 For more on NAFTA, please see our upcoming Special Report with BCA's Global Investment Strategy, to be published on November 10. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Populism Blues: How And Why Social Instability Is Coming To America," dated June 9, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Lebanese Sunni Prime Minister Saad Harriri recently resigned while visiting Saudi Arabia, claiming that he feared for his life due to Iranian influence in Lebanon; Saudi Arabia itself is engaged in deep political struggle. 12 Indeed, in our original forecast of Trump's trade policy, we surmised that 2017 would largely be a year of negotiations, while 2018 would see the real fireworks. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 An important such decision looms by January 12, 2018, which is the deadline by which President Trump must decide whether to impose "safeguard" tariffs on imports of solar panels and washing machines.

Highlights Powell's nomination will not change the Fed's gradual rate hike path, but open Board seats are a worry. Household debt growth is slower than usual, but auto debt levels are a concern. Stocks will beat bonds and oil will rise after EPS growth peaks next year. Funding liquidity should remain adequate as the Fed unwinds its balance sheet. Feature Last week was an extraordinarily busy week for U.S. financial markets, but BCA's view on the economy, the Fed and asset class returns remains the same. President Trump named Jerome Powell to replace Janet Yellen as Fed Chair and the GOP released additional details of their tax plan. The October readings on employment, manufacturing, and wage growth fell short of expectations. However, data on consumer confidence, non-manufacturing ISM and vehicle sales for October exceeded expectations. The Q3 Employment Cost Index will give Fed policymakers confidence that the Phillips curve is not dead, but the persistent weakness in unit labor costs (the Q3 data was released last week) will concern the FOMC. The Fed remains on track to raise rates by 0.25% in December and three more times in 2018, matching their dot plot. While average hourly earnings disappointed in October, the impacts of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma make the data difficult to interpret. Nonetheless, the year-over-year growth in the 3-month moving average of average hourly earnings was 2.6% in October, up from 2.5% in July, before Harvey made landfall in Texas. Moreover, real GDP is growing faster than the economy's long term potential (1.8% per the Fed), and at 4.1%, the unemployment rate is well below the Fed's measure of full employment (4.6%) (Chart 1). Jerome Powell will continue to pursue the gradual rate hikes preferred by his predecessor. However, Powell is the first Fed Chair since G. William Miller (1978-79) to not have a PhD in economics. He is not known as a policy hawk or a dove, and this lack of conviction in his own policy suggests that he will rely on more on his Board colleagues for direction than recent chairs. The potential power shift from the chair to the committee may make FOMC communications more difficult to interpret. After Yellen departs the Fed early next year, the seven-member board will be down to just four, providing Trump the opportunity to further shape monetary policy. Table 1 provides Powell's comments on key aspects of the economy, monetary and regulatory policy. Chart 1Labor Market Conditions Tightening##BR##And Support More Rate Hikes Labor Market Conditions Tightening And Support More Rate Hikes Labor Market Conditions Tightening And Support More Rate Hikes Table 1Powell On Monetary Policy, The Economy And Regulation Powell's In Power Powell's In Power BCA expects that Powell, a Republican, will be confirmed by the Senate and preside over the FOMC meeting in March 2018. Powell already sits on the Fed Board. In 2012 President Obama appointed Powell to the Fed to fill an unexpired term. The Senate voted 74-21 to confirm. Two years later, Powell was confirmed 67-21 for a full term (14 years) as a governor. Fifty-one votes are required for confirmation. BCA's Chief Economist, Martin Barnes, wrote about the potential for change at Federal Reserve Board earlier this year.1 The bottom line is that looming changes in the composition of the Fed's Board of Governors are important, but we doubt that the overall integrity of the Fed will be seriously compromised by bad appointments. However, at this stage, it is futile to guess who the Administration will choose. Regardless of who controls the Fed, there always will be the potential for errors because their economic models (along with everybody else's) are imprecise, data can be unreliable, and the policy tools are crude. Some uptick in inflation is likely and would even be desirable, but it will not be allowed to get out of control. The bigger uncertainty is what will happen after the next economic downturn because even the most hawkish policymakers may be forced to embrace inflationary policies that will make the past cycle's actions pale by comparison. Subprime Auto Sector Signals Household deleveraging has ended, but consumers are reticent to take on new debt despite an improving labor market and record household net worth. Household debt is growing at under 2% a year, less than half the pre-crisis pace. Moreover, household debt relative to disposable income remains well below a decade ago, but the household indebtedness profile is not uniform. While the debt-to-disposable income ratio of mortgage and revolving consumer credit has moved lower, the ratio of non-revolving credit (which includes both auto and student loan debt) has moved up since 2010 and surpassed the 15.8% pre-crisis peak in 2012 (Chart 2). Chart 2Household Debt By Sector Household Debt By Sector Household Debt By Sector In 2016, 34% of U.S. families had vehicle loans, up from a low of 30% in 2010. In 2004-2007, more than one-third of U.S. families carried auto debt (Chart 3). The median value of households' auto loans is $13,000 (in 2016 dollars), up from $11,000 in 2010, but still below the 2004-2007 peak of $14,000 (Chart 4). However, delinquency rates are on the rise in those areas where consumers have been adding debt (credit cards, auto loans and student loans) (Chart 5). Chart 3Rise In % Of Families With Auto Loan Debt... Rise In % Of Families With Auto Loan Debt... Rise In % Of Families With Auto Loan Debt... Chart 4...But Auto Debt Levels Are Manageable ...But Auto Debt Levels Are Manageable ...But Auto Debt Levels Are Manageable In particular, default rates in auto and student loans are above their mid-2000s readings, but are below their 2010-2012 zenith. Lending standards for vehicle loans were easy at the start of the decade, became less so recently and then turned restrictive in mid-2016. In the mid-2000s, borrowing guidelines for student loans and credit cards (data on bank lending standards for auto loans began in 2011) were easy in 2004-2007. Banks are taking a cautious approach to consumer lending in this cycle. The gradual tightening of lending criteria between 2010 and 2016 led to a drop in the average FICO score for new auto loans. However, as standards tightened in 2016 and into the first quarter of 2017, the average FICO escalated. FICO scores for new vehicle loans moved sharply lower in Q2; it may be a new trend or perhaps a blip in the data. Even with the latest dip, the FICO for new auto loans (698) is well above the 675-685 range that prevailed in 2004-2006 (Chart 6, bottom panel). Chart 5Consumer Loan Metrics Consumer Loan Metrics Consumer Loan Metrics Chart 6ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview ABS Market Overview Subprime auto loans as a percentage of all auto loans remain well below pre-crisis levels and should limit a wave of subprime auto defaults in the years ahead. Only 22% of the $148 billion in new vehicle loans recorded in Q2 2017 were issued to borrowers with FICO scores below 620. The latest reading is in the middle of the range that has been in effect since 2010 (18-25%). Between 2004 and 2007, the share of auto loans issued to subprime borrowers was as high as 32% in 2006 and averaged 28%. The FOMC has elevated financial stability in its recent deliberations2 and is watching for imbalances. The September 20-21 FOMC meeting minutes noted that "Subprime auto loan balances have declined so far this year, partly reflecting the tighter lending standards, and the average credit score of all borrowers who obtained an auto loan in the second quarter remained near the upper end of its range of the past few years." We expect the Fed to remain vigilant on this issue. Bottom Line: Household debt ratios are well below the pre-2007 peak, but consumers are piling on more auto debt. While delinquency rates for auto debt are rising, banks are tightening lending requirements and have not extended auto credit to subprime borrowers outside of historical norms. If household incomes, the stock market and housing prices rise, and banks and regulators remain vigilant, then the subprime auto sector would not pose a systemic risk to the U.S. economy or financial system.3 BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy service prefers Aaa-rated credit card ABS over Aaa-rated auto loan ABS (Chart 6). Investment Direction After EPS Peak Chart 7Strong EPS Growth Ahead,##BR##Will Start To Slow Soon Strong EPS Growth Ahead, Will Start To Slow Soon Strong EPS Growth Ahead, Will Start To Slow Soon The BCA earnings model shows that S&P 500 EPS growth is peaking and should slow through 2018 toward a level commensurate with 3½-4% nominal GDP growth (Chart 7). Accordingly, BCA believes that the earnings backdrop will remain a tailwind for the equity market, albeit a smaller force. This forecast excludes any positive effects on growth from tax cuts that would encourage EPS and the S&P 500 index in the short term, although this would also bring forward Fed rate hikes. We will provide an update on the Q3 earnings reporting season in next week's report. Investors are questioning what will happen to risk assets after earnings growth peaks, but before it slips below zero (Table 2). BCA has identified seven episodes between 1973 and 2015 when S&P 500 EPS growth reached a top and subsequently dipped below zero. Four of the seven periods (1973-75, 1976-80, 1988-1991, and 1993-2001) partially overlapped with recessions. The U.S. economy was in recession during the entire 1973-75 period but the recession occurred at or near the end in the other three occurrences. U.S. stocks, Treasuries and oil behave consistently during these periods. The performance of gold, the dollar, small caps (relative to large) and high yield (relative to Treasuries) is not consistent, and investment-grade corporate debt underperformed Treasuries in six of the seven intervals. On average, stocks beat bonds by 3,000 bps after earnings decelerate, but before they turn negative. Oil (+8,310 basis points) and gold (+6,950 bps) are the standouts; both commodities beat stocks) as earnings growth fades. Small caps barely outperform large, and the dollar, on average, is flat across all seven periods. Investment-grade corporate debt underperforms Treasuries by an average of 50 bps during these episodes. Table 2U.S. Asset Class Performance As EPS Growth Slows Powell's In Power Powell's In Power The three occasions when EPS growth crested and then slowed to zero, but the economy avoided a recession, were in the mid-1980s, the mid-2000s and the early part of the current decade. These mid-cycle slowdowns were triggered by Fed rate hikes in the mid-1990s and mid-2000s; in the early 2010s, there were similar fears of a rate increase, coupled with a stronger dollar and a collapse in oil prices. The performance of risk assets during these mid-cycle earnings corrections was similar to the entire sample, although the magnitude of the asset class performances shifted. Oil (+12,560 bps) and gold (+8,400 bps) were standouts; equity and Treasury prices both rose, but equities beat Treasuries by nearly 10,000 bps, easily surpassing the 3,000 bps outperformance in all periods. Small caps underperformed large caps and the dollar climbed (Chart 8). Chart 8U.S. Asset Class Performance As EPS Growth Slows U.S. Asset Class Performance As EPS Growth Slows U.S. Asset Class Performance As EPS Growth Slows Bottom Line: S&P 500 earnings growth will peak in 2018. Stocks will outperform bonds as profit growth slows, which matches BCA's stance for the next 12 months. Gold and oil have both outpaced equities as earnings abate; this supports BCA's bullish position and above-consensus view of oil for 2018. BCA's modestly bullish stance on the dollar in the next 12-18 months aligns with the historical achievements of the dollar as earnings moderate, but BCA's bullish view on small caps runs counter to history after EPS growth crests. The Great Balance Sheet Unwind 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 9 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. In an October 2017 Special Report,4 the Bank Credit Analyst outlines how the pending shrinkage of the Fed's balance sheet could affect overall liquidity conditions. 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 and/or constrained relative to the pre-Lehman years. 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. 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. The unwind should not affect transactions liquidity or balance sheet liquidity. It should not affect the broad monetary aggregates either. Chart 10 presents our forecast for how quickly the Fed's balance sheet will contract. Following the September 19-20 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 Treasuries 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 Treasuries and $20 billion per month for MBS. Chart 9G4 Central Bank Balance Sheets G4 Central Bank Balance Sheets G4 Central Bank Balance Sheets Chart 10Fed Balance Sheet Fed Balance Sheet Fed 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.5 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). 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. 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. 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. The bond market's reaction will be far more important than balance sheet shrinkage. Empirical estimates suggest that the Fed's shedding of Treasuries 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; 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. 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. 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. However, it will be a whole different story if inflation lurches higher. 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. John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Mark McClellan, Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst markm@bcaresearch.com Jizel Georges, Senior Analyst jizelg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Should You Fear Looming Changes At The Federal Reserve?", September 21, 2017. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Fed's Third Mandate," July 24, 2017. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy Portfolio Allocation Summary, "Return Of The Trump Trade," October 3, 2017. Available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Liquidity And The Great Balance Sheet Unwind," In the October Monthly Report. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 5 William C. Dudley, "The U.S. Economic Outlook and the Implications for Monetary Policy," Federal Reserve Bank of New York (September 07, 2017).

Highlights Jerome Powell takes the helm of the Federal Reserve at a time when both sides of the Fed's dual mandate are in conflict. The lagging nature of inflation explains why it has failed to rise even though the unemployment rate has fallen below NAIRU. U.S. growth should surprise on the upside over the coming quarters, with or without the passage of tax legislation. This should enable the Fed to raise rates four times by end-2018, which should give the dollar a boost. Higher oil prices will prop up the Canadian dollar. Brexit uncertainty will continue to weigh on the U.K. economy, but the pound has already priced in much of the bad news. Feature Chart 1The Dual Mandate Headache The Dual Mandate Headache The Dual Mandate Headache Jay Powell: You're Hired! Jerome Powell takes the helm of the Federal Reserve at a pivotal time. Under Janet Yellen's leadership, the Fed began running down its balance sheet. For all intents and purposes, that part of the normalization process has been put on autopilot. In contrast, the question of how much higher interest rates need to go remains up in the air. In normal times, the Fed would be guided by its dual mandate, which calls for maximum sustainable employment and low inflation. The Fed's predicament is that the two sides of this mandate are currently in conflict: While the unemployment rate has fallen more than the FOMC anticipated at the start of the year and is below the Fed's estimate of full employment, inflation has dipped further below the Fed's 2% target (Chart 1). Why Has Inflation Been So Low? There are four competing explanations for why inflation remains stubbornly low. The first is that the headline unemployment rate understates the true amount of labor market slack. There was considerable merit to this argument a few years ago, but it seems less plausible today. While some auxiliary measures of slack, such as involuntary part-time employment and the share of the working-age population that is out of the labor force but wants a job, are still elevated relative to pre-recession levels, others such as the job openings rate and household perceptions of job availability have reached levels consistent with an overheated economy (Table 1). Taken together, the U.S. labor market appears to be close to full employment. Table 1Comparing Current Labor Market Slack With Past Cycles Powell's Predicament Powell's Predicament The second explanation for why higher inflation has failed to materialize accepts the centrality of the unemployment rate as an accurate summary measure of labor market slack, but posits that NAIRU - the so-called Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment - is lower than widely believed. NAIRU cannot be observed directly, so in principal this argument could be true. That said, it is worth noting that official estimates of NAIRU are already well below their long-term average (Chart 2). While certain factors such as the aging of the workforce have reduced NAIRU - older people tend to change jobs less frequently, which reduces frictional unemployment - other factors have likely raised it. These include automation, globalization, and the opioid crisis, all of which have probably led to higher structural unemployment. The third explanation for why inflation has failed to rise in the face of falling unemployment is that the Phillips curve has broken down. Whether they realize it or not, people who make this argument are implicitly assuming that NAIRU no longer matters - that central banks can drive the unemployment rate down as far as they wish and not worry about runaway inflation. If true, this would seemingly revoke the law of supply and demand because it would imply that an economy can stay perpetually overheated without wages or prices ever having to rise. Alas, no such free lunch exists. Chart 3 shows that the relationship between wage growth and unemployment remains intact. The so-called "wage-Phillips curve" tends to steepen sharply once unemployment falls below 5%. The recent acceleration in average hourly wages, median weekly earnings, and the Employment Cost Index all suggest that we have reached the steep part of the Phillips curve (Chart 4). Chart 2NAIRU Estimates Are Historically Low NAIRU Estimates Are Historically Low NAIRU Estimates Are Historically Low Chart 3U.S. Economy Has Moved Into ##br##The 'Steep' Part Of The Phillips Curve Powell's Predicament Powell's Predicament Chart 4U.S. Wage Growth Is Accelerating U.S. Wage Growth Is Accelerating U.S. Wage Growth Is Accelerating Higher wage growth will push up real household disposable income, leading to more consumer spending. With the output gap now effectively closed, firms will find themselves running into more supply-side constraints, forcing them to raise prices. Just as in the past, "this time is different" explanations for why inflation will stay depressed, such as the overhyped "Amazon effect," will be proven wrong.1 This leads us to the fourth - and in our view, most cogent - explanation for why inflation has been low, which is that the Phillips curve has simply been dormant. History suggests that inflation is a highly lagging indicator (Chart 5). A variety of technical factors - ranging from a steep drop in cell phone data charges to a dip in prescription drug prices - have depressed inflation this year. As these wear off, inflation will slowly pick up. The recent increase in the ISM prices-paid component, along with producer price indices around the world, suggest that both domestic and external inflationary pressures are intensifying. Consistent with this, the NY Fed's "underlying inflation gauge" has reached an 11-year high of 2.8% (Chart 6). Chart 5Inflation Is A Lagging Indicator Powell's Predicament Powell's Predicament Chart 6Fed Sees Underlying Inflation Gathering Steam Fed Sees Underlying Inflation Gathering Steam Fed Sees Underlying Inflation Gathering Steam The Cost Of Waiting Admittedly, there is a lot of uncertainty about the degree to which inflation will accelerate over the next few years. With that in mind, many commentators have argued for a go-slow approach. "Wait to see the whites of inflation's eyes" as Larry Summers has colorfully stated. This perspective is not unreasonable, but we think most FOMC members will ultimately reject it. This is mainly because inflation is a highly lagging indicator. By the time it is obvious that inflation is getting out of hand, it is often too late to react. The unemployment rate is already half a percentage point below the Fed's estimate of NAIRU. If the labor market continues to firm up, the Fed will eventually have no choice but to tighten monetary policy by enough to bring the unemployment rate back up to NAIRU. This means that rates may have to rise above their neutral level for a considerable period of time. Such an outcome could lead to a significant re-rating of risk asset prices. It would also damage the economy. The U.S. has never avoided a recession in the post-war period whenever the three-month average level of the unemployment rate has risen by more than 0.3 percentage points (Chart 7). Chart 7What Goes Down Must Come Up? What Goes Down Must Come Up? What Goes Down Must Come Up? Already Behind The Curve The Fed has arguably already fallen behind the curve in normalizing monetary policy. As our models predicted, the easing in U.S. financial conditions earlier this year is helping to turbocharge growth (Chart 8). Real GDP rose by 3.0% in the third quarter. Growth would have been even higher had residential investment not fallen by 6% in the wake of the hurricanes. The Atlanta Fed's GDPNow model is pointing to growth of 4.5% in Q4. Chart 8U.S.: Easier Financial Conditions Are Boosting Growth U.S.: Easier Financial Conditions Are Boosting Growth U.S.: Easier Financial Conditions Are Boosting Growth Core capital goods orders are increasing at a solid pace. The Conference Board's index of consumer confidence rose to a 17-year high in October. Initial jobless claims have fallen to a four-decade low. Citi's economic surprise index has spiked into positive territory and Goldman's is nearing record highs (Chart 9). Given the recent acceleration in growth, the unemployment rate is likely to fall to 3.5% by the end of next year - well below the Fed's current end-2018 projection of 4.1%. If Congress delivers on its pledge to reduce corporate and personal income taxes, this would represent a further modest upward surprise to near-term growth prospects. Fiscal policy remains a wildcard. The "Tax Cut and Jobs Act" released by the House of Representatives yesterday seeks to reduce taxes by about $1.5 trillion over the next ten years, with two-thirds of that amount consisting of lower business taxes (Table 2). Negotiations with the Senate are likely to result in a scaling back of the magnitude of the cuts and a shifting of more of the benefits towards middle-class earners. Among other things, this probably means the proposed phase-out of the estate tax will be scrapped. Most empirical estimates suggest that the growth benefits from the legislation will be modest. Nevertheless, if taxes are cut early next year, as we think is likely, this will put a greater impetus for the Fed to raise rates. Chart 9U.S. Economy Surprising On The Upside U.S. Economy Surprising On The Upside U.S. Economy Surprising On The Upside Table 2U.S.: How Much Will The Tax Plan Cost? Powell's Predicament Powell's Predicament Aging Bull Stocks are likely to weather the impact of Fed hikes as long as rates are rising in an environment of stronger GDP growth. Chart 10 shows that equities tend to do well when the ISM manufacturing index is elevated. This leads us to think the cyclical bull market in stocks will continue for the next 12 months. Chart 10Stocks Fare Well When The ISM Is Strong Stocks Fare Well When The ISM Is Strong Stocks Fare Well When The ISM Is Strong Once inflation begins to rise in earnest in 2019, equities will buckle. Given that the United States accounts for over half of global stock market capitalization, a selloff in the U.S. will be quickly transmitted to the rest of the world. Short-term oriented investors should remain overweight global equities for now, but look to turn more defensive late next year. Long-term investors should consider paring back exposure already. U.S. Dollar: Stronger For Now, Weaker in 2019 Once the U.S. falls into a recession in late 2019 and the Fed starts cutting rates, the dollar will crumble. But until then, the odds are that the greenback strengthens. Our model suggests that the dollar is undervalued against the euro based on today's level of spreads (Chart 11). Hence, even if spreads remain unchanged, we would expect the dollar to strengthen somewhat. Keep in mind that 10-year German bunds yield nearly two percentage points less than U.S. Treasurys. The euro would have to strengthen to 1.42 against the dollar over the next ten years just to compensate for the lower interest rates that bunds offer. Granted, if spreads between Treasurys and bunds were to narrow significantly, the euro would appreciate. Such an outcome is probable in 2019, by which time investors will begin fretting about a looming U.S. recession and pricing in Fed rate cuts. However, it is not likely to occur over the next 12 months, given the prospect that U.S. growth will accelerate over this period. Chart 12 shows the market's expectation of where one-month OIS rates will be in the U.S. and euro area over the next ten years. The one-month transatlantic rate spread currently stands at 151 basis points and is expected to peak in February 2019 at 210 basis points. It then declines gradually, falling to 164 basis points in five years and 107 basis points in ten years. Chart 11Dollar Is Undervalued Based On Current Spreads Dollar Is Undervalued Based On Current Spreads Dollar Is Undervalued Based On Current Spreads Chart 12Rates Will Diverge More In 2018 Than Is Priced In Rates Will Diverge More In 2018 Than Is Priced In Rates Will Diverge More In 2018 Than Is Priced In Relative to current market expectations, the interest rate spread one-year out is likely to widen further over the coming months. The market is currently pricing in 54 basis points of Fed rate hikes between now and end-2018, well below the "dot" forecast of 100 basis points. For his part, Mario Draghi made it clear last week that the ECB's bond buying program will continue until September 2018, and that the central bank will not raise rates until "well past the horizon of our asset purchases." Chart 13The Euro Has Overshot Interest Rate Spreads The Euro Has Overshot Interest Rate Spreads The Euro Has Overshot Interest Rate Spreads There is less scope for spreads to widen if one looks at expected interest rates more than one year into the future. However, we don't see much room for spread compression in the near term, so long as U.S. growth continues to surprise on the upside. Long-term inflation expectations are about 55 basis points lower in the euro area than they are in the U.S. As such, the expected spread in real short-term rates ten years out stands at about 50 basis points (Chart 13). This is not much different from Laubach and Williams' estimate of the gap in the real neutral rate between the U.S. and the euro area. Moreover, as we noted two weeks ago, the actual gap in expected interest rates should be larger than what is implied by neutral rate estimates since unemployment is likely to be above NAIRU more often in the euro area than in the United States.2 On balance, we remain comfortable with our year-end target for EUR/USD of 1.15 and see further upside for the dollar against the euro in 2018. Bank Of Japan: Nowhere Near The Exit Door The yen should also continue to trade down against the greenback. Governor Kuroda dismissed speculation that the BoJ is considering dialing back monetary accommodation during his press conference following this week's Monetary Policy Meeting. The BoJ lowered its inflation outlook for both FY2017 and FY2018, but maintained its projection of reaching its 2% inflation target in FY2019. In perhaps a sign of the times, newly selected board member Goushi Kataoka cast a dissenting vote, arguing that monetary policy should be even more accommodative. Kataoka suggested that the BoJ consider extending its yield curve targeting regime to government bonds with maturities of up to 15 years. Currently, the government seeks to cap yields for maturities of up to ten years. As bond yields elsewhere in the world drift higher, JGBs will become increasingly unattractive. This will weigh on the yen. CAD: Fade The Recent Weakness The Canadian dollar has been on the back foot lately. Last week Governor Poloz mentioned that "a lot of things have to come together" for the Bank of Canada to raise rates in December. This week brought news that the economy shrank by 0.1% in August due to a decline in manufacturing output. The market has gone from fully pricing in a hike in December to only assigning a one-in-five chance that rates will rise. Worries that the Trump administration will pull out of NAFTA have also weighed on rate expectations. Still, one should keep things in perspective. Real GDP is up 3.5% year-over-year - well in excess of the BoC's estimate of trend growth - while the output gap has been fully closed. Canadian GDP growth has historically been closely correlated with U.S. growth, so it would be very surprising if Canada's economy were to flounder just as America's is gaining steam (Chart 14). Chart 14Canada Remains Linked To The U.S. Canadian And U.S. Growth Are Correlated Canada Remains Linked To The U.S. Canadian And U.S. Growth Are Correlated Canada Remains Linked To The U.S. Canadian And U.S. Growth Are Correlated Chart 15The Pound Is Cheap Powell's Predicament Powell's Predicament And while the risk of a NAFTA pullout is real, most of Trump's wrath has been focused on Mexico. If NAFTA were to fall apart, Canada would still be covered by preexisting Canada-U.S. trade agreements. We will discuss this and other trade-related issues in a Special Report to be published next week. Perhaps most critically for the loonie, crude prices remain in an uptrend. BCA's energy strategists now see Brent averaging $65.2/bbl and WTI averaging $62.9/bbl in 2018, which is $6.2/bbl and $8.9/bbl, respectively, above current market expectations. Stick with it. Bank Of England Delivers A Dovish Hike In a split 7-to-2 decision, the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee voted to raise rates by 25 basis points for the first time in ten years yesterday. In a nod to the concerns that some board members had about raising rates, the MPC noted that "any future increases in the Bank Rate would be expected to be at a gradual pace and to a limited extent." The Committee also removed language suggesting that future rate hikes would have to be in excess of what the market has been pricing in. The MPC's reluctance to sound hawkish is understandable. While the unemployment rate has fallen to a four-decade low, growth has lagged behind the rest of Europe. Consumer confidence has weakened and the CBI retailers survey suggests that British households are tightening their purse strings. House prices in London have fallen 7% since the U.K. government started the formal process of Brexit seven months ago. Inflation is running at 3%, but this mainly reflects the lagged effects from the depreciation in the currency. Still, with the market pricing in only two additional hikes through to mid-2020, it is doubtful that rate expectations will fall much from current levels. There is also a reasonably high probability that Brexit will not occur. At some point over the next few years, the U.K. government will call a new referendum to affirm whatever deal it reaches with the EU. Given that the contours of the deal will be less favorable than what many pro-Brexit voters had been promised, it is likely that a majority of the populace will decide that life inside the EU is better after all. As such, the odds are good that the pound - which is very cheap based on our valuation measures - will strengthen over the long haul (Chart 15). Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report, "Did Amazon Kill The Phillips Curve?" dated September 1, 2017 and Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Phillips Curve Dead Or Dormant?" dated September 22, 2017. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China, The Fed, And The Transatlantic Interest Rate Spread," dated October 20, 2017. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The three deflationary anchors of the global economy have abated: The U.S. private sector deleveraging is over, the euro area economy is escaping its post crisis hangover, and the destruction of excess capacity in China is advanced. This means that global central banks are in a better position than at any point this cycle to normalize policy, pointing to higher real rates. As a result, gold prices will suffer significant downside. The populist wave in New Zealand is based on inequalities and is here to stay. This will hurt the long-term outlook for the Kiwi. However, short-term NZD has upside, especially against the AUD. The BoE hiked rates, but upside surprises to policy is unlikely now. The pound remains at risk from Brexit negotiations. Feature Chart I-1Gold Is Setting Up For A Big Move Gold Is Setting Up For A Big Move Gold Is Setting Up For A Big Move Gold is at an interesting juncture. Gold prices, once adjusted for the trend in the U.S. dollar, have been forming a giant tapering wedge since 2011 (Chart I-1). This type of chart formation does not necessarily get resolved by an up-move, nor does it indicate a clear bearish pattern either. Instead, it points toward a potential big move in either direction. For investors, the key to assess whether this wedge will be resolved with a rally or a rout is the trend in global monetary conditions and real rates. In our view, the global economic improvement witnessed in 2017 suggests the world needs less accommodation than at any point since the onset of the great financial crisis. Thus, global accommodation will continue to recede, global real rates will rise and gold will suffer. The Exit Of The Great Deflationary Forces Since the financial crisis, in order to generate any modicum of growth, global monetary authorities have been forced to maintain an incredible degree of monetary accommodation in the global financial system. Central banks' balance sheets have expanded massively, with the Federal Reserve, the European Central Bank, the Bank of Japan, the Bank of England and the Swiss National Bank all increasing their asset holdings by 16% of GDP, 26% of GDP, 70% of GDP, 17% of GDP and 97% of GDP respectively. Real rates too have been left at unfathomable levels, with average real policy rates in the U.S., the euro area, Japan and the U.K. standing at 0.13%, -1.15%, -0.19%, and -2.12%, respectively. Despite all this easing, core inflation in the OECD has only averaged 1.68% since 2010, and real growth 2.05% - well below the averages of 2.3% and 2.44%, respectively, from 2001 to 2007. Explaining this extraordinary situation have been three key anchors that have conspired to create strong deflationary forces that have necessitated all this stimulus: the first was U.S. private sector deleveraging, with at its epicenter the rebuilding of household balance sheets. The second was the euro area crisis, which also caused a forced deleveraging in the Spanish and Irish private sector as well as in the Greek and Portuguese public sectors. The third was China's purging of excess capacity in the steel and coal sectors, as well as various heavy industries. These three deflationary anchors seem to have finally passed. In the U.S., nonfinancial private credit is slowly showing signs of recovering. Households have curtailed their savings rate, suggesting a lower level of risk aversion. Even more importantly, the growth in savings deposits is sharply decelerating, which historically tends to be associated with a re-leveraging of the household sector and increasing consumption (Chart I-2). Strong new home sales point toward these developments. The corporate sector is also displaying an important change in behavior. Share buybacks are declining, and both capex intentions and actual capex are recovering smartly - powered by strong profit growth (Chart I-3). This is crucial as it suggests firms are not recycling the liquidity they generate through their operations or their borrowings in the financial markets. Thus, with banks easing their lending standards, additional debt accumulation by firms is likely to support aggregate demand, eliminating a key deflationary force in the global economy. Chart I-2Household Deleveraging Is Over Household Deleveraging Is Over Household Deleveraging Is Over Chart I-3Companies Are Borrowing To Invest Companies Are Borrowing To Invest Companies Are Borrowing To Invest Moreover, Jay Powell's nomination to helm the Fed is also important. He is a proponent of decreasing bank regulation, especially for small banks that greatly rely on loan formation for their earnings. A softening in regulatory stance on these institutions could contribute to higher credit growth in the U.S. With aggregate liquidity conditions of the private sector - shown by the ratio of liquid assets to liabilities - having already improved, and indicating that a turning point in U.S. inflation will soon be reached, more credit growth could further stoke inflation (Chart I-4). Europe as well is also escaping its own morose state. ECB President Mario Draghi's fateful words in July 2012 resulted in a compression of peripheral spreads as investors priced away the risk of a breakup of the euro area (Chart I-5). As a result, the massive policy easing associated with negative rates and the ECB's expanded asset purchase program was transmitted to the parts of the euro area that really needed that easing: the periphery. Now, Europe is booming: Monetary aggregates have regained traction, real GDP growth is growing at a 2.3% annual pace, PMIs are growing vigorously, and even the unemployment rate has fallen back below 9%. European inflation remains low, but nonetheless the nadir of -0.6% hit in 2015 has also passed (Chart I-6). Chart I-4Liquid Private Balance Sheet Point To Inflation Liquid Private Balance Sheet Point To Inflation Liquid Private Balance Sheet Point To Inflation Chart I-5Draghi Held The Key To Help Europe Draghi Held The Key To Help Europe Draghi Held The Key To Help Europe Chart I-6Europe Past The Worst Europe Past The Worst Europe Past The Worst In China too we have seen important progress. Curtailment to excess capacity in the steel and coal sectors as well as across a wide swath of industries are bearing fruit (Chart I-7). China is not the source of deflation that it was as recently as 2015. Industrial profits have stopped contracting, industrial price deflation is over, and even core consumer prices are showing signs of vigor, growing at a 2.28% pace, the highest since the 2010 to 2011 period (Chart I-8). Thanks to these developments, global export prices have stopped deflating and are now growing at a 4.64% annual pace. With the three deflationary anchors having been slain, global growth is now able to escape its lethargy, with industrial activity at its strongest since 2003, while global capacity utilization has improved (Chart I-9). This is giving global central banks room to remove their easing. The Fed has already hiked rates four times and is embarking on decreasing its balance sheet; the Bank of Canada has followed suit two times, and the BoE, one time. Even the ECB is now beginning to taper its own asset purchases. We do anticipate this trend to continue with more and more central banks, with potentially the exception of the BoJ, joining the fray as the global environment remains clement. Even the People's Bank of China is likely to keep tightening policy due to the increasingly inflationary environment being experienced. Chart I-7Chinese Excess Capacity Purge Chinese Excess Capacity Purge Chinese Excess Capacity Purge Chart I-8China Doesn't Export Deflation Anymore China Doesn't Export Deflation Anymore China Doesn't Export Deflation Anymore Chart I-9Central Banks Can Normalize Central Banks Can Normalize Central Banks Can Normalize Bottom Line: The three anchors of global deflation have been slain. Private sector deleveraging in the U.S. is over, the euro area has healed and Chinese excess capacity has declined. As a result, global economic activity is at its strongest level in 14 years, and deflationary forces are becoming more muted. This is giving global central banks an opportunity to normalize policy without yet killing the business cycle. Implications For Gold Gold is likely to fare very poorly in this environment. Gold can be thought of as a zero coupon, extremely long-maturity inflation-indexed bond. This means that gold is a function of both inflation and real rates. Currently, gold offers little protection against outright inflation, having moved out of line with prices by a very large margin (Chart I-10). This leaves gold extremely vulnerable to development in real rates and liquidity. Saying that central banks can begin to normalize policy is akin to saying that central banks are in a position where letting real rate rise is feasible. As Chart I-11 illustrates, there has been a strong negative relationship between TIPS yields and gold prices. Moreover, when one looks beyond the price of gold in U.S. dollars, one can see that gold has been negatively affected by higher bond yields (Chart I-11, bottom panel). BCA currently recommends an underweight stance on duration, one that is synonymous with lower gold prices.1 Chart I-10Gold Is Expensive Gold Is Expensive Gold Is Expensive Chart I-11Higher Interest Rates Equal Lower Gold Higher Interest Rates Equal Lower Gold Higher Interest Rates Equal Lower Gold Moreover, the Fed's own research suggests that its asset purchases have curtailed the term premium by 85 basis points. The balance sheet run-off that the U.S. central bank is engineering will weaken that impact to a more meager 60 basis points by 2024. This also points to lower gold prices, as gold prices have displayed a negative relationship with the term premium (Chart I-12). An outperformance of financials in general but banks in particular is also associated with poor returns for gold (Chart I-13). Strong financials are associated with growing loan volumes, which mean a lesser need for policy easing, which puts upward pressure on the cost of money. Anastasios Avgeriou, who heads BCA's sectoral research, has an overweight on banks both globally and in the U.S. on the basis of the stronger loan growth we are beginning to see around the world.2 This represents a dangerous environment for gold. Chart I-12Normalizing Term Premium ##br##Is Dangerous For Gold Normalizing Term Premium Is Dangerous For Gold Normalizing Term Premium Is Dangerous For Gold Chart I-13Bullish Banks Equals ##br##Bearish Gold Bullish Banks Equals Bearish Gold Bullish Banks Equals Bearish Gold Finally, there is an interesting relationship between real stock prices and real gold prices. When stocks are in a secular bull market, gold prices are typically in a secular bear market (Chart I-14). A secular bull market in stocks tends to happen in an environment where there is more confidence that growth is becoming more durable, where there is less fear that currencies will have to be debased to support economic activity, or where inflation is not a destructive force like it was in the 1970s. These are environments where real rates tend to have upside. The continued strength in global equity prices, which are again in a secular bull market, would thus contribute to an increase in currently still-depressed global real yields, and thus, create downside in gold. One key risk to our view is that the Fed falls meaningfully behind the curve and lets inflation rise violently, which would put downward pressure on real rates and cause a violent correction in global equity prices - prompting investors to price in an easing in monetary policy. Geopolitics are another key risk, particularly a ratcheting up in North Korea tensions. With our bullish stance on the dollar, we are inclined to short the yellow metal versus the greenback. Moreover, for the past eight years, when net speculative positions in gold have been as elevated as they are today relative to net wagers on the DXY, gold in U.S. dollar terms has tended to weaken (Chart I-15). However, the analysis above suggests that gold could weaken against G10 currencies in aggregate. Thus investors with a more negative dollar view than ours could elect to sell gold against the euro. Agnostic players should short gold equally against the USD and the EUR. Chart I-14Gold And Stocks Don't Like Each Other Gold And Stocks Don't Like Each Other Gold And Stocks Don't Like Each Other Chart I-15Tactical Risk To Gold Tactical Risk To Gold Tactical Risk To Gold Bottom Line: The outlook for gold is negative. As the global economy escapes its deflationary funk and global central banks begin abandoning emergency easing measures, real interest rates will rise and term premia will normalize, which will put downward pressure on gold prices. Additionally, BCA's positive stance on banks is corollary with a negative outlook on gold. The continued bull market in stocks is an additional hurdle for gold. New Zealand: A New Hot Spot Of Populism The formation of the Labour/NZ First/Green coalition has sent ripples through the kiwi. The reaction of investors is fully rational, as the Adern government is carrying a very populist torch, sporting a program of limiting foreign investments in housing, limiting immigration, increasing the minimum wage and creating a dual mandate for the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. The key question is whether this is a fad, or whether something more profound is at play in New Zealand. We worry it is the latter. New Zealand has suffered from a profound increase in inequality since pro-market reforms were implemented in the 1980s. New Zealand's gini coefficient is very elevated, but even more worrisome has been the deteriorating trend. As Chart I-16 illustrates, the ratio of income of the top 20% of households relative to the bottom 20% has been in a steady uptrend. Additionally, this trend is sharper once the cost of housing is incorporated into the equation. Moreover, as Chart I-17 shows, New Zealand has experienced one of the most pronounced increases in housing costs among the G10. Chart I-16Growing Inequalities In New Zealand Reverse Alchemy: How To Transform Gold Into Lead Reverse Alchemy: How To Transform Gold Into Lead Chart I-17Kiwi Housing Is Expensive Reverse Alchemy: How To Transform Gold Into Lead Reverse Alchemy: How To Transform Gold Into Lead It is undeniable that the impact of immigration has been real. Net migration has averaged 24 thousand a year since 2000, on a population of 4.8 million. Moreover, the labor participation rate of immigrants has been higher than that of the general population, reinforcing the perception that immigration has contributed to keeping wage growth low (Chart I-18). The effect of low wage growth - whether caused or not caused by the increase in the foreign-born population - has been to boost household credit demand, pushing the national savings rate into negative territory, something that was required if households were to keep spending. These developments suggest that kiwi populism is not a fad, and is in fact a factor that will remain present in New Zealand politics. It also implies that policies designed to limit foreign investments into housing as well as immigration are indeed popular and will be implemented. What are the economic implications of these developments? Immigration was a key source of growth for New Zealand. As Chart I-19 shows, the growth of the kiwi economy since 1985 has been driven by an increase in the labor force. In fact, over the past five years, 86% of growth has been caused by labor force growth, with a very limited contribution from productivity gains. More concerning, as Chart I-20 shows, 44% of the increase in the population growth since 2012 has been related to immigration. Chart I-18The Narrative: Foreigners Steal Our Jobs The Narrative: Foreigners Steal Our Jobs The Narrative: Foreigners Steal Our Jobs Chart I-19Kiwi Growth: Labor Force Is Key Kiwi Growth: Labor Force Is Key Kiwi Growth: Labor Force Is Key Chart I-20Labor Force Growth Could Halve Reverse Alchemy: How To Transform Gold Into Lead Reverse Alchemy: How To Transform Gold Into Lead Additionally, according to the IMF's Article IV consultation for New Zealand, immigration has boosted output significantly, contributing to total hours worked as well as forcing an increase in the capital stock, which has boosted capex (Table I-1). Hence, lower intakes of foreign-born workers is likely to push down the country's potential growth rate. Limiting immigration in New Zealand could therefore have a significantly negative impact on the country’s neutral rate. As Chart 21 demonstrates, the real neutral rate for New Zealand, as estimated using a Hodrick-Prescott filter, is around 2%. A falling potential growth rate would push down the equilibrium policy rate in New Zealand, limiting how high the RBNZ's terminal policy rate will rise in the future. This points toward downward pressure on the NZD on a long-term basis. Shorting NZD/CAD structurally makes sense at current levels, especially as Canada remains open to immigration and immune to populism, as income inequalities are much more controlled there (Chart I-22). Table I-1Impact Of Immigration On Growth Reverse Alchemy: How To Transform Gold Into Lead Reverse Alchemy: How To Transform Gold Into Lead Chart I-21Kiwi Neutral Rate Has Downside Kiwi Neutral Rate Has Downside Kiwi Neutral Rate Has Downside Chart I-22NZD/CAD: Long-Term Heavy NZD/CAD: Long-Term Heavy NZD/CAD: Long-Term Heavy Limiting immigration in New Zealand could therefore have a significantly negative impact on the country's neutral rate. As Chart I-21 demonstrates, the real neutral rate for New Zealand, as estimated using a Hodrick-Prescott filter, is around 2%. A falling potential Shorter-term, the picture is slightly brighter for the NZD. Credit growth is strong, and is pointing toward an increase in the cash rate next year. Additionally, consumer confidence is high, and the labor market is showing signs of tightness, especially as the output gap stands at 0.87% of GDP (Chart I-23). This tightness in the labor market could easily be catalyzed into higher wage growth, especially as the new government is tabulating a 4.76% increase in the minimum wage in the coming quarters. Thus, BCA continues to expect an uptick in kiwi inflation and higher kiwi rates, even if a dual mandate for the RBNZ is implemented. Our favored way to play this strength in the kiwi remains going short the AUD/NZD. Our valuation model points to a strong sell signal in this cross (Chart I-24). Moreover, speculators are very long the AUD relative to the NZD, which historically has provided a contrarian signal to short it. Additionally, the concentration of power around Chinese President Xi Jinping points towards more reform implementations in China - reforms that we estimate will be targeted at decreasing the reliance of growth on debt-fueled investment while increasing the welfare of households, which should help Chinese consumption. As a result, metals could suffer relative to consumer goods. With New Zealand being a big exporter of foodstuffs and dairy products, this should represent a positive terms-of-trade shock for the kiwi relative to the Aussie. Chart I-23Short-Term Positives In New Zealand Short-Term Positives In New Zealand Short-Term Positives In New Zealand Chart I-24Downside Risk To AUD/NZD Downside Risk To AUD/NZD Downside Risk To AUD/NZD Bottom Line: The increase in populism in New Zealand is being fueled by a sharp increase in inequalities and rising housing costs. Immigration, rightly or wrongly, has been blamed in the public narrative for these ills. The measures announced by the Adern government target these issues head on, and we expect they will be implemented. This hurts New Zealand's long-term growth profile, and thus the terminal rate hit by the RBNZ this cycle. This could hurt the NZD on a structural basis. Tactically, it still makes sense to be short AUD/NZD. A Word On The BoE The BoE increased rates this week for the first time in a decade, but now acknowledges that current SONIA pricing is correct, removing its mention that risks are skewed toward higher rates than anticipated by the market. The pound sold off sharply on the news. Consumer confidence and retailer orders point to further slowdown in consumption. Thus, we think the British OIS curve is currently well priced, limiting any potential rebound in the GBP. Brexit continues to spook markets, rightfully. The political theater is far from over, and the continued uncertainty is likely to weigh further on the U.K. economy. This is likely to generate additional downside risk in the pound over the coming months. Thus, on balance, our current assessment is that the risks are too high to make a bullish bet on the GBP for now. A progress in the negotiations between the U.K. and the EU is needed before investors can buy the GBP, a currency that is cheap on a long-term basis. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Haaris Aziz, Research Assistant haarisa@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Follow The Fed, Ignore The Bank Of England" dated September 19, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Global Alpha Sector Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Buy The Breakout" dated May 5, 2017, available at gss.bcaresearch.com and U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Girding For A Breakout?" dated May 1, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 USD Technicals 2 U.S. data was mixed: Core PCE was unchanged at 1.3%, and in line with expectations; Headline PCE was also unchanged at 1.6%; ISM Prices Paid came in at 68.5, beating expectations of 68; ISM Manufacturing came in weaker than expected. In other news, Jerome Powell is President Trump's pick as the next Fed chairman to replace Janet Yellen. Market reaction was muted as Powell is expected to continue in Yellen's footsteps and hike rates at a similar pace. While the Fed decided to leave rates unchanged this month, the probability of a December rate hike went up to 98%. We expect the USD bull market to strengthen next year when inflation re-emerges. Report Links: It's Not My Cross To Bear - October 27, 2017 Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 EUR Technicals 2 Data out of Europe was mixed: German and Italian inflation underperformed expectations and weakened compared to last month, while French inflation beat expectations; Overall European headline and core inflation also mixed expectations, coming in at 1.4% and 1.1% respectively; European preliminary GDP, however, beat expectations of 2.4%, coming in at 2.5%; The unemployment rate dropped to 8.9% for the euro area; The euro was up on Thursday after the nomination of Jerome Powell as Fed chair. His nomination represents a continuity of monetary policy. Despite this, we believe the re-emergence of inflation will cause the Fed to continue hiking after the December hike, deepening downward pressure on the euro next year. Report Links: Market Update - October 27, 2017 Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 JPY Technicals 2 Recent Japanese data has been mixed: Housing starts yearly growth came above expectations, coming in at -2.9%. However, housing starts did accelerate their contraction from August, when they were falling by 2% year-on-year. Industrial Production yearly growth came in above expectations, at 2.5%. However the jobs-to-applicants ratio came below expectations, staying put at 1.52. On Tuesday the BoJ left rates unchanged. Additionally the committee vowed to keep 10-year government bond yield around 0% and to continue their ETF purchases. More importantly, however, was the Bank of Japan's change to its outlook for inflation, which was decreased for this year. We continue to believe that deflation is too entrenched in Japan for the BoJ to change its policy stand. Thus, we expect USD/JPY to keep grinding higher, as U.S. monetary policy becomes more hawkish vis-à-vis Japan. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in the U.K. has surprised to the upside: Mortgage Approvals also outperformed expectations, coming in at 66.232 thousand. Moreover Nationwide house price yearly growth also outperformed, coming at 2.5% Both Markit Manufacturing PMI and Construction PMI outperformed, coming in at 56.3 and 50.8 respectively. The BoE hiked rates yesterday by 25 basis points as expected. Moreover, the committee also voted unanimously to maintain the stock of UK government bond purchases. However, the committee also acknowledged that inflation was not be the only effect of Brexit on the economy. They highlighted that uncertainty about the exit from the European Union was hurting activity despite a positive global growth backdrop. Overall, we think that the BoE will not deviate from the interest rate path priced into the OIS curve. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 AUD Technicals 2 Australian data was mixed: HIA New Home Sales contracted by 6.1%; AiG Performance of Manufacturing Index came in at 51.1, less than the previous 54.2; Exports increased by 3%, while imports stayed flat at 0%; The trade balance increased to AUD 1.745 bn, compared to the expected AUD 1.2 bn, and above the previous AUD 873 mn. The AUD was up on the release of the trade balance. But underlying slack in the economy, which worries RBA officials, points to a low fair value for the AUD. The AUD will be the poorest performer out of the commodity currencies, due to the relative strength of those economies and of oil relative to metals. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand has been positive: The unemployment rate came below expectations at 4.6%, it also decreased from last quarter's 4.8% reading. The participation rate came above expectations, at 71.1%. It also increased from 70% on the previous quarter. The Labour cost Index came in line with expectations at 1.9% yearly growth. However it increased from 1.6% in the previous quarter. Overall the New Zealand economy looks very strong. This should warrant a hike by the RBNZ. However the new government create a new set of long-term risks. The elected government is a response to the high inequality and high migration that the country had experienced in the recent years. Overall the plans to reduce immigration and install a double mandate to the RBNZ are bearish for the NZD, as the neutral rate of New Zealand would be structurally lowered. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 CAD Technicals 2 Canadian data has been weak recently: The raw material price index contracted by 0.1%; Industrial product prices contracted at a 0.3% monthly rate; GDP also contracted at a 0.1% monthly pace; Manufacturing PMI came out at 54.3, lower than the previous 55. In addition to this, Poloz identified several issues with the Canadian economy in his speech on Tuesday. These included the deflationary effects of e-commerce, slack in the labor market, subdued wage growth, and the elevated level of household debt. The probability of a rate hike has fallen to 22% for December, and it only rises above 50% in March next year. The CAD has lost a lot of its value since the BoC began hiking, but we believe it will resume hiking next year. Increasing oil prices will also mean that that CAD will outperform other G10 currencies. Report Links: Market Update - October 27, 2017 Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 CHF Technicals 2 Recent data in Switzerland has been positive: The SVME Purchasing Manager's Index came above expectations at 62 in October. It also increased from the September reading. The KOF leading indicator also outperformed expectations significantly, coming at 109.1. EUR/CHF continues to climb unabated and is now only 3% from where it was before the SNB let the franc appreciate in January of 2015. Overall we see little indication that the SNB would let the franc appreciate again in the near future. On Wednesday, SNB Vice President Zurbruegg continued to talk down the franc by stating that a stronger CHF would cause a growth slowdown and that the CHF is still highly valued. Thus we expect downside in EUR/CHF to be limited for the time being. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 NOK Technicals 2 Recent data in Norway has been mixed: Retail sales growth underperformed expectations, as they contracted by 0.8% in September. However Norway's credit indicator surprised to the upside, coming in at 5.8%. Since September USD/NOK has appreciated by nearly 6%. This has been in an environment where oil has rallied by nearly 20%. Although this divergence might seem counterintuitive, it confirms our previous findings: USD/NOK is much more sensitive to real rate differentials than to oil prices. Inflationary pressures are still very tepid in Norway, while inflation is set to go higher in the U.S. These factors will further amplify the monetary policy divergences between these 2 countries, and consequently propel USD/NOK higher. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 SEK Technicals 2 Swedish Manufacturing PMI decreased to 59.3 from 63.7, below the expected 62. EUR/SEK has appreciated to June levels, implying that markets have priced out any potential hawkishness by the Riksbank. Similarly, USD/SEK has risen by 6.2% from September lows. This is due to the re-chairing of Stefan Ingves, known for negative rates and quantitative easing. On the opposite side of the trade, President Trump elected Jerome Powell as the next Fed chair who will most likely continue the rate hike path highlighted by Janet Yellen. This will add further upward pressure on USD/SEK. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Closed Trades

Highlights London house prices have dropped 7% since the U.K. Government started the formal process of Brexit seven months ago. Stay underweight U.K. real estate and consumer services versus German real estate and consumer services. The global bond yield mini-cycle is driving asset allocation, sector allocation, value/growth allocation and country allocation. We are more than half way through the current mini-upswing in global bond yields. Look for opportunities to cut back overall portfolio cyclicality towards the end of the year. Feature London house prices have dropped 7% since the U.K. Government started the formal process of Brexit seven months ago (Chart of the Week). The average London home is now worth £584,000,1 down from £628,000. Moreover, our leading indicator for London house prices which compares the number of new viewings (demand) with the number of new listings (supply) suggests no imminent end to the sharpest price decline since the 2008 financial crisis (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Brexit Begins To Bite In London Brexit Begins To Bite In London Brexit Begins To Bite In London Chart I-2The Sharpest Decline In London House Prices Since 2008... The Sharpest Decline In London House Prices Since 2008... The Sharpest Decline In London House Prices Since 2008... Unsurprisingly, the many uncertainties surrounding the unfolding Brexit process are having a much greater impact on the London housing market than on the U.K. housing market as a whole. Outside London, the housing market is broadly flat-lining (Chart I-3). The average U.K. home outside London is now worth £256,500, modestly down from £260,000. Chart I-3 ...But Outside London, Prices Are Flat-Lining ...But Outside London, Prices Are Flat-Lining ...But Outside London, Prices Are Flat-Lining U.K. Households Squeezed We are writing ahead of the Bank of England monetary policy meeting, at which the BoE may deliver its first interest rate hike since July 2007. But hike or no hike, we can confidently say one thing: U.K. households will be squeezed. If the BoE does hike the base rate in an attempt to counter overshooting inflation, it could tip the precariously flat-lining housing market outside London into a downturn - as this market is much more exposed to mortgage affordability than it is to Brexit uncertainties. Alternatively, if the BoE does not hike the base rate, the boost to sterling from recent hawkish rhetoric will be priced out, and the pound will come under renewed downward pressure. This would keep U.K. inflation elevated, and further choke U.K. households' real incomes. Absent the post Brexit vote slump in the pound, U.K. inflation would be substantially lower than it is (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). So the pound's weakness explains why the U.K. is one of the few major economies where inflation is running well north of 2%. Unfortunately for U.K. households, nominal wage inflation has not followed price inflation higher. And as we explained in Why Robots Will Kill Middle Incomes,2 nor is it likely to in the near future. Chart I-4The Weaker Pound Lifted U.K. Headline Inflation... The Weaker Pound Lifted U.K. Headline Inflation... The Weaker Pound Lifted U.K. Headline Inflation... Chart I-5...And U.K. Core Inflation ...And U.K. Core Inflation ...And U.K. Core Inflation But doesn't textbook economic theory say that the pound's weakness should make U.K. exports more competitive - thereby boosting the net export contribution to economic growth? Yes, the theory does say that a currency devaluation should allow firms to trade in markets that were previously unprofitable to them. However, to trade in these newly profitable markets, firms first need to invest - for example, in marketing and distribution. The trouble is that, post-Brexit, many of the newly profitable markets may be unavailable, or come with heavy tariffs. So firms will hold off making the necessary investments, unless the currency devaluation is massive. But in this case, the corresponding surge in inflation and choke on households' real incomes would also be massive. In summary, U.K. consumer spending faces a continued squeeze. If the BoE delivers a rate hike, household borrowing is likely to fade as a driver of spending. But if the BoE does not deliver the rate hike, the pound will once again weaken, keeping inflation elevated and weighing on real incomes. Stay underweight U.K. consumer services versus German consumer services (Chart I-6). And stay underweight U.K. real estate versus German real estate - expressed either through direct real estate exposure or through real estate equities (Chart I-7). Chart I-6U.K. Consumer Services Equities Are Underperforming U.K. Consumer Services Equities Are Underperforming U.K. Consumer Services Equities Are Underperforming Chart I-7U.K. Real Estate Equities Are Underperforming U.K. Real Estate Equities Are Underperforming U.K. Real Estate Equities Are Underperforming Investment Reductionism Illustrated Turning to markets more generally, it is crucial to understand that most of the moves in most financial markets reduce to a very small number of over-arching macro drivers. We call this very important principle Investment Reductionism. Investment Reductionism emerges from two guiding philosophies: Occam's Razor - which says that when there are competing explanations for the same effect, the simplest explanation is usually the best; and the Pareto Principle (the 80:20 rule) - which says that a small minority of causes usually explain a large majority of effects. The upshot of Investment Reductionism is that the seeming complexity of asset allocation, sector selection, the choice between value or growth, and country allocation usually reduces to something much simpler. Let's illustrate this. The global 6-month credit impulse leads the cyclical direction of the global bond yield, and thereby determines asset allocation (Chart I-8). The direction of the global bond yield drives sector selection: for example Banks versus Healthcare. This is because higher bond yields imply higher net interest margins for banks as well as an improving growth outlook, favouring cyclicals over defensives. And vice-versa (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Investment Reductionism Step 1: ##br##The Global Credit Impulse Leads The Bond Yield Cycle Investment Reductionism Step 1: The Global Credit Impulse Leads The Bond Yield Cycle Investment Reductionism Step 1: The Global Credit Impulse Leads The Bond Yield Cycle Chart I-9Step 2: The Bond Yield Drives ##br##Sector Performance Step 2: The Bond Yield Drives Sector Performance Step 2: The Bond Yield Drives Sector Performance Banks versus Healthcare determines the European Value versus Growth decision. This is because in Europe, Banks and Healthcare are the dominant value sector and growth sector respectively (Chart I-10). Banks versus Healthcare also determines the country allocation between, say, Italy's MIB - which is bank heavy - and Denmark's OMX - which is healthcare heavy (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Step 3: Sector Performance Drives Value ##br##Vs. Growth Step 3: Sector Performance Drives Value Vs. Growth Step 3: Sector Performance Drives Value Vs. Growth Chart I-11Step 4: Sector Performance Drives ##br##Country Performance Step 4: Sector Performance Drives Country Performance Step 4: Sector Performance Drives Country Performance Therefore, the important lesson from Investment Reductionism is to ignore the hundreds of things that matter little, and to focus on the very small number of things that matter a lot. And one of the things that matters a lot is the global bond yield mini-cycle. Where Are We In The Bond Yield Mini-Cycle? Empirically, the acceleration and deceleration of global bank credit flows - as measured in the global credit impulse - exhibits a remarkably regular wave like pattern, with each half-cycle lasting about 8 months (Chart I-12). The global bond yield shows a similarly regular wave like pattern with each half-cycle also averaging about 8 months (Chart I-13). Chart I-12The Global Credit Impulse Has Also Shown A Regular Wave Like Pattern The Global Credit Impulse Has Also Shown A Regular Wave Like Pattern The Global Credit Impulse Has Also Shown A Regular Wave Like Pattern Chart I-13The Global Bond Yield Has Shown A Regular Wave Like Pattern The Global Bond Yield Has Shown A Regular Wave Like Pattern The Global Bond Yield Has Shown A Regular Wave Like Pattern It is not a coincidence that the bank credit impulse and bond yield exhibit near identical half-cycle lengths. The global credit impulse and global bond yield are inextricably embraced in a perpetual mini-cycle. A stronger credit impulse boosts economic growth. In response to the stronger economic data, the bond yield rises, which slows credit growth. A weaker credit impulse weighs down economic growth. In response to the weaker economic data, the bond yield declines, which re-accelerates credit growth. Go back to step 1 and repeat ad perpetuam. At this moment, from an investment perspective, there are three points worth making: first, bond yield mini-upswings tend to occur mostly within the credit impulse upswing; second, credit impulse mini-upswings have a consistent duration lasting about 8 months; and third, the current mini-upswing started in May. What does this mean for investment strategy? It means that we are more than half-way through the current mini-upswing which we would expect to end around January/February. And at some point early next year we are likely to enter a mini-downswing. So it is slightly premature to cut back cyclical exposure right now. But we would certainly consider opportunities as we move to the end of the year - especially if our now tried and tested fractal timing indicators signal that the price action in specific investments has reached a technical tipping point. Stay tuned. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Source: LSL Acadata 2 Please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Why Robots Will Kill Middle Incomes", dated August 10 2017 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* This week, our model suggests that the New Zealand dollar is oversold and ripe for a technical rebound. The recommended trade is long NZD/USD with a profit target/stop loss set at 3%. In other trades, long Canada 10-year bond/short German 10-year bund achieved its profit target while short Norway/long Switzerland hit its stop loss. This leaves five open trades. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-14 Long NZD/USD Long NZD/USD * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Dear Client, The attached report on China’s just-completed nineteenth National Party Congress marks the culmination of six years of political analysis by BCA’s Geopolitical Strategy. In it, my colleague Matt Gertken posits that President Xi Jinping’s domestic political constraints have significantly eased, allowing his administration to intensify its preference for structural reform. Our cardinal analytical rule holds that policymaker preferences are optional and subject to constraints, whereas constraints are neither optional nor subject to preferences. As a matter of methodology, we focus on constraints. In China, Xi faced formidable constraints when he took power five years ago, which is why we pushed against the enthusiastic narrative at the time that he would transform China through supply-side reforms. This narrative, strongest in the wake of the October 2013 Third Plenum, has not materialized in line with investor expectations thus far. In this report, we argue that it is time to adjust the view on China. Xi has amassed substantial political capital thanks to his anti-corruption campaign, centralization of power, and other actions largely popular with the middle class. Investors are today missing this point because they are disappointed with the lack of genuine progress since 2012. We expect that President Xi will begin spending this political capital by favoring supply-side reforms, especially by reining in the rampant credit growth that has underpinned China’s investment-led economic model. In the short term, this means that politics in China will evolve from a tailwind to a headwind to growth. In the long term, it is too soon to say what it means. For investors, however, it means that today’s synchronized global growth recovery may be at risk of a policy-induced growth slowdown in China. I sincerely hope you enjoy our report. If you are interested in similar investment-relevant geopolitical analysis, please do not hesitate to contact us for a sample of our work. Kindest Regards, Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist Highlights Xi Jinping has shed domestic political constraints that have been in place since 2012; The lack of constraints suggests his reform agenda will intensify over the next 12 months; The use of anti-corruption agencies to enforce economic policy suggests that reform implementation will become more effective; Chinese politics are shifting from a tailwind to a headwind for global growth and EM assets. Feature Chart 1Stability Continues After Party Congress? Stability Continues After Party Congress? Stability Continues After Party Congress? China's nineteenth National Party Congress concluded on October 25 with the new top seven leaders - the members of the Politburo Standing Committee (PSC) - taking the stage in the Great Hall of the People. The party congress is a five-year leadership reshuffle that, in this case, marks the halfway point of President Xi Jinping's term in office.1 President Xi was the center of attention throughout the event. It is widely perceived that he is the most powerful Chinese leader since Deng Xiaoping. The Communist Party chose to elevate his personal power in conspicuous ways that raises political uncertainties about the succession in 2022 as well as about the future trajectory of Chinese policy, including economic policy. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has awaited this transition since 2012, when President Xi and Premier Li Keqiang took over the top two positions in China.2 While we are inherently skeptical of Xi's grandiose reform agenda, we are also deeply aware of the importance of political constraints in determining economic policy outcomes - and Xi has just overcome significant domestic constraints. If Xi accelerates and intensifies his reforms next year - particularly deleveraging and industrial restructuring - he will add volatility to Chinese risk assets and create a drag on Chinese growth. Xi's personal concentration of power could be an enabling factor in driving reforms. But it will certainly be a source of higher political uncertainty over the next five years (Chart 1), especially as the 2022 succession approaches. Therefore a lack of reform would be a noxious combination. Finally, China's ascendancy increases the phenomenon of global multipolarity - it is a challenge to the U.S.-led system and will eventually produce a reaction, most likely a negative one.3 In short, Chinese political and geopolitical risk is understated. This situation presents a range of risks and opportunities for investors, but it is broadly a headwind for global growth and EM assets. A Chinese "policy mistake" is also a risk to our House View of being overweight equities and underweight bonds for the next 12 months. Back To 2012 When Xi rose to power in 2012, it was widely known that China's economy had reached a pivotal moment. Exports were declining as a share of GDP in the wake of the Great Recession and end of the U.S. "debt super-cycle," and investment was weakening as the country's massive fiscal and credit stimulus wore off (Chart 2). Meanwhile the Communist Party faced a crisis of legitimacy, with an emergent middle class making ever greater demands on the system (Chart 3). The rapid rise in household income over preceding years, combined with high income inequality and poor quality of life, raised the prospect of serious socio-political challenges to single-party rule.4 President Hu Jintao searched for ways to strengthen state control over an increasingly restless society, while outgoing Premier Wen Jiabao warned openly that China's economy was unsustainable and imbalanced and that political reform would be an "urgent task." Hu Jintao's farewell address at the eighteenth party congress (2012) reflected the party's grave concerns. His successor, Xi Jinping, was in charge of drafting the report. This relationship highlighted an important degree of party consensus. The report called for fighting corruption and disciplining the party, while doing more to protect households from the negative externalities of the past decade's rapid growth, including pollution (Chart 4). Chart 2Xi Took Power Amid Economic Transition Xi Took Power Amid Economic Transition Xi Took Power Amid Economic Transition Chart 3The Communist Party's Newest Constraint The Communist Party's Newest Constraint The Communist Party's Newest Constraint Chart 4Xi Took Power Amid Instability Risks Xi Took Power Amid Instability Risks Xi Took Power Amid Instability Risks It also outlined China's hopes of becoming a more consequential global player through acquiring naval power and forging a new, peer relationship with the United States. The overriding imperative was to win back support and legitimacy for the party, lest it fall victim to the fate of the world's other Marxist-Leninist regimes - i.e. internal socio-economic sclerosis and external pressure from the U.S.-led, democratic-capitalist world order. Xi Jinping took over at this juncture, using the 2012 work report as his guideline for an ambitious policy agenda. Xi's main goals centered on power: namely, ensuring regime survival at home and increasing China's international clout abroad. Specifically, the Xi administration sought to (1) centralize political control so that difficult choices could be made and implemented effectively; (2) improve governance so that public discontent could be mitigated over the long run; and (3) restructure the economy so that productivity growth could remain robust in the face of sharply declining labor force growth, thus stabilizing the potential GDP growth rate.5 Obviously there was no guarantee that Xi would be successful. China's response to the Global Financial Crisis had required a large-scale decentralization of control: local governments, banks, state-owned enterprises and shadow lenders were encouraged to lever up and grow amid the global collapse (Chart 5). This created imbalances and liabilities for the central leadership while also creating new economic (and hence political) centers of power outside Beijing. Chart 5aLocal Government Spending Unleashed... Local Government Spending Unleashed... Local Government Spending Unleashed... Chart 5b...And Shadow Lending Too ...And Shadow Lending Too ...And Shadow Lending Too The central leadership also seemed to be losing control of the provinces: regional and institutional powerbrokers had emerged, challenging the party's hierarchy, and there was even reason to believe that the armed forces were deviating from central leadership.6 Without control of the local governments and other key institutions, any reform agenda would get bogged down. Finally, the political cycle was not particularly favorable to Xi. While the line-up of the all-powerful PSC looked favorable from 2012-17, the next crop of Communist leaders set to move up the ladder in 2017 seemed likely to constrain him. Moreover, the previous two presidents had chosen Xi's successors for 2022, according to party norms. Xi had very little room for maneuver - and this was negative for his policy outlook overall. As such, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy poured cold water on the more enthusiastic forecasts of economic reforms throughout Xi's first term. Our assessment was that he would focus on anti-corruption and governance reforms first and only attempt genuine economic reforms once his political capital grew significantly. Bottom Line: Xi Jinping faced major obstacles to his policy agenda of centralization, governance and economic reform in 2012. He faced a large and restless middle class, the difficulty of reining in local governments and state institutions, and the likelihood that China's previous top leaders would constrain his maneuverability in 2017 and 2022. Xi's First Term A lot has changed over the past five years. First, both global demand for Chinese goods and Chinese domestic demand have held up rather well, giving China a badly needed cushion during its economic transition. Steady consumption growth has partially offset the blow from declining investment, while Chinese exports have grown well, often faster than global trade (Chart 6).7 Second, Xi has consolidated power extensively within the party, the army, and other institutions. He executed the most aggressive purge that the party has seen in decades, enabling him to rebuild some public trust among a middle class worn out by corruption, as well as to remove political rivals (Chart 7). He also launched an extensive restructuring of the People's Liberation Army, its organizational structure and personnel, ensuring that "the party controls the gun."8 And he intensified social control, particularly in the online realm. Chart 6Changing The Economic Model Changing The Economic Model Changing The Economic Model Chart 7Anti-Corruption Campaign Still Going Anti-Corruption Campaign Still Going Anti-Corruption Campaign Still Going Symbolically, Xi was anointed the "core" of the Communist Party by the political elite in late 2016. Economic reform, however, has been compromised by Xi's focus on consolidating political power. True, he and Premier Li Keqiang tinkered with various policies to cut red tape, simplify domestic taxes, attract foreign investment, and encourage better SOE management, but none of the reforms launched over the past five years were painful and thus none were significant.9 Nowhere was this more apparent than during 2015-16, when economic and financial instability caused the Xi administration to delay reform initiatives and focus on reforming the economy. Beijing increased infrastructure spending, bailed out the local governments, depreciated the RMB, and imposed capital controls (Chart 8). "Old China," state-owned China, was the primary beneficiary. The stimulus-fueled rebound helped stabilize the global economy in 2016-17, particularly commodity-producing emerging markets, but it exacerbated China's internal problems - slow productivity growth, excessive debt creation, weak private sector investment, and waning foreign investment (Chart 9). Chart 8State Interventions In 2015-16 State Interventions In 2015-16 State Interventions In 2015-16 Chart 9Economic Reforms Still Needed Economic Reforms Still Needed Economic Reforms Still Needed The upside, however, was stability, which enabled Xi to approach the nineteenth National Party Congress from a position of strength. Now that the party congress has concluded, we can say that Xi has notched a series of significant "victories" and that his political capital is overflowing: Xi Jinping Thought: The congress voted to enshrine Xi's name into its constitution (Table 1), with a phrasing that echoes "Mao Zedong Thought," hence elevating Xi to immense moral authority within the party. The name of Xi's philosophy, "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era," makes a slight adjustment to Deng Xiaoping's market-friendly philosophy. In other words, Xi's authority stems from his providing a synthesis of the regime's greatest two leaders: Mao's single-party Communist rule is being reaffirmed, but Deng's attention to economic reality and the need for pragmatic policies has also been preserved. As we have argued, this constitutional change is a reflection of the fact that Xi has already positioned himself to be the most influential leader well into the 2020s. Table 1Xi Jinping Thought China: Party Congress Ends ... So What? China: Party Congress Ends ... So What? Xi removes his successors: Xi managed to exclude any of China's "sixth generation" of leaders from the Politburo Standing Committee. He thus broke a very important (albeit informal) party norm. The norm was created under Deng Xiaoping to ensure a smooth transition of power, unlike the power struggle that occurred upon Mao's death. Now Xi will have a greater hand in choosing his successor, or even staying in power beyond 2022. This aids in the process of centralization, but it may well prove a step backwards in terms of governance and reform - that remains to be seen. It is a source of higher political uncertainty going forward. Xi dominates the Politburo: Xi prevented his predecessor Hu Jintao's loyalists from gaining a majority on the Politburo Standing Committee, as they seemed lined up to do in 2012. The line-up of the new Politburo and Politburo Standing Committee broadly indicates that Xi and his faction are the dominant force (Table 2). Taken with Xi's personal power, this is significant political capital with which the new administration can push its priorities, whatever they may be. Xi gets a new inquisitor: The Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CDIC) is the party's internal watchdog. It has taken the leading role in the sweeping party purge and anti-corruption campaign over the past five years. Xi removed its chief, the hugely influential Wang Qishan, by reinforcing the retirement age and two-term PSC limit - a notable case of institutional norms being upheld. He put one of his loyalists, Zhao Leji, in this role instead. The CDIC will have a huge role over the next five years, and a market-relevant one, as we discuss below. Table 2The Magnificent Seven: China's New Politburo Standing Committee China: Party Congress Ends ... So What? China: Party Congress Ends ... So What? The above conclusions raise the possibility that Xi has become excessively powerful, that political institutions in China are being eroded by personal rule, and that political risks are set to explode upward in the near future. However, it is too soon to declare that Xi has staged a Maoist "power grab." There are reasons to think that Xi's accumulation of power has not overturned the delicate internal balances within the top leadership bodies.10 The result is in keeping with what we expected in our Strategic Outlook last December: Xi Jinping has amassed formidable political capital, but he has not destabilized the Chinese political system.11 He is a strongman leader within the established political system of an authoritarian state - he is not a tyrant seizing power in a bloodless revolution. (At least, not yet.) This is broadly positive for China's policy continuity and political framework - and in this sense it is also broadly market-positive, being an outgrowth of the status quo rather than a disruptive break from it. China's leaders continue to be career politicians, trained in law or economics, with considerable executive experience in governing and limited business or military experience, all unified in the name of regime preservation (Chart 10). Over the long run, this suggests that China's "Socialist Put" remains intact, i.e. that the state will intervene to prevent a crash landing.12 Nevertheless, an important corollary of the above is that Xi holds the balance, and hence there are no longer any major domestic political or governmental constraints to prevent him from pursuing his policy agenda - especially over the next 12 months, when his political capital is still fresh and the economic backdrop is favorable. The fact that Xi emphasized "sustainable and sound" growth, deliberately excluded GDP growth targets beyond 2021, and altered the definition of the Communist Party's so-called "principal contradiction" in order to prioritize quality-of-life improvements, suggests that the reform agenda is about to get rebooted. Bottom Line: Xi Jinping has consolidated power extensively, but he has not staged a silent coup d' état or overthrown the balance of power within the Communist Party. This suggests that Xi's policies and reforms will intensify over the next year. Chart 10Characteristics Of Chinese Rulers Mostly Unchanged Since 2012 China: Party Congress Ends ... So What? China: Party Congress Ends ... So What? Xi's Second Term: What To Expect Instead of playing it safe in the lead-up to the all-important party congress over the past twelve months, Xi surprised the markets with a series of regulatory actions designed to tamp down the property bubble, regulate the financial markets, punish speculation, and reduce industrial overcapacity and pollution (Chart 11).13 This tightening of policy strongly signaled that Xi's appetite for political risk is rising in keeping with his growing political capital. Beijing is signaling that it aims to continue with tougher financial, industrial and environmental reforms in the aftermath of the party congress. In particular, systemic financial risk has been identified as a risk to the state's overall stability. Of course, China is unlikely to sharply reduce the ratio of total debt-to-GDP out of an ill-advised, self-imposed bout of austerity. But the Xi administration is likely to suppress its growth rate (Chart 12), as well as to continue cracking down on specific institutions and financial practices deemed to be excessively risky or under-regulated, as has occurred this year in insurance and shadow lending.14 Chart 11China's Borrowing Costs Rising China's Borrowing Costs Rising China's Borrowing Costs Rising Chart 12Debt Growth Faces Tougher Controls Debt Growth Faces Tougher Controls Debt Growth Faces Tougher Controls This financial focus is clear from top-level appointments and meetings in 2017, including a special Politburo meeting on financial risks in April and the once-in-five-years Central Financial Work Conference in July.15 The latter declared new regulatory powers for the central bank that will be put into place in the coming 12 months. The head of the new Financial Stability and Development Committee to oversee this work will likely be named, along with a replacement for the long-serving People's Bank of China Governor Zhou Xiaochuan. This change will initiate a new generation of leadership in the central bank, and one ostensibly directed at overseeing stricter macro-prudential controls.16 Another outcome of the financial conference was the warning that, going forward, local government officials will be held accountable over the course of their entire lives if they allow excessive financial risks and debt to build up under their watch.17 These developments suggest that policy will become a headwind to growth next year. We would expect downside risks to China's implicit 6.5% growth target. Why should the new deleveraging campaign have any more effect than similar efforts in the past? Aside from Xi's stronger position to enforce policies - explained above - the nineteenth party congress reinforced an important trend in policy implementation. The Xi administration has been using the CDIC, the party's anti-corruption unit, as a political tool to ensure broader policy enforcement. We have observed this trend over the past year both in the financial regulatory crackdown and the anti-pollution and overcapacity crackdown.18 Anti-corruption officials can compel more serious implementation from local governments, SOE managers, and others because they threaten to impose job losses or jail time, rather than mere fines. The CDIC appointed two new officials to oversee its operations in China's financial regulators just as the party congress was getting underway. Moreover, on the final day of the party congress, officials have announced that corruption investigations will be conducted into the commercial housing sector.19 The message is that the regulatory storm will expand - and will have teeth. Xi went a step further at the party congress by declaring the creation of a National Supervisory Commission, which will oversee the next phase of the anti-corruption campaign.20 This commission will expand the campaign outside the ranks of the Communist Party - where it has operated so far - to the government as a whole, i.e. the state administration and bureaucracy. It implies that every official from China's top ministries down to its lowest-level governments will be subjected to new forces of scrutiny. If this effort resembles the CDIC's role in hastening compliance in other areas of economic policy, then it will be a powerful tool for the Xi administration as it attempts to engineer a top-down restructuring of China's governance and economy. An aggressive new regulatory push, with the threat of corruption charges, in China's financial and industrial sectors would create a powerful drag on economic growth. It could easily send a chill down the spines of government officials, prompting them to cut or delay key investment decisions, as the initial anti-corruption campaign did in 2013-14.21 China's leaders will eventually attempt to offset any disorderly slowdown from reform measures with additional stimulus. However, given that the deleveraging campaign cuts to the heart of the financial sector, and that sharp new tools are being put to use, we would think that the probability of a "policy mistake" is going up. Bottom Line: Risks to Chinese economy and assets are rising as politics shifts from being a tailwind to a headwind. Xi Jinping faces few policy constraints and has shown appetite for greater political risk in the pursuit of his reform agenda. His administration has signaled that China's financial imbalances pose a threat to overall stability and require tougher regulation. New enforcement mechanisms - particularly those connected with anti-corruption efforts - threaten to bring the financial sector, as well as local government debt, under the spotlight and to create a chilling-effect among local officials. Investment Conclusions On one hand, any genuine attempt to hasten the transition of China's economy to consumer-led growth, de-emphasize GDP growth targets, and pare back overbuilt and heavy-polluting industry is highly consequential and will redistribute global growth.22 Table 3Post-Party Congress Scenarios And Probabilities China: Party Congress Ends ... So What? China: Party Congress Ends ... So What? Broadly speaking, the transition is negative for Chinese growth in the short term, but positive in the long term, as productivity trends would improve. It is negative for China's heavy industry, yet positive for technology, health and education; negative for commodities tied to the old economy (e.g. coal, iron ore, and diesel), but positive for commodities tied to consumers (oil/gasoline, aluminum, nickel, and zinc); negative for emerging markets that are commodity- and export-reliant and China-exposed, yet positive for domestic-oriented and/or China-insulated EMs. On the other hand, there is no longer a convincing excuse for poor implementation of central government policies. If China does not take concrete steps in pursuit of Xi's reform agenda - an agenda of "supply-side reform" that is now enshrined in the party's constitution - then it follows that Xi himself is unwilling to practice what he preaches. The first big test will be whether, when the economy starts to wobble, policymakers stimulate the "old economy" with the usual fervor, or whether they hold true to a course of re-ordering the economy and concentrating any stimulative credit flows more heavily into the social safety net and consumer-led industries and services. Given Xi's and China's rare opportunity, a failure to undertake difficult reforms in the coming months and years would be a clear sign that China will never pursue significant reforms of its own accord. It would have to be forced to do so by an internal or external crisis. This would mean that China's potential GDP would continue to decline for the foreseeable future (Table 3). Chart 13China's Ascendancy Challenges The U.S. China's Ascendancy Challenges The U.S. China's Ascendancy Challenges The U.S. If that were the case, declining potential GDP growth would combine with political uncertainty over Xi's 2022 succession to create a noxious brew of social malaise. A final and very important consideration is China's relationship with the United States and its allies, given the ongoing strains over U.S.-China trade, North Korea's nuclear and missile advances, China's militarization of the South China Sea, Taiwan's widening ideological distance from the mainland, and Japan's accelerating re-armament. The party congress was a highly visible display of Chinese power and self-confidence, in which Xi broke with the past to suggest that China is moving into "center stage" in the world. Xi not only reaffirmed state-led growth but also emphasized that China's foreign policy assertiveness is here to stay over the long run. This is a poignant reminder of our long-term investment theme of global multipolarity. The United States is not likely to relinquish global or even regional leadership easily. So while relations may be pacified in the short term, the risk of conflict, whether economic or military, is rising over time (Chart 13). Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China's Nineteenth Party Congress: A Primer," dated September 13, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "China: Two Factions, One Party," dated September 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 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. 4 Popular unrest was boiling up due to grievances over corrupt officials, mismanagement of internal migration, local government land seizures, a weak justice system, and a host of labor disputes and environmental incidents. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. See also BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Reflections On China's Reforms," in "The Great Risk Rotation - December 2013," dated December 11, 2013. 6 The arrest and excommunication of Chongqing Party Secretary Bo Xilai in 2012 epitomizes the regional and institutional challenge, since Bo had a network of alliances that fell under Xi Jinping's anti-corruption dragnet and sprawled across the energy sector and public security agencies. The regional problem was highlighted again this year when one of Bo's successors, Chongqing Party Secretary Sun Zhengcai, was ousted for allegedly failing to extirpate Bo's influence. Meanwhile, the People's Liberation Army became more vocal and independent in ways that raised concerns among foreign observers, such as U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who suggested that the PLA took China's civilian leadership by surprise when it conducted a test flight of its stealth J-20 fifth generation fighter during Gates's visit to Beijing in January 2011. 7 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China's Economy - 2015 Vs Today (Part I): Trade," dated October 26, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 8 For the military reshuffle, please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Five Myths About Chinese Politics," dated August 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 The most important reform was the loosening of the one-child policy, which was a social change with long-term economic benefits. Reforms to household registration, land rights, the property sector, SOEs, fiscal policy, private property, and the judicial system have moved slowly. 10 The PSC has a three-way balance of sorts, with two representatives of each faction (Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, and Xi Jinping), plus Xi presiding over all. Please see Cheng Li, "The Paradoxical Outcome Of China's 19th Party Congress," Brookings Institution, October 26, 2017. Our own analysis of the 2017 result, drawing on Cheng Li's work, shows that the party bureaucracy, state bureaucracy and the military are represented at roughly the same levels as before on the 25-member Politburo. Further, the profile of the PSC members is relatively continuous with the previous PSC profiles. Namely, the relatively high share of leaders who have spent their careers ruling the provinces, or who have mostly worked in central government, is no higher than it was before, while the relatively low share of leaders who served on the military or managed state-owned enterprises is no lower than it was before. The division between rural and urban regions on the PSC is also the same as before. Thus, the only substantial change in the character profile of the PSC is the fact that China's leaders are increasingly coming from an educational background in the "soft sciences" rather than the "hard sciences": which is to be expected as the society evolves from manufacturing and construction to a services-oriented economy, even though it also suggests growing ideological orthodoxy. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Socialism Put," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Housing Tightening: Now And 2010," dated October 13, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: Financial Crackdown And Market Implications," dated May 18, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Northeast Asia: Moonshine, Militarism, And Markets," dated May 24, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see "China: A Preemptive Dodd-Frank," in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The Wrath Of Cohn," dated July 26, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "How To Read Xi Jinping's Party Congress Speech," dated October 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see note 15 above. See also Barry Naughton, “The General Secretary’s Extended Reach: Xi Jinping Combines Economics And Politics,” dated September 11, 2017, available at www.hoover.org. 19 Please see "China To Launch Nationwide Inspection On Commercial Housing Sales," Xinhua, October 25, 2017, available at www.chinadaily.com. 20 Supervisory commissions will be created at every level of administration in all regions to ensure that the anti-corruption campaign is enforced across all government, not only within the Communist Party. The commissions will be based on experiences gained from trial programs in Beijing, Zhejiang, and Shanxi. Please see Viola Zhou, "Super anti-graft agency pilot schemes extended across China," South China Morning Post, October 30, 2017, available at www.scmp.com. 21 Please see note 5 above, "Taking Stock," and BCA China Investment Strategy, "Policy Mistakes And Silver Linings," dated October 7, 2015, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see note 5 above, "Taking Stock," and BCA China Investment Strategy, "Understanding China's Master Plan," dated November 20, 2013, available at cis.bcaresearch.com.