Policy

Highlights Substituting certain imports with local production will ensure that Russia's inflation rate will become less sensitive to fluctuations in the exchange rate and more sensitive to local wages/unit labor costs. In such a scenario, the central bank will not need to pursue pro-cyclical monetary policy. This is on top of the counter-cyclical fiscal policy emerging from the new fiscal rule. Less pro-cyclical monetary and fiscal policies argue for more stability in the real economy than in the past. Altogether, this warrants a lower beta for Russian financial assets relative to EM benchmarks. Meanwhile, geopolitics is likely to remain a tailwind for Russia. Continue overweighting Russian stocks, ruble, local fixed-income and credit relative to their EM counterparts. A new trade: Go long the ruble and short crude oil. Feature Russian equities and the ruble have been high-beta bets on oil prices. While the positive correlation between crude prices and Russian financial markets is unlikely to change soon, the country's stock market and currency will likely become low-beta within the EM universe. Sound macro policies and some import substitutions will make inflation less sensitive to the exchange rate. As such, the central bank will not need to hike interest rates amid falling oil prices. The key point is that fiscal and monetary policies are becoming less pro-cyclical. This will reduce volatility in the real economy, which in turn will warrant a lower risk premium on Russian assets, particularly within the EM aggregates. Meanwhile, geopolitics is likely to remain a tailwind for Russia. Both Europe and the U.S. have lost appetite for direct confrontation. And while some of the exuberance immediately following Trump's victory will wear off, the U.S. and Russia are unlikely to revisit the 2014 nadir in relations. Orthodox Macro Policies... Russia has adhered to orthodox macro policies amid a severe recession over the past two years: On the fiscal front: The government has maintained constant nominal expenditure growth and substantially cut spending in real terms (Chart I-1). The fiscal deficit is still large at 3.8% of GDP, but it typically lags oil prices (Chart I-2). Hence, the recovery in oil prices over the past year should lead to a notable improvement in the budget balance. For 2017, the budget is conservative, as it assumes $/bbl 40 Urals. Early this year, the Ministry of Finance adopted a new fiscal rule where it will buy foreign currency when the price of oil is above the set target level of 2700 RUB per barrel ($40 oil price times 67 USD/RUB exchange rate) and sell foreign exchange when the oil price is below that level (Chart I-3). Chart I-1Russia Has Undergone ##br##Through Real Fiscal Squeeze... Chart I-2...Which Is Now Over Chart I-3Oil Price Threshold For ##br##The New Fiscal Rule The objective of this policy is to create a counter-cyclical ballast that will limit fluctuations in the ruble caused by swings in oil prices. With respect to monetary policy, Russia's central bank has been highly prudent. Unlike many other emerging countries, the central bank has refrained from injecting liquidity into the banking system (Chart I-4) and has maintained high real interest rates (Chart I-4, bottom panel). Chart I-5 demonstrates that the central bank's domestic assets have been flat, while the same measure has surged for many other EM central banks. Although this measure does not reflect central banks' net liquidity injections, it in general validates that Russia's monetary authorities have been more conservative than their counterparts in many developing countries. This is ultimately positive for the currency. Chart I-4Russian Central Bank: ##br##Tight Monetary Stance Chart I-5Russian Central Bank Has Been ##br##Conservative Among Its Peers Furthermore, the central bank has been forcing banks to acknowledge non-performing loans (Chart I-6, top panel) and has been reducing the number of dysfunctional banks by removing their licenses (Chart I-6, bottom panel). This assures that the credit system has already gone through a cleansing process, and a gradual credit recovery will commence soon. This is also in stark contrast with many other EM banking systems, where credit-to-GDP ratios continue to rise. In brief, Russia is advanced on the path of deleveraging (Chart I-7), while many EM countries have not even begun the process. Chart I-6Russian Central Bank Has ##br##Forced Banking Restructuring Chart I-7Russia Is Very Advanced ##br##In Its Deleveraging Cycle Bottom Line: The new fiscal rule will reduce fluctuations in the ruble. The central bank's ongoing tight policy stance will also put a floor under the ruble. Even though we expect oil prices to drop meaningfully in the months ahead, any ruble depreciation will be moderate. ... Plus Some Imports Substitution... The dramatic currency devaluation in 2014-15 and sanctions imposed on Russia by the West have led to the substitution of some imported goods with locally produced ones. First, the most visible import substitution has occurred in the agriculture sector. Chart I-8 suggests that in agriculture import substitution has been broad-based and significant. Second, while there has been some import substitution in the industrial sector, it has been less pronounced. Demand for industrial goods and non-staples (autos and furniture, for example) has plunged significantly. Hence, local production has also collapsed, but less so than imports (Chart I-9). Chart I-8Russia: Import ##br##Substitution In Agriculture Chart I-9Some Import ##br##Substitution In Manufacturing As domestic demand recovers, manufacturing production of industrial goods will increase. However, it is not clear how much of this demand recovery will be met by rising imports versus domestic production. On one hand, the ruble is not expensive, and argues for more import substitution going forward - i.e. relying more on domestic production rather than imports. On the other hand, Russia is hamstrung by a lack of manufacturing productive capacity, technology and know-how in many sectors to produce competitive products. FDI by multinational companies will likely rise from extremely low levels (Chart I-10), yet it is unlikely to be sufficient to make a major difference in terms of Russia's competitiveness. Third, the ruble depreciation has helped Russia increase oil and natural gas production (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Russia: Meager Net FDI Inflows Chart I-11Russia: Oil And Natural Gas Output Is Robust Finally, in an attempt to lessen dependence on foreigners, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been pushing the use of domestic technology. For example, Microsoft products will be replaced by locally developed software. Bottom Line: The combination of currency depreciation and trade sanctions has led to some import substitution. ...Will Make Inflation Less Sensitive To The Currency Chart I-12Russia: Unit Labor ##br##Costs Have Collapsed The collapse of the ruble has drastically reduced labor costs in Russia's manufacturing sector (Chart I-12). A diminished share of imports in domestic consumption - import substitution - will ensure Russia's inflation rate becomes less sensitive to fluctuations in the exchange rate and more sensitive to local wages/unit labor costs instead. Tame wages and some improvement in productivity - as output recovers - will cap Russian unit labor costs and restrain inflation in the medium term. In such a scenario, the central bank will not need to pursue pro-cyclical monetary policy - i.e., hike interest rates when oil prices drop and the ruble depreciates. Less pro-cyclical monetary and fiscal policies will diminish fluctuations in the economy, and economic visibility will improve. This bodes well for the nation's financial assets. We do not mean to suggest that the central bank of Russia will immediately pursue counter-cyclical monetary policy - i.e., that it will be able to cut interest rates when oil prices fall. While this would be ideal for the national economy, it is not a practical option for now. Bottom Line: Less pro-cyclical monetary and fiscal policies argue for more stability in the real economy than in the past. Altogether, this warrants a lower beta for Russian financial assets relative to EM benchmarks. The Growth Outlook The Russian economy is about to exit recession (Chart I-13, top panel), but growth recovery will be timid: Bank loans will recover after pronounced contraction over the past two years. The credit impulse - the change in bank loan growth - has already turned positive (Chart I-13, bottom panel). Retail sales volumes and auto sales have not yet recovered but manufacturing output growth is already positive (Chart I-14). Rising nominal and real wages argue for a pick-up in consumer spending (Chart I-14, bottom panel). Capital spending has collapsed both in absolute terms and relative to GDP (Chart I-15). Such an underinvested position and potential recovery in consumer spending warrant a pickup in investment outlays. The key difference between Brazil and Russia - the two economies that plunged into deep recession in the past 2-3 years - is public debt load and sustainability. Chart I-13Russia: Recovery Is At Hand Chart I-14Russia: Economic Conditions Chart I-15Russia: Capex Recovery Is Overdue The public debt-to-GDP ratio is 77% in Brazil and 16% in Russia, while fiscal deficits are 9% and 3.8% of GDP, respectively. Public debt could spiral out of control in Brazil1 in the next two years, while it is not an issue in Russia. Bottom Line: Russia is about to embark on a mild and gradual economic recovery, even if oil prices relapse. Russia Is In A Geopolitical Sweet Spot Geopolitical headwinds will continue to abate for Russia. We expect that some of the loftiest expectations of a U.S.-Russia détente will fail to materialize as the Trump Administration continues to face domestic pressures. However, the 2014 nadir in relations will not be revisited. Meanwhile, Russia will benefit from several geopolitical tailwinds: The path of least resistance for tensions between Russia and the West is down. The Trump administration is highly unlikely to increase sanctions against Russia. Congress is likely to open an investigation into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election, but we highly doubt that any genuine "smoking guns" linking the Kremlin to the election result will be found. As such, we expect the thaw in U.S.-Russia relations to continue, albeit haltingly and without any possibility that the two powers become allies. Washington has recently removed sanctions related to U.S. tech exports to Russia. While U.S. sanction can be easily removed by presidential decree, EU sanctions require a unanimous vote on behalf of the European council. A summary can be found bellow. Table I-1 Putin's support remains high (Chart I-16), giving him a sense of confidence that modest structural reforms and economic opening is possible without undermining his support base. Military intervention in Syria has largely been a success, from Moscow's point of view. Chart I-16Popularity Of Putin And Government None of the current candidates in the upcoming elections in Europe are overtly anti-Russia. In France, leading candidate Emmanuel Macron is mildly hawkish on Russia, but the other two candidates - Marine Le Pen and François Fillon are downright Russophile. In Germany, the historically sympathetic to Russia Socialist Democratic Party (SPD) has taken a lead against Angela Merkel's ruling party. Even if Angela Merkel retains her Chancellorship, it is likely that the Grand Coalition would have to give the SPD a greater role given their dramatic rise in polling. Despite two major diplomatic incidents between Turkey and Russia,2 relations between the two countries continue to improve. In fact, the Turkstream project - which will connect Russia with Turkey via the Black Sea - has been approved by both sides. This is a positive development for the Russian energy sector as the capacity of that pipeline is large, standing at 63 Bn cubic meters per year. In Syria, the two countries have gone from outright hostility to coordinating their military operations on the ground, a dramatic reversal. The Rosneft IPO was a success, a positive sign for foreign investments in Russia. While the issuance was conducted for budget reasons, it is a sign that Russia is willing to open itself to foreign investors. The caveat being that it will only do so selectively. Further evidence of this selective opening is the recent announcement by the head of the Finance Ministry debt department that the next Eurobond auction will be conducted privately. Past investments from western firms in Russia failed due to the fact that a large number of Western oil companies were complacent in their investment analysis and failed to do due diligence.3 Furthermore, foreign investments in Russia have often failed because it was caught in the cross fire between the Kremlin and the various oligarchs who brought in the foreign investment.4 Given that President Vladimir Putin has largely neutered oligarchs, FDI that arrives in the country will have full blessing of the government. Finally, we would expect western energy companies to be more selective in their foreign investments given the recent crash in oil prices. As BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has been warning since 2014, globalization is in a structural decline and protectionism may follow. The Trump administration has threatened to use tariffs against both geopolitical adversaries, like China, and allies, like Germany. The border adjustment tax, proposed by Republicans in Congress, is a protectionist measure that could launch a global trade war.5 Due to the fact that Russia exports commodities, we would expect Russia's export revenue stream to be unaffected compared to countries who export more elastic goods such as consumer products. Bottom Line: We expect geopolitical dynamics to play in Russia's favor going forward. These will mark a structural shift in how foreign investment is conducted in Russia and risk assets will continue re-pricing. Investment Conclusions Chart I-17Continue Overweighting Russian Stocks Russian stocks will outperform the EM equity benchmark in the months ahead (Chart I-17). Stay overweight. Typically, the Russian bourse has outperformed the EM index during risk-on phases and underperformed in risk-off episodes - i.e., Russia has been a high-beta market. This will likely change, and we expect Russia to outperform in a falling market. Also, maintain the long Russian stocks and ruble / short Malaysian stocks and ringgit trades. Continue overweighting Russian sovereign and corporate credit within the EM credit universe. Continue overweighing local currency bonds within EM domestic bond portfolios. A new trade: Go long the ruble and short oil. When oil prices drop, as BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy team expects to happen in the months ahead, the ruble might weaken too. However, adjusted for the carry, the aggregate long ruble/short oil position will prove profitable. Stephan Gabillard, Research Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Has Brazil Achieved Escape Velocity?", dated February 8, 2017, link available on page 14. 2 Turkey shot down a Russian Sukhoi Su-24 on November 24th 2015 and Andrei Karlov, the Russian ambassador to Turkey got shot dead by a Turkish police officer in Ankara on December 19th 2016. 3 The BP and TNK deal failed for obvious reasons. BP and TNK had already come in confrontation when in the mid-1990's BP had bought a 10 percent stake in Sidanco only to see TNK strip the company of its asset. Furthermore, TNK was involved in other mergers inside Russia, making extremely confusing to understand what assets it actually owned. 4 Putin's campaign to sideline Khodorkovsky and Berezovsky for example sometimes came at odds with foreign investment in Russia. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Congress Pass The Border Adjustment Tax," dated February 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Nothing in Trump's congressional address changes our outlook from November; Trump has reaffirmed his commitment to mercantilism; Investors should continue to favor small caps over large caps; We expect Trump to get his way on more spending, and a tax reform plan to pass by the end of the year; The Dutch election is a red herring, Le Pen's chances of winning are falling, but Italy remains a risk, especially in 2018; North Korea has evolved from a red herring into a black swan, stay short KRW/THB. Feature President Donald J. Trump delivered a reassuring speech last week. Sporting a magnanimous tone (and a new tie!) the president shocked the media by invoking a "new surge of optimism." Gone were the diatribes about "American carnage." Instead, President Trump implored Congress to work together to bring forth a major infrastructure program that would rival that of Eisenhower's interstate highway system, adopt a merit-based immigration system akin to Canada, and reform Obamacare in a way that would retain all its popular pillars. Trump concluded the speech by stating that "everything that is broken in our country can be fixed" and warning the polarized Congress that "true love for our people requires us to find common ground." After the speech, a narrative emerged in the media and financial press saying that Trump was a changed man. Should investors believe it? Not at all! There was simply nothing in the Trump speech that changes our outlook in November: that President Trump was elected on a populist platform and that he will be unconstrained on blowing out the U.S. budget and pursuing a mercantilist agenda.1 On everything else - from immigration reform to Obamacare - Trump may pursue a pragmatic set of policies. Or he may not. But what investors really care about is whether the Trump administration and Congress will: Get sweeping tax cut legislation done in 2017; Pass some infrastructure spending in 2017; Pursue protectionist policies. On all three counts, we believe that the answer is yes. Trump will get his way on both his pro-growth - anti-fiscal discipline - and mercantilist agendas. The timing is difficult to gauge, but we believe that we will see all three policy avenues aggressively pursued throughout the year and passed into law by the year's end. Trump's speech has only reinforced this view. Who Is Trump? Tax Cuts As we discussed in a recent report detailing the border adjustment tax (BAT) proposal, newly elected presidents rarely fumble on tax reform.2 Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and Bush all managed to pass major tax legislation in their first years, and Trump has stronger majorities than Bush did (Table 1). The GOP has been planning tax reform throughout the Obama administration, staffers and think tanks have "off the shelf" plans, and lawmakers know that time is short. In recent decades, the average length of time from the introduction of a major tax reform to the president's signature has been five months. Table 1Major Tax Legislation And The Congressional Balance Of Power In addition, the GOP knows that it must move fast if it wants to pass any tax cuts in 2017. President Trump is now the most unpopular president since polling began tracking the question (Chart 1). Chart 1Does President Trump Lack Political Capital? However, Republican voters continue to support him at 88%. This means that the House Republicans are vulnerable both to a Democrat/Independent backlash against Trump in the midterm elections and a Trump supporter backlash in the Republican primaries. They need to pass major legislation that satisfies middle class concerns and ensure that they do not incur the wrath of the Trump voters in primary races. While it is unlikely that the Democrats could significantly eat into Republican majorities in the House of Representatives and the Senate, stranger things have happened.3 Adding fire under the GOP are two special Congressional Elections, in Georgia's sixth district and for Montana's "at large" seat, to be held in April and May respectively.4 Both were easily won in November by Republicans. A slippage by the Republicans in either would send shockwaves through Congress. There is therefore little time to waste. The Republicans know that they must strike while the iron is hot. We suspect that most representatives will abandon their demand for revenue-neutral tax reform to get any tax reform. That may mean adjusting House Speaker Paul Ryan's favorite revenue-raising proposal - the border adjustment tax (BAT) - so that it brings less revenue by exempting whole categories of imports from punitive corporate taxes. "Dynamic scoring" - an accounting method that considers the holistic impact of budget measures on revenues and thus deficits - will be used to make the "math" work and satisfy the procedural demand for budget responsibility.5 What about Obamacare? A narrative has emerged in the media that Republicans cannot work on tax reform while the issue of "repealing and replacing" the Affordable Care Act looms over their heads. We disagree. There are plenty of examples of the White House and Congress cooperating on multiple policy agendas at the same time. For example, the Obama White House used its majorities in Congress to push through a major fiscal stimulus, financial reform, and the controversial health care plan. Ronald Reagan also managed to enact comprehensive immigration and tax reform in 1986. Trump's congressional address made only one mention of government debt. But he did emphasize that his tax plan would provide "massive tax relief for the middle class." This implies that the election campaign's individual income tax proposals may have to be altered. Trump's and the GOP's plans from last year agreed that the individual income tax should be reduced from seven to three brackets, with the marginal rates at 12%, 25%, and 33%. This would have cut the top marginal rate from 39.6% to 33%, but would also have left a significant number of Americans with an increase, or no change, to their marginal tax rate.6 It is likely that this will have to change, potentially creating an even greater impact on the deficit. Bottom Line: We expect both corporate and individual tax reform by the end of 2017. We do not have clarity on how legislators will go from here to there, but we suspect that to get both passed, Republicans in Congress will err on the side of greater deficits. As such, investors should expect exemptions on many imports under the final BAT (weakening any USD spike) and likely greater middle class tax cuts than are currently priced in the market. Infrastructure Spending Trump's congressional address ended several weeks of silence from the Trump administration on infrastructure spending. Not only did Trump reference the Eisenhower interstate highway system as a model to emulate, but he also promised a considerable increase in military spending and the completion of the wall on the border with Mexico ahead of schedule. Trump referred back to the original $1 trillion price tag that he announced in the heat of the electoral campaign. This figure was revised down by Trump's transition team to a modest $550 billion, though the difference may only be due to time frame. Whatever the case, Trump is using the bigger number now. We continue to believe that GOP representatives will not obstruct Trump's spending priorities. First, "dynamic scoring" can be applied to both tax cuts and infrastructure spending to make anything look close to revenue neutral. Second, voters want infrastructure spending (Chart 2). It is in fact the only issue other than combating drug addiction that Republicans and Democrats deeply agree on (Chart 3). Chart 2Everyone Loves Infrastructure Spending Chart 3Infrastructure Is Not A Partisan Issue Third, history is not on the side of deficit hawks. True, the national debt is higher today at $20 trillion than it has been for previous Republican administrations. However, it is not only an arithmetic fact that Republican administrations run large deficits (Chart 4), it is also a fact that they tend to get more than they ask from Congress. Chart 5 shows, with astonishing consistency, that Congress is only a check on Democratic presidents when it comes to the final size of appropriation bills, whereas Republican presidents always managed to get Congress to approve more funding than they asked for. Chart 4Fact: Republicans Run##br## Bigger Budget Deficits Chart 5Budgets: Republican Presidents ##br##Get What They Want Bottom Line: It remains difficult to gauge the actual size or economic impact of Trump's government spending proposals. However, we expect that President Trump will get his way on more spending not only for defense, veterans, and the wall, but also for infrastructure. While the impact will be minimal in 2017, investors should see greater fiscal thrust in 2018. Mercantilism While the media focused on the magnanimous tone of Trump's speech last week, we saw little change in his commitment to mercantilism. We continue to believe that Trump is a populist protectionist and that he is serious about enacting mercantilist policies.7 Recent government appointments (Table 2) and statements from the Trump administration (Table 3) suggest that we are correct. Table 2Government Appointments That Certify That Trump Is A Protectionist In his speech, Trump invoked President Abraham Lincoln's words that "abandonment of the protective policy by the American Government [will] produce want and ruin among our people."8 He went on to call for "fair trade," contrasted explicitly with "free trade," and to suggest that he would support changing the U.S. corporate tax system to make U.S. exports more competitive. Trump also said on February 24, in a Reuters interview, that he thought that the border adjustment tax would boost exports and help keep jobs in the U.S.9 This should end the speculation - prompted by an early comment from Trump on the BAT - that the president and congressional GOP are irreconcilably at odds over the BAT. Table 3Protectionist Statements From The Trump Administration While Trump has yet to endorse Ryan's BAT proposal officially, he does not oppose its protectionist aspects. As a reminder, the BAT is protectionist because of two key elements: The BAT would give a "rebate" on exports (implicitly or explicitly) that could be higher than the amount of tax due on foreign profits (Diagram 1). For all intents and purposes, this is a dirigiste government subsidy for export-oriented industries. Diagram 1Explaining The Border-Adjusted Destination-Based Cash-Flow Tax The BAT would allow companies to write off wages and salaries as costs, just like under the current corporate income tax system. But under the value-added tax systems of the rest of the world wages are not deductible. In addition, Trump still retains a bevy of traditional tools like tariffs with which to go after potential trade rivals. As we have pointed out since November, there are few constraints on a U.S. president when imposing protectionist measures.10 Bottom Line: Donald Trump remains committed to a mercantilist agenda. Investors should expect him to live up to the hype at some point in 2017. Investment Implications If markets have been cheering Trump's pro-growth policies, in addition to improving global growth data, we suspect the stock-market party will continue. Investors can take from President Trump's March 1 speech a renewed commitment to a populist agenda that should cause government spending to increase, regulations to be cut, corporate and individual tax rates to fall, and the budget deficit to widen. Won't this pursuit of nominal GDP growth at any cost create conditions for inflation and eventually a recession? Yes, but the timing is difficult to gauge and much will depend on whether Donald Trump replaces the doves on the Fed governing board with hawks, as current conventional wisdom has it. We highly doubt that he would chose hawks, or policymakers committed to rules-based central banking, given his singular focus on reviving economic growth. But even a dovish Fed may move to raise interest rates aggressively given the slate of pro-growth policies being undertaken so late in the economic cycle. In the meantime, on a cyclical horizon, the party will continue and stocks will go higher. As we posited two weeks ago, many of our clients are cautious and tactically bearish, expecting a correction, but we cannot find a single structural bear. In this environment, where everyone expects to "buy on dips" following the correction that never seems to happen, it is hard for a correction to happen. But isn't protectionism and a trade war between the U.S. and China, or even the rest of the world, a risk to the rally? Not necessarily. First, the timing is uncertain. Second, the impact on economic growth is even more uncertain. Third, aside from any knee-jerk selloffs, protectionism will split sectors and stocks into winners and losers. Those with a greater share of revenues abroad will suffer due to potential retaliation from America's trade partners. Furthermore, much of Trump's policies will be dollar bullish - including tax cuts, greater government spending, and likely the BAT. As such, export-oriented sectors and companies will stand to suffer. We continue to believe that an overweight position in small caps will be a way to play the "Trump effect" on a strategic basis. Europe - Election Update Europe's election season is heating up, with the Dutch election just a week away and the first round of the French presidential election in just over a month. Here is a quick update on the key developments: The Netherlands According to the latest polls from the Netherlands, the Euroskeptic Party for Freedom (PVV) appears to be slipping (Chart 6). Just two months ago, the PVV was projected to capture around 35 seats, a number that has now fallen to around 25. Given that the Dutch parliament has 150 seats and that the PVV has no potential allies amongst the other 13 competitive parties, this election is largely a red herring. Should investors be worried about the Netherlands' role in European integration in the future? We don't think so. Support for the euro and the EU has not slipped in the Netherlands, at least not according to the data we have presented in these pages before.11 Instead, the PVV's support has risen due to the recent migration crisis. In fact, the number of asylum seekers has correlated almost perfectly with the PVV's support level since mid-2015 when the influx began (Chart 7). Given that the migration crisis is over (and we do not expect it to restart any time soon), we suspect that the PVV's support will moderate over the next electoral cycle. Chart 6Dutch Euroskeptics Are##br## An Overstated Threat Chart 7Dutch Populists Are A##br## Derivative Of The Immigration Crisis France The French election continues to grab headlines in Europe. However, almost all the news is bad news for Marine Le Pen. First, François Bayrou, a notable centrist who captured 9.3% of the vote in the first round of the 2012 election and 18.6% in 2007, has decided not to contest the election and instead support Emmanuel Macron. Non-French media have not picked up on the significance of the endorsement. It is more important than Bayrou's 3-5% level of support in the polls suggests. While Bayrou is a centrist, he once belonged to the center-right, conservative movement and was a cabinet minister during Jacques Chirac's reign. As such, his endorsement will give Macron, a former Socialist Party minister, even more "cross-over appeal" for center-right voters in the second round against Le Pen. Chart 8Le Pen Is Facing Resistance Second, the rumored alliance between the far-left Jean-Luc Mélenchon and the left-wing candidate of the ruling Socialist Party, Benoît Hamon, has failed to materialize. Their potential alliance was one of the main concerns that many of our clients brought to us in recent meetings. Given current polling, such a marriage could have produced a singular left-wing candidacy that would have propelled either Mélenchon or Hamon into the second round. However, the alliance was always a long shot, as anyone who has followed French politics knows, given Mélenchon's staunch commitment to running on his own platform. And furthermore, arithmetically combining the polling of the two candidates makes no sense given that a singular platform would have forced compromises that would have led to serious defections by voters to other candidates. As such, the combined ticket's support level was always just a theoretical exercise. Third, the latest polls suggest that Le Pen's mini-rally has been arrested (Chart 8). She has failed to consistently break through the 40% percentile mark for the second round. Against Macron, her most likely opponent, she continues to trail by a 25-30% margin. The second-round election is on May 7, just two months away. Two months from November 8, Donald Trump trailed Hillary Clinton by just 5%. Italy Our main political concern in Europe remains Italy. Polls continue to show that Euroskeptics are gaining on the centrist parties (Chart 9). Most worryingly, Italians continue to gain confidence in life outside the EU. According to a poll that asks respondents whether they think "their country could better face the future outside of the EU," Italians are the most optimistic, next to the Brits and the historically Euroskeptic Austrians, about life outside the bloc (Chart 10). Chart 9Italian Establishment##br## Is Collapsing Chart 10AItalians Are Now The Only People In ##br##The EU Who Are Like The Brits Chart 10BItalians Are Now The Only People In##br## The EU Who Are Like The Brits We therefore find the market's sanguine view on Italy to be myopic. Yes, the probability of an election in 2017 is declining. The ruling Democratic Party (PD) has set its leadership race for April 30, which rules out an election this summer, and former Prime Minister Matteo Renzi appears to have agreed to an election in February 2018.12 On a cyclical time horizon of 12 months, Italy is therefore not a major risk. However, once the election does take place, it could be source of considerable market volatility. At that point, investors would have to ask whether the election would take place under a new electoral law. If not, then the probability of a hung parliament would be considerable. Unless, that is, the Euroskeptic parties could form a coalition based solely on holding a referendum to leave the euro area. We doubt that the left-wing Five Star Movement (M5S) would be able to cooperate with the more staunchly Euroskeptic and right-wing Northern League and Brothers of Italy on this matter. Particularly since M5S has already begun to moderate on the issue of Euroskepticism. There is no point in speculating on an outcome of an election a year from now given that we are not even certain what electoral rules the contest would use. However, we do not think that investors should be sanguine because the likeliest outcome is governmental dysfunction. Chart 11SPD Continues Its Incredible Ascent The one thing that may help Italy in 2018 is the outcome of the German election in September. The radically Europhile chancellor-candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SPD), Martin Schulz, has continued to do well in the polls against Angela Merkel (Chart 11). On a recent tour of highly sophisticated clients in New York we were surprised that only a handful were aware of Schulz's platform and background. Even if Schulz does not win, a renewed Grand Coalition between Merkel's Christian Democratic Union and the SPD would have to take into consideration his meteoric rise. The price for a renewed Grand Coalition could be the abandonment of Merkel's reticent leadership of the euro area. Investment Implications For now, our view that the markets will climb the wall of worry in Europe in 2017 is holding up. We suspect that investors will quickly refocus their attention on Italy once the French election is out of the way. One of the best gauges of euro area breakup risk has been the performance of French bonds versus German bonds relative to the performance of Spanish and Italian bonds versus German bonds. In our view, every time French spreads have correlated highly with Spanish and Italian spreads, the euro area faced existential threats. The shaded sections of Chart 12 largely conform to the political context in Europe over the past five years. In particular, it is interesting that French yields have decoupled from their Mediterranean peers ever since the ECB's "whatever it takes" announcement. Chart 12French Spreads Are Overstated Until right now, that is. We think the bond market is making a mistake. France is not a risk and euro area breakup risk over the next 12 months is essentially near zero. However, the probability of a major economy leaving the euro area over the next five years is going up. This is both because of the political situation in Italy and because Euroskeptics like Marine Le Pen could take over the mantle of the "official opposition" to the "centrist consensus" running Europe. If a country like Italy exits the euro area, would the currency union be doomed? It depends, largely on how that economy were to perform post-exit. In the ceteris paribus world of macroeconomics, a massive currency devaluation post-exit would be a clear and definitive positive. However, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy was created specifically to go beyond ceteris paribus analysis. And we doubt that the euro area exit would be undertaken by pragmatic policymakers capable of taking advantage of currency devaluation while reassuring both markets and EU member states that they would pursue orthodox economic policies. As a guide for what we think would happen to Italy, we would suggest our clients read our January 2016 report on the Greek future post euro area.13 In this think piece, we argue that Greece would not become a "land of milk and honey" after exiting, largely because the political context of exit would be turbulent and lead to populist policies that would devastate the economy. As such, we would stress that while the probability of an individual member state leaving the euro area is climbing - even one as important as Italy - it does not necessarily mean that the probability of euro area dissolution is climbing at the same rate. North Korea: No Longer A Red Herring A brief word about the Korean peninsula is in order after the four North Korean missile tests on March 6 and our report last week recommending that clients steer clear of South Korean assets.14 Simply put, the Korean peninsula is a source of real geopolitical risk right now, contrary to the status quo in which North Korea was largely a red herring. We have narrated this transition since last year,15 but it boils down to the following points: North Korea is finally "arriving" at the nuclear club: It is coming upon that horizon foreseen long ago in which it possesses the ability strike the United States with a nuclear missile, however crude. The American and Japanese defense establishments are becoming more concerned, and their public opinion can follow on command.16 Trump's policy looks to be more assertive, though that is not certain. U.S.-China relations have gone sour: The worsening of Sino-American tensions makes these two more suspicious of each other's motives and simultaneously increases economic and political pressure on both Koreas. Ironically, China is currently sanctioning both North and South Korea, the latter because it is hosting the U.S. THAAD missile defense system (Chart 13). The U.S., for its part, has been rushing THAAD, which it is just now rapidly deploying after the latest North Korean launches. North Korean internal stability is overrated: It is hard to argue that Kim Jong Un has not consolidated power impressively. But this consolidation has coincided with some loosening of internal economic control to help compensate for slower Chinese growth and worse Chinese relations. Gradual marketization threatens to undermine the regime from within, yet the standard playbook of belligerence threatens to provoke sanctions with real teeth from without, like China's proposed coal import ban for the rest of this year.17 Chart 13China Hits Seoul Over U.S. THAAD Missiles Adding to the volatile mix, South Korea's right-of-center ruling party is collapsing, which affects the behavior of all the interested parties. The Constitutional Court is set to decide whether to uphold the president's impeachment as early as this week. Where is it all going? In the short term, markets will respond to the court case and elections. A ruling is expected immediately, but could take until June. A ruling ejecting the president would be positive for South Korean risk assets, as it would reduce the current extreme uncertainty. As to the long-term outlook, if everything were to happen according to the region's familiar patterns of rising and falling tensions, China's sanctions would force North Korea to offer de-escalation, a new left-wing government in South Korea would launch a bold new "Sunshine Policy" of engagement with the North, and the alignment of these three in favor of new diplomatic negotiations would drive Japan and the United States to give peace another chance despite their skepticism about the outcome. By 2018, a revival of something like the Six Party Talks, discontinued in 2009, would be on the horizon or even underway. The problem is that the usual cycle is less assured because of the North's improving capabilities and other factors above. Thus, until we see China verifiably enforce sanctions, North Korea step back from its provocations, and the Trump administration take a non-aggressive posture (with Japan following suit), the Korean peninsula will be at a heightened risk of producing geopolitical "black swan" events. Bottom Line: North Korea is shifting from a red herring to a potential black swan, at least until U.S.-China relations improve and lend some stability to the situation. Stay short KRW/THB. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Congress Pass The Border Adjustment Tax?" dated February 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 For example, the 2010 "Tea Party" revolution reversed the Democrat's majority in the House with one of the most sweeping victories merely 24 months following President Obama's 2008 victory, which itself was a lot more convincing than Trump's victory over Clinton. 4 Republican Ryan Zinke won the Montana seat but left it to become Trump's Secretary of Interior; Republican Tom Price won the Georgia seat but left it to become Secretary of Health and Human Services. 5 Dynamic-scoring, also known as macroeconomic modeling, is a favorite tool of Republican legislators when passing tax cut legislation. It allows policymakers to cut taxes and then score the impact on the budget deficit holistically, taking into consideration the supposed pro-growth impact of the legislation. The same method could be used to pass "revenue-neutral" infrastructure spending, given that it too would produce higher economic growth and thus presumably higher government revenues. 6 Several income brackets would see no substantial tax cuts under the original tax cut plan proposed by the Trump campaign. Those making $15,000-$19,000 would see their tax rate increase from 10% to 12%. Those making $52,500-101,500 would see their rate stay the same at 25%, while those making $127,500-$200,500 would see their rate rise substantively, from 28% to 33%. Please see Jim Nunns et al, "An Analysis Of Donald Trump's Revised Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center, October 18, 2016, available at www.taxpolicycenter.org. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, and "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 President Trump failed to mention that the U.S. was - when Lincoln made the statement in 1846 - a developing economy. Nor did he mention that Lincoln made the statements not as a president but a representative. 9 Please see Holland, Steve, Reuters, "Exclusive: Trump says Republican border tax could boost U.S. jobs," dated February 24, 2017, available at reuters.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Renzi said on February 26 that "The elections are envisaged in February 2018. Fullstop." Please see Reuters, "Decision on early Italian elections up to PM Gentiloni: Renzi," dated February 26, 2017, available at reuters.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Greece After The Euro: A Land Of Milk And Honey?," dated January 20, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "How To Play The Proxy Battles In Asia," dated March 1, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2016: Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, and "North Korea: A Red Herring No More?" in Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Partem Mirabilis," dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 16 Please see Mark Landler, "North Korea Nuclear Threat Cited by James Clapper, Intelligence Chief," New York Times, February 9, 2016; Siegfried S. Hecker, "The U.S. Must Talk To North Korea," New York Times, January 12, 2017, available at www.nytimes.com. See also Jeff Seldin, "N. Korea Capable of Nuclear Strike at US, Military Leader Says," Voice of America, April 7, 2015, available at www.voanews.com. In 2013, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey said that "in the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary, we have to assume the worst case, and that's ... why we're postured as we are today," quoted in "Hagel: North Korea Near 'Red Line,'" UPI, April 10, 2013, available at www.upi.com. 17 Enforcement is as yet unclear. Please see Leo Byrne, "North Korean cargo ship moves between Chinese, DPRK coal facilities," dated March 6, 2017, available at www.nknews.org.

The current U.S. economic expansion is the weakest of the post-WWII period but it will end up being one of the longest. The silver lining of moderate growth has been the absence of the typical imbalances and pressure points that accumulate in the advanced stages of a business cycle. The expansion will be eight years old in June, making it the third longest on record, using data back to the 1850s. If it were to last an extra two years, it would match the record-beating 10-year expansion of March 1991 to March 2001. But this is a big "if" because the odds of a recession in 2019 are quite high. The U.S. economy's growth path has been subdued by historical standards, but its natural speed limit also has declined, reflecting slower growth in both the labor force and productivity. Thus, the economy is not that far away from full employment. The Trump administration's policy platform is aimed at boosting the economy's growth rate, but the near-term impact will show up in demand more than the economy's supply performance. Force-feeding demand relative to supply risks overheating the economy in 2018, resulting in the classic conditions for a recession. Forecasting Recessions: A Mug's Game? You might reasonably think that altering the path of a large and complex economy is a bit like changing the direction of a supertanker: i.e. a gradual process that occurs with plenty of advance warning. Yet, recessions typically catch most policymakers and forecasters by surprise. For proof, just look at the forecasting record of the Federal Reserve. There have been eight recessions in the past 60 years (ignoring the brief 1980/81 downturn) and the Fed failed to forecast any of them. Table 1 shows the Fed's forecasts for the coming year that were made on the very month that the economy hit a peak, versus the actual outcome. Oh dear, not a very good record! I only pick on the Fed because the data is available - I doubt any other forecaster had a better record. The Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank produces a recession indicator index which is designed to highlight the odds of being in recession based on trends in recent GDP data. For example, the weaker the trend in recent GDP data, the greater the odds of being in a downturn. Returning to the supertanker analogy, a loss of momentum could be good indicator of a change in direction. Unfortunately, low readings are not necessarily a reliable cause for optimism. The 1974-75, 1981-82 and 2007-09 recessions were all severe and the recession indicator index had readings of 10%, 1.6% and 7.7% respectively at the times recession was just about to begin (Chart 1). Table 1Fed Economic Forecasts Versus Outcomes Chart 1Recession Indicator Index All is not completely hopeless. There are some indicators that help warn of impending problems, even if forecasters do not always pay enough attention to them. The old adage that "economic cycles do not die of old age, but usually are murdered" has a lot of truth. And the assassin typically is the central bank responding to a late-cycle build-up of inflationary pressures. Thus, a flat or inverted yield curve - the classic sign of tight monetary policy - has a decent track record of signaling economic downturns, although with a variable lead time (Chart 2). Currently, the yield curve is positively sloped, consistent with a stimulative monetary stance and little risk of a near-term recession. The Leading Economic Index, published by the Conference Board, also gives some warning of changes in economic direction, although caution is warranted. There have been a few false alarms and it is important to note that indexes like this are retro-fitted to tie into past cycles. As a result, they are refined and changed as necessary when they break down. Thus, in their current form, you cannot be sure how good they will be in signaling the next downturn. That being said, the index currently is in an uptrend, further supporting the view that the near-term outlook for the economy is positive (Chart 3). Chart 2The Yield Curve - A Good Recession Indicator Chart 3No Sign Of Recession Here Some sectors of the economy are very cyclical (e.g. consumer spending on durables, business investment in equipment, and housing) while some are relatively stable (e.g. spending on food, health care, energy and most other services). Thus, changes in cyclical spending relative to overall GDP can also flag shifts in economic momentum. The second panel of Chart 3 shows that spending on the three key cyclical sectors mentioned above tends to decline as a share of GDP ahead of recessions, albeit sometimes with a long lag. Currently, the ratio of cyclical spending to GDP is still recovering from the extraordinary low level it reached during the 2007-09 downturn. Once again, there are no indications of looming problems. A final positive point to note is that there currently are no serious financial imbalances such as existed in 2007 with an excessive level of low-quality debt. There always is the potential for unexpected shocks, but even the global economic environment has improved recently. So, What's The Problem? It seems clear that the economy is doing fine, with no signs of a recession on the horizon. Indeed, growth is more likely to accelerate than decelerate over the next year. The problem is that the new administration is intent on stimulating growth when it does not really need a demand boost. Certainly, the economy could do with major help to improve its supply-side (i.e. productivity) performance, and some of the administration's plans are designed to do just that. Cutting regulations and reducing/reforming corporate taxes are intended to revive business investment and thus improve the economy's long-run growth potential. Chart 4The Disinflation Era Has Ended Businesses have long complained loudly about the burden of excessive regulation and there surely are improvements to be made. However, the impact on productivity and growth will be incremental rather than seismic. Reductions in regulations are focusing on financial services, energy and the environment, areas that will not obviously contribute to a more general productivity improvement in the industrial sector. Lower corporate taxes should encourage more business capital spending, but again, the impact on overall productivity likely would take time to develop. Meanwhile, cuts in personal taxes would have a more immediate impact on demand. There is still a lot of uncertainty about the scale and timing of fiscal stimulus over the next year or so. Reforming the tax code is complex and will face a headwind from the intervention of special interests; there will be opposition to the administration's impractical desire for drastic cuts in discretionary non-defense spending; coming up with practical infrastructure projects will take time; and there will be a fight over the implications of fiscal plans for the deficit and debt. Nonetheless, stimulus is coming and it will affect 2018 more than 2017. Even if the impact is limited to 1% of GDP in calendar 2018, that could be enough to trigger increased inflationary pressures. According to estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and IMF, the U.S. economy is operating between 0.5% and 1% below its potential level. Such calculations have to be treated with caution given the difficulty of measuring the economy's potential. Nonetheless, the low rate of unemployment is consistent with an economy that does not have a huge amount of slack. This is further supported by the acceleration in wage growth and the end of the downturn in underlying inflation (Chart 4). We are not on the verge of a major acceleration in inflation. The business environment remains highly competitive, technology continues to exert downward pricing pressure in several sectors, and a firm dollar is keeping a lid on import costs. Nevertheless, a corner has been turned: unit labor costs are rising as are non-oil import prices, and if the economy expands at a faster pace than its potential (currently estimated to be a measly 1.6% by the CBO), then price pressures are likely to increase not decrease. Will a modest pickup in inflation be enough to turn the Federal Reserve from being doves into hawks? That depends on who will be in charge at the Fed during the next couple of years. The Coming Change Of The Guard At The Fed The seven-member Federal Reserve Board of Governors is set to have what probably is its biggest ever short-term change in membership. There currently are two open positions to fill and a third will be available in early April when Governor Tarullo departs. Then we have the issue of Janet Yellen whose term as Fed Chair ends on February 3, 2018 and Stanley Fischer whose term as Vice-Chair ends on June 12 of that year. Both could stay on as regular governors when their terms as Chair and Vice-Chair expire, but the odds of that are close to zero. Finally, we cannot rule out the resignation of Governor Lael Brainard in the next year or so. As a Hillary Clinton-supporting Democrat, she may find it unpalatable to work with a stable of Trump appointees. In sum, Trump will have the chance to appoint five or six of the Fed Board over the next two years. Who might Trump appoint? It seems that Trump does not hold economists in very high esteem, judging by his decision to remove the head of the Council of Economic Advisers from the cabinet. Thus, it will not be a surprise if Trump focuses more on business sector/banking people rather than economists to fill the majority of vacant Fed positions. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but some members with economic/monetary expertise will be needed. Hopefully, Treasury Secretary Mnuchin and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn will be voices of reason whispering in Trump's ear to appoint at least some people with appropriate economic and policy expertise. Regardless, it seems almost certain that the Board will have a lot of neophytes and there will be very few people left in the broader Federal Reserve System with a lot of institutional memory and policymaking experience. Chart 5The Fed Funds Rate Would Be 3% ##br##Using The Taylor Rule As a major user of leverage, businessman Trump surely appreciated the benefits of low interest rates. Yet, during the presidential campaign, he was critical of the Fed's easy money policies. Meanwhile, look at some of the economic advisers he has used. Larry Kudlow, Stephen Moore, Judy Shelton and David Malpass all have expressed fondness for either a return to a gold standard or for a more rule-based approach to monetary policy. None were comfortable with quantitative easing. And given that Stephen Bannon has previously called for the Fed to be dismantled, we can assume he also would favor a rule-based approach to policy. Names rumored to be in consideration for the next Fed Chair include former Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher, former Fed governor Kevin Warsh, and monetary expert John Taylor. These all would be considerably less dovish than Janet Yellen. According to the Atlanta Fed, a Taylor-rule approach to policy would have the federal funds rate above 3% currently1 (Chart 5). The point is that the next iteration of the Fed Board is likely to be more hawkish than the current version. And given that even the Yellen-led Fed expects the funds rate to be close to 3% by the end of 2019, the "new" Fed is likely to adopt higher numbers, especially in the context of fiscal stimulus and increased inflationary pressures. It is not unreasonable to think that the funds rate will be in the vicinity of 3% by the end of 2018. In that event, the yield curve could well be flat or inverted, giving a classic warning signal of increased recession risks for 2019. Some of my colleagues believe that Trump will populate the Fed board with people who will do his bidding, rather than with people who may be too quick to raise rates, thereby undermining the economy. No doubt, that will certainly be true for some of the appointments. If the majority of the board including the Fed Chair were administration puppets, then we doubt that would end well for the economy. Allowing the economy to run hot for while may delay the onset of recession, but it would heighten the risks for an even deeper downturn later on. In that scenario, it would be a 2020 recession rather than one in 2019. In either case, the timing would not be convenient relative to the election cycle. Concluding Thoughts I am very well aware of the irony of predicting a recession after pointing out that economists have done a poor job of getting such forecasts right in the past. There is a lot of conjecture involved in my story, so it is all a bit speculative at this point. We don't yet know the scale and timing of the fiscal stimulus that the administration will propose and, more importantly, will succeed in getting legislated. We can't be sure exactly how much slack is left in the economy and how quickly inflation pressures may build. We don't know who will be at the helm of the Fed in the coming years. And I am well aware that there also are downside risks, not least the potential for damaging trade wars if the administration moves ahead with protectionist policies. There are a lot of unknowns that should make people very skeptical of all economic forecasts. Despite the above uncertainties, the near-term economic outlook is reasonably bright, even if near-run GDP data is a bit disappointing. Most economic indicators are headed up. Meanwhile, one should applaud measures to boost the supply-side of the economy via reducing regulatory burdens, reforming the corporate tax system and boosting infrastructure spending. However, more conventional stimulus in the form of personal tax cuts and increases in other government spending is neither necessary nor desirable at this advanced stage of the cycle. As often is the case, I suspect that fiscal policy will end up being pro-cyclical rather than counter-cyclical i.e. boosting demand when it does not need much help. The economic expansion has lasted a long time because its moderate pace has not been conducive to the build-up of classic late-cycle imbalances. Thus, attempts to force-feed growth to a 3%+ pace ultimately will be self-defeating. Optimism toward the economy will increase over the next year as growth firms, thereby seeming to discredit the thesis expressed in this report. Yet, just as investors typically are most bullish at the peak of a bull market, there will be a similar tendency regarding views on the economy. Typically, the stock market leads the economy by around six months. If, say, the economy heads into recession in early 2019, then we should expect equity prices to peak around the middle of next year. That implies that the bull market could run for another year, albeit with occasional setbacks. The other market implication of tighter money and looser fiscal policy is further upside in the dollar. Martin H. Barnes, Senior Vice President Economic Advisor mbarnes@bcaresearch.com 1 The Taylor rule, devised by John Taylor in 1992, calculates where the federal funds rate should be if the Fed followed a mechanical approach to meeting its targets of 2% inflation and an economy operating at full employment.

Highlights Assessing Our Tilts: Our decision to upgrade corporate spread product versus government debt in the U.S., and to reduce overall recommended duration exposure, at the end of January has been performing well. Maintain these tilts, with both soft and hard economic data pointing to a broadening global economic upturn and the Fed prepared to hike rates next week. Fed Vs ECB: Cyclical comparisons of the Euro Area today to the U.S. in the months prior to the Fed's 2013 "Taper Tantrum" show that the Euro Area is closer to full employment, with headline inflation at target, compared to the U.S. four years ago. The ECB may be facing its own tantrum pressures later in 2017. U.K.: Gilts have already priced in a significantly weaker U.K. economic outlook, especially with regards to consumer spending, yet inflation expectations are only now starting to peak. Raise U.K. bond exposure to neutral, from underweight. More clarity on the Brexit negotiations status is necessary to develop a firmer conviction on Gilts with yields already at rich levels. Feature Chart of the WeekAre Central Banks Getting ##br##Behind The Curve? A whiff of central bank hawkishness has quickly swept over the major bond markets. In the U.S., a series of Fed speeches, coming after a string of improving economic data amid booming asset markets, has turned a March Fed rate hike from a long-shot to a virtual certainty in little more than a week. In Europe, another round of stronger inflation data is emboldening some of the hawks at the European Central Bank (ECB) to more openly question if some tapering of the central bank's asset purchases will be necessary next year. Even in the U.K., the Bank of England (BoE) is letting its latest round of Gilt quantitative easing (QE) expire, although the BoE is not close to considering a rate hike, as we discuss later in this Weekly Report. Chart 2A Supportive Backdrop ##br##For Taking Credit Risk A move by the Fed next week now seems like a done deal, and the new question for investors is: how many more times the Fed will lift rates in 2017? The market is now pricing in "only" 75bps of hikes over the next year, even as the S&P 500 sits close to its all-time high and U.S. jobless claims hit a 43-year low last week (Chart 1). We still see three hikes - the Fed's current projection - to be the most that the Fed will deliver in 2017. Yet the fact that equity & credit markets have taken the rising odds of a March rate increase in stride might nudge the Fed towards even more hikes this year than currently forecast. Bond markets around the world will likely not take a shift higher in the Fed "dots" very well, although in the U.S. the immediate upside for yields remains tempered by the persistent short positioning in the U.S. Treasury market. We still expect Treasury yields to rise over the next 6-9 months, though, driven by additional increases in inflation expectations rather than a sharp repricing of the expected path of the funds rate. The biggest risk looming for global bonds, however, would come from any signal by the ECB that a taper is in the cards next year. That would likely result in wider term premiums and bear-steepening of yield curves in the major developed government bond markets. It would be a surprise if the ECB started preparing the markets for a less accommodative policy stance at this week's meeting, although questions about a taper will certainly be posed to ECB President Draghi by reporters after the meeting. Evaluating Our Recommendations As Global Growth Improves Back on January 31st, we shifted to a more pro-growth stance in our fixed income portfolio recommendations, moving our duration tilt back to below-benchmark, while downgrading government debt and upgrading corporate bond exposure.1 The key to that shift was a growing body of evidence pointing to a broadening global economic upturn. The latest round of global purchasing managers' indices (PMIs) released last week confirmed that the business cycle dynamics continue to accelerate to the upside (Chart 2). This will maintain upward pressure on bond yields and downward pressure on credit spreads. Our portfolio recommendations have generally done well since we made our shift. In Chart 3, we show the excess returns (on a currency-hedged basis) for the individual government debt markets versus the overall Barclays Global Treasury Index since the end of January. Our underweight positions in the U.S., Spain and Australia (up to February 21st, when we upgraded Aussie debt to neutral) performed well, as did our overweights in core Europe (Germany & France). Our worst performing tilts were our below-benchmark stances on Italy, which benefitted greatly from some diminished pressures on French government debt last week, and U.K. Gilts, which we discuss later in this report. In Chart 4, we show the excess returns (on a currency-hedged basis) for the major spread product markets, since January 31. Our decisions to upgrade U.S. investment grade (IG) to above-benchmark, and U.S. high-yield (HY) to neutral, have done well as U.S. corporate spreads continue to tighten in response to improving U.S. economic growth. Our relative exposures between the U.S. and Euro Area remain our biggest tilts between countries. Specifically, we remain overweight core Euro Area government debt versus U.S. Treasuries, while we are neutral U.S. HY and underweight Euro Area equivalents. On IG corporate debt, we are above-benchmark on both sides of the Atlantic. Our marginal preference, however, is for U.S. IG given the shifting changes in relative balance sheet health in the U.S. (improving, but from relatively poor levels) versus Europe (stable, but at relatively strong levels) suggested by our Corporate Health Monitors. On a currency-hedged and duration-matched basis, our relative U.S. vs Euro Area tilts have done well since our major allocation shift on January 31 (Chart 5), with Treasuries underperforming, U.S. HY outperforming and both U.S. and European IG performing similarly. Chart 3Our Recent Country Allocation Performance Chart 4Our Recent Spread Product Allocation Performance Chart 5Our Europe Vs U.S. Tilts Have Done Well Of Late Bottom Line: Our decision to upgrade corporate spread product risk versus government debt in the U.S., and to reduce overall recommended duration exposure, at the end of January has been performing well. Maintain these tilts, with both soft and hard economic data pointing to a broadening global economic upturn and the Fed prepared to hike rates next week. The Timing Of A Potential "Bund Tantrum" Looking ahead, timing a potential turn in our U.S. versus Europe tilts will likely remain the biggest call we make this year. With the Fed now set to raise rates again next week, and the ECB likely to deflect any talk of a taper to after the upcoming French elections (at the earliest), the bias will remain toward Treasury market underperformance in the near term. Yet the marginal pressures on inflation in both the U.S. and Euro Area suggest that a turning point in U.S./Core Europe bond spreads could arrive sooner than many expect. While realized inflation rates are moving higher in both regions, the underlying price pressures have a different look. In the U.S., headline inflation (using the Fed's preferred measure, the change in the personal consumption expenditure, or PCE, deflator) has risen to 1.89%, a mere 15bps above core PCE inflation with both measures now sitting just below the Fed's 2% target. Yet the breadth of the rise in core inflation has rolled over, according to our diffusion index (Chart 6). This suggests that the recent acceleration in core inflation, which we believe the Fed is most focused on, may take a pause in the next few months. The opposite is true in the Euro Area, where headline HICP inflation (the ECB's target measure) has soared to 1.9%, right at the ECB target of "at or just below" 2%. The gap between headline and core HICP inflation has been widening, though, as there has been very little follow through from the acceleration in headline inflation, largely driven by base effects related to previous rises in energy prices and declines in the euro, into core prices. Our Euro Area headline inflation diffusion index is moving higher, highlighting that the increase in headline HICP inflation is becoming more broadly based (Chart 7). Chart 6A Narrowing Increase In U.S. Inflation Chart 7A Broadening Increase In Euro Area Inflation The cyclical uptrend in Euro Area growth and inflation is also fairly broad-based at the country level, with the individual country PMIs and headline HICP inflation rates all in solid uptrends for the major countries in the region (Chart 8). At the same time, core inflation rates remain well contained. Various ECB members have pointed to the benign core inflation readings as a reason to stay the course on extraordinarily accommodative monetary policy settings. Yet with unemployment rapidly falling in many parts of the Euro Area, it is becoming increasingly difficult to get a consensus view on maintaining the status quo on ECB policy. Already, the German Bundesbank has been quite vocal in questioning the need for the ECB to maintain the current pace of its asset purchase program, and that pressure will only grow with German inflation now above 2%. So how close is the ECB to a potential asset purchase taper? Some clues emerge when comparing Europe now to the U.S. around the time of the Fed's 2013 "Taper Tantrum." In Chart 9, we show "cycle-on-cycle" comparisons for both the Euro Area and U.S. All series in the chart are lined up to the peak in our Months-To-Hike indicator, which measures the number of months to the first rate hike of the next interest rate cycle, as discounted in the Overnight Index Swap (OIS) curve. That indicator peaked in the U.S. in late 2012, several months before Ben Bernanke's infamous speech in May 2013 that signaled the Fed's QE appetite was beginning to wane. Chart 8A Consistent Upturn##br## In Europe Chart 9Less Spare Capacity In Europe Now Vs ##br##Pre-Taper Tantrum U.S. In the Euro Area, the Months-To-Hike indicator peaked in July of last year right around the time of the U.K. Brexit vote. Interestingly, the indicator remains much higher than it ever was in the U.S. during the QE era, indicating how the market believes that the ECB will have to maintain zero (or lower) interest rates for longer. Yet, by some measures, the ECB is closer to reaching its policy goals then the Fed was in 2012/13. In the 2nd panel of Chart 9, we show the "unemployment gap" - the difference between the unemployment rate and the rate consistent with inflation stability - for the U.S. and Euro Area. Note that there is far less spare capacity in labor markets today in Europe than there was in the U.S. when the Fed raised the topic of a QE taper to the markets. The U.S. unemployment rate was a full three percentage points above the full employment level in 2012, while Euro Area unemployment is now only one percentage point above full employment. In the bottom two panels of Chart 9, we show the gap between headline and core inflation in both the U.S. and Euro Area, relative to the 2% inflation targets that both the Fed and ECB aim to hit. U.S. inflation was in the vicinity of the Fed's target around the time of the Taper Tantrum. While Euro Area headline inflation is similarly close to the ECB's 2% target today, core inflation is much further away from 2% than U.S. core inflation was four years ago. If the ECB focuses on headline rather than core inflation, then Europe could be getting close to its own Taper Tantrum. Yet the relatively calmer readings on Euro Area core inflation suggest that the ECB does not have to make a rush to judgement on its asset purchase program, especially given the uncertainties presented by the upcoming French elections in April & May. We are still maintaining our overweight stance on core European government debt versus U.S. Treasuries, but we are growing increasingly worried that a turning point may be on the horizon. As can be seen in the additional cycle-on-cycle comparisons in Chart 10, the benchmark 10-year German Bund is tracing out a similar path to that of the 10-year U.S. Treasury around the time of the Fed Taper Tantrum. If the ECB focuses on the tightening labor market and accelerating pace of headline inflation in the Euro Area, a "Bund Tantrum" could become the big story for global bond markets later this year. Bottom Line: Cyclical comparisons of the Euro Area today to the U.S. in the months prior to the Fed's 2013 "Taper Tantrum" show that the Euro Area is closer to full employment, with headline inflation at target, compared to the U.S. four years ago. The ECB may be facing its own tantrum pressures later in 2017. Gilt(y) Optimism? The British economy has surprised to the upside in the last few months. Policy uncertainty has collapsed, while inflation expectations have marched higher and business optimism has stabilized. Most surprising against this backdrop, Gilt returns, on a currency hedged basis, have beaten most of their developed market fixed income peers (Chart 11). Chart 10A Bund Taper On The Horizon? Chart 11Gilts Should Have Underperformed This outperformance cannot be linked to factors such as the usual safe-haven status of Gilts, with no signs of major financial stresses in the Euro Area that would cause money to flow into Gilts (Chart 12). Indeed, the opposite has been happening as foreigners have been net sellers of Gilts in recent months. A better explanation might come from what has become a bond-bullish linkage between the British currency, inflation, real wages and consumption. In all likelihood, investors have already incorporated most of the impact of a weak Pound on U.K. inflation expectations and Gilt yields. Yet higher expected prices continue to erode household purchasing power, leading to weaker consumer spending (Chart 13). This dynamic is bullish for bonds. Chart 12Can't Blame The Safe Haven Status This Time Chart 13Consumers Will Feel The Pinch Already, this backdrop has become widely accepted. The Bloomberg survey of economists' forecasts is calling for U.K. consumer spending growth to decelerate to 1.6% on a year-over-year basis in 2017, down from 2.8% in 2016. The BoE adopted a more dovish stance at last month's Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) meeting, citing the downside risks to consumption from high currency-driven inflation at a time of persistent spare capacity in labor markets and modest wage increases.2 This threat to U.K. growth from a more sluggish consumer should continue, at least in the short term. BCA's U.K. real average weekly earnings model is clearly pointing towards additional declines in inflation-adjusted wages (Chart 14). This should restrain consumption growth, especially as other factors boosting spending are likely to fade. For example, the gains to disposable income growth from falling interest rates are likely done for this cycle, with mortgage rates having little room to decline further from the current 2.5% level (Chart 15). Also, consumer credit is now expanding 10% year-over-year - a pace that is most likely unsustainable with household debt still at high levels relative to income and the savings rate having fallen close to pre-recession levels (Chart 16). As a result, U.K. consumers are unlikely to continue stretching their financial situation to support spending. Chart 14Real Wages Will Constrain Consumption Chart 15Little Room For Lower Mortgage Rates Chart 16Structural Limits On Consumer Credit Growth Additionally, the housing market could dent consumer confidence in the near term. Since the beginning of 2014, all measures of house price inflation have rolled over, while mortgage approvals have moved sideways (Chart 17). Signs of increased weakness are appearing and could force households to revise their spending habits downward. There are also potential risks coming from the business side, despite some more positive data of late. BCA's U.K. capex indicator, composed of several survey measures, points to a cyclical improvement in capital spending in the next few quarters. At the same time, net lending to non-financial institutions is growing at a robust rate (Chart 18), suggesting that credit availability is not an impairment for U.K. businesses. Chart 17Housing: From Tailwind To Headwind? Chart 18Some Optimism Is Warranted... However, the situation remains very fragile. The upcoming Brexit negotiations will keep animal spirits well contained. Firms have become more risk averse and less willing to take balance sheet risks according to the Deloitte CFO survey (Chart 19). Until the details on the U.K.'s future economic links to Europe are resolved, corporate decision-makers will be dissuaded from making long-term investments in productivity-enhancing capital such as plant and machinery. In turn, the continued lack of productivity gains will further depress U.K. corporate profitability (Chart 19, bottom panels). This uncertain environment will mean suppressed hiring intentions, greater slack in the economy and decreasing inflationary pressure. Consequently, the BoE should remain patient. The accommodative policy measures introduced last August after the Brexit vote have been working so far. Rock bottom real yields and highly expansionary money supply growth have spurred domestically generated inflation. While the BoE's latest Gilt QE program is expiring, there is no rush to hike rates until core inflation has reached the 2% threshold or until headline inflation tops out at 2.7% in Q1 2018, as the BoE predicts.3 As such, the probability of a rate hike this year, which has collapsed from 55% to 17% since January, will fall even further, to the benefit of Gilts (Chart 20). Chart 19...But The Brexit-Induced Stalemate ##br##Effects Still Prevail Chart 20More Time Needed ##br##For The BoE This week, we are upgrading our recommended stance on Gilts from below-benchmark to neutral. We have maintained an underweight posture since October 18th of last year, primarily driven by our expectation that rising U.K. inflation would put upward pressure on Gilt yields. Now that the main force driving inflation higher - the exchange rate - is bottoming out and possibly set to reverse, we have to change tack. On that note, our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy have recently laid out a very compelling bullish case for the Pound.4 They disagree with the assessment that further volatility in the currency is warranted because of the Brexit process. They oppose the market narrative that: Europeans will seek to punish the U.K. severely for Brexit, to set an example to their own Euroskeptics; Exiting the common market is negative for the country's economy in the short-term; Remaining legal uncertainties about Brexit could derail the process. In their view, two events that occurred in January - the U.K. Supreme Court decision that the U.K. parliament must have a say in triggering Article 50 and Prime Minister May's "Brexit means exit" speech - have reduced political uncertainty regarding Brexit. The first because parliament would ultimately be bound by the popular referendum. The second because the main cause of European consternation - the U.K. asking for special treatment with respect to the common market - was taken off the table. Thus, going forward, Europe will exact a price, but it will not be severe. And the negative economic repercussions of leaving will only be fully registered in the coming years. If our colleagues are right, an overweight position in Gilts could be tempting, as a stronger Pound would decrease inflation expectations, pushing nominal yields lower. This case is even stronger given the economic uncertainties we've laid out above. Despite their convincing arguments, we prefer to take a cautious approach, while waiting to see on what ground the Brexit negotiations will start. Moreover, Gilt valuations now seem rich, with spreads versus U.S. Treasuries at historic lows. Thus, we are only upgrading to a neutral allocation to Gilts for now. In our model portfolio (shown on Page 16), we are funding the increased Gilt allocations by equally reducing the U.S. and German exposure, given the upward pressure on yields in those markets described earlier in this Weekly Report. Bottom Line: The U.K. economy has surprised to the upside and inflation expectations have reacted in line with the domestic currency weakness. There is now a greater chance that both of those trends will reverse, to the benefit of Gilts. Raise U.K. bond exposure to neutral, from underweight. More clarity on the Brexit negotiations status is necessary to develop a firmer conviction on Gilts, especially with yield already at rich levels. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Jean-Laurent Gagnon, Editor/Strategist jeang@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Global Growth Upturn Has Legs: Reduce Duration, Upgrade Credit Exposure", dated January 31, 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com 2 The BoE lowered its estimate of the full-employment level of the U.K. unemployment rate, consistent with accelerating wage growth, from 5% to 4.5% at the February MPC meeting. 3 Please see "Inflation Report", February 2017, Bank Of England, available at http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/inflationreport/2017/feb.aspx 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "The "What Can You Do For Me" World?", dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns

Highlights President Trump has the opportunity to influence the Fed much more than past presidents, by virtue of the number of FOMC seats to fill and due to the likelihood that his nominations are likely to be confirmed. It would not be unprecedented for monetary policy to become politicized. In the current environment, the risk is that any loss of independence/politicization of the Fed would lead to higher inflation. Monitoring Trump's nominations will be the best way to gauge whether this is a legitimate worry for financial markets. Inflation will stay sufficiently benign in 2017 so that no more than three rate hikes occur in 2017. Feature Last week, a series of hawkish FOMC speeches caused expectations for a Fed rate hike in March to spike (Chart 1). On Friday, Yellen confirmed that a rate hike is likely in March as long as the data remains sufficiently strong. And Fed Governor Lael Brainard also signaled that a rate hike in mid-March is a high-probability outcome. What makes Brainard's hawkish comments particularly noteworthy is that she is well known to have very dovish leanings. She joins Fed Presidents Dudley and Williams, who also raised the prospect of raising rates this month earlier in the week. Chart 1March Rate Hike Expectations Surge In light of the recent Fed commentaries, our U.S. Bond Strategists now believe that a rate hike in March has a high likelihood. It will take a weak nonfarm payrolls report on Friday to stay the Fed's hand on March 15. As we note on page 7, the sudden hawkish shift to the Fed's rhetoric is somewhat at odds with the recent data, which do not call for any increased urgency to raise interest rates. For this reason, we believe it is premature to revise up the number of rate hikes likely to occur in 2017: we do not expect that economic and inflation performance will warrant a rate hike each quarter. Thus, we do not expect that overly tight monetary policy will be a risk to financial markets this year. This week, we focus on a longer-term threat to the monetary backdrop: the possibility of a more politicized Fed, and the implications for inflation. There has long been a healthy dose of suspicion in Congress about the Fed's role and conduct. But throughout Trump's campaign and now as president, the volume has been turned higher. There are several legislative proposals in recent years that have the potential to be advanced/passed during the next Presidential term: Audit The Fed: Audit the Fed legislation would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to audit the Fed's monetary policy decisions. The Fed's financial statements are already audited, and the GAO can examine most other Fed operations, but monetary policy decisions are currently exempt from needing Congress approval. This is the legislation that would be potentially most transformative for monetary policy, since it would subject the Fed to political pressure on monetary policy. Please see discussion below. The FORM Act: A main feature of the Fed Oversight Reform and Modernization Act (FORM) is the so-called Taylor Rule requirement, which would require Fed officials to establish a mathematical formula to guide their interest-rate decisions, and require them to report to Congress if they deviate from the rule. We discussed the Taylor rule and the FORM Act in Detail in the February 13th Weekly Report (Chart 2). The bill also would allow the GAO to audit the Fed's policy decisions; widen membership of the Fed's rate-setting committee; require the Fed Chair to testify more frequently; and place new restrictions on the Fed's emergency lending powers. Chart 2 landscapeA "Rules-Based" Fed Would Be A Tighter Fed Following a mechanical rule would severely limit the Fed's flexibility in determining the appropriate path of monetary policy. Bailout Prevention Act: This measure is designed to curtail the Fed's powers to lend to financial firms in an emergency. The 2010 Dodd-Frank law put some restrictions in place, but lawmakers on both sides of the aisle aren't satisfied the Fed has taken the necessary steps to implement those restrictions. Chart 3WWII Policy Expansion The Fed's ability to respond during crisis would henceforth be limited. Fed Capital Stock: This measure aims at requiring the Fed to pay back capital that banks paid to be members of the Fed system. The bill was introduced in 2015 after Congress voted to lower the dividend the Fed pays banks on that capital to help pay for federal highway programs. All of the above legislation will, if passed, have an impact on financial assets. However, Audit The Fed threatens to be by far the most transformative: as we discuss below, a slippage of independence of the U.S. monetary authority would have long-term consequences for the ability of policymakers to control inflation. At The Intersection Of The Fed And The Treasury: Inflation The Federal Reserve is part of the public sector. Its "chief executive" is a government appointee, and politicians have the power to legislate changes to central banks' structure, responsibilities, and mandates. Independence generally is interpreted as meaning that central bankers are free to conduct day-to-day monetary policy without any interference or influence from politicians, i.e. they have operational independence, not legal independence. It was not until The Banking Act of 1935 that the Treasury Secretary and the Comptroller of the Currency were removed from the Fed's governing board.1 The main argument for an independent central bank is that money supply decisions should be made independent of the political process. In other words, monetary policy should not be influenced by short-term political considerations. This is especially true for indebted economies: when debt/GDP levels are rising, the temptation for governments to fix government balance sheets via inflation grows. Indeed, it is not a coincidence that episodes of proximity between centrals and government coincide with periods of inflation, and that these periods almost always occur after periods of fiscal largesse (Chart 3). It would not be unprecedented for monetary policy to become politicized. During WWII, the Fed played an important role in financing defense-bloated budget deficits. And during the Nixon era, Chairman Arthur Burns was justifiably accused of running an overly-expansionary policy to aid the re-election prospects of the President (Chart 4). At a speech last week to a joint session of Congress, President Trump took a more conciliatory tone than in the past on all facets of governing, and did not even mention the Federal Reserve. There were few details on his plans, but the President's repeated mention of infrastructure and "national rebuilding" highlights that an infrastructure spending bill will happen. A major jump in defense spending also appears assured, as are tax cuts for the corporate and household sector. Of primary concern is how the current Administration will choose to finance its fiscal expansion. The temptation to finance higher deficit spending with easy money may be too great. Moreover, with so many vacant spots to fill on the FOMC, it might be far easier to align the Fed with Trump's interests than passing new legislation. Chart 4Impact Of Monetary Shifts Diluting Independence Through The Back Door The discussion on pages 2-3 focused on a potential loss of independence of the Fed via the legislative process. But passing Audit The Fed and other similar bills require a supermajority (60 votes) in the Senate. In January of last year, the Audit the Fed bill could not cross that hurdle. The easier route to bringing the Fed closer in line with the Treasury may simply involve staffing decisions. Recall that the FOMC committee is made up of seven Federal Reserve governors plus five regional Fed Presidents. FOMC members are nominated by the U.S. President and confirmed by the Senate. The full term of a Governor is 14 years and appointments are staggered so that one term expires each even-numbered year. In theory, only one new voting member should be replaced every second year. However, over the course of 2015/16, Obama delayed making nominations. Subsequently, his nominations were not approved by the (Republican) Senate. There are currently three Governor positions available (out of the possible seven). Two vacancies have existed since 2014, and Daniel Tarullo has resigned, effective April 5, 2017. Of the voting regional Fed Presidents, two (Atlanta and Richmond) will be replaced by mid-2018. Regional Fed Presidents are chosen by the Federal Reserve Bank's board of directors and these directors are representatives from member banks. Thus, the President does not have sway over the two Regional bank replacements. However, it is quite likely that the current Vice-Chair Stanley Fischer will retire at the end of his term in June 2018, as possibly Janet Yellen will as well, thus giving President Trump the opportunity to choose a majority of FOMC voting members by the middle of 2018. There is tremendous potential for Trump to put his stamp on the Federal Reserve. What could a Trump-induced Fed look like? There are plenty of names that are circulating. In the Box 1 on page 9, we provide a shortlist of possible candidates. Note that the candidates we list are what we classify as "typical" FOMC nominations. That is, their backgrounds and CVs fit the profile of recent FOMC members. Of course, these members range in hawkishness/dovishness, and so picking a few that rate more hawkishly (dovishly) could speed up (slow down) the march toward higher rates. It is worth noting that our list of candidates are Republican and, based on their track record, would favor a more hawkish bias. A bigger risk to financial markets is that Trump chooses multiple members outside of this pool of candidates, as this would mark a departure from the status quo/inject uncertainty. After all, the President has not shown a particular appreciation for economists in general. For example, President Trump has delayed appointing a Chair to the Council of Economic Advisers and has made it clear that in any case, the Chair will not be part of the President's cabinet (breaking the seven-decade tradition). A diversity of thinking could be a good thing, as one or two new voices would surely bring new ideas and perspectives to the Fed. But we see two major issues. First, six new board members over the next year or so will represent a tremendous changing of the guard at one time. If the President chooses to look outside traditional candidates to fill the majority of the vacant seats, then the FOMC committee is likely to lack experienced policymakers. Politics aside, by 2018, it is possible that only four of the twelve voting FOMC members will be veterans on the committee. Second, as we mentioned above, past presidents have not had to deal with the same temptation to meddle in monetary policy: Trump has been handed the opportunity to influence the Fed much more than past presidents, by virtue of the unprecedented number of FOMC seats to fill and the likelihood that his nominations are likely to be confirmed. Whether he decides to do so is unclear, but it is a risk that investors should bear in mind. A melding of powers between the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, should it occur, would be a very powerful structural inflationary force and would be a regime shift from the past couple of decades. Monitoring upcoming appointments over the next several months will help to understand to what extent this is a legitimate risk. Note, however, that for the year ahead, our view of inflation is unchanged; we simply do not believe that the U.S. economy is facing enough supply constraints to generate meaningful inflation pressures. Last week's data reinforces our view. Economy Update: Goldilocks, Continued Last week's major data releases supports our view of an economy that is running neither too hot nor too cold. True, the monthly rise in core PCE (0.3%) was strong, but once again, was driven by only a few components and does not represent broad-based inflation pressures (Chart 5). In particular motor vehicle and apparel prices shot higher, but our diffusion indicator, which measures the number of components with rising versus falling inflation rates, fell into negative territory. It is now widely known that over the past three years, U.S. government statistics softened systematically in the first quarter of the calendar year, while inflation reports tend to be strong in the opening months of the year. Recent consumer spending data continue to follow this yearly trend; PCE spending was on the soft side. We are not overly worried about this weak number, as the bulk of data from other sources continues to paint a much more upbeat picture. For example, the ISM manufacturing and services surveys ticked higher again in February (Chart 6). Respondents' comments were very upbeat. 17 out of 18 industries reported growth, and importantly, the more forward looking component of the survey - new orders - shot higher to near cyclical highs. Chart 5Benign Inflation Outlook Intact Chart 6Economic Momentum Intact In sum, the recent economic data reports continue to point to continued economic expansion. Q1 data disappointments have become the norm, but we continue to expect the economy to achieve real GDP growth greater than 2.5% in 2017. The bond market now expects the Fed to raise interest rates in March; Fed communication has certainly turned in that direction over the past few days. Although the timing of the next rate hike could indeed be pushed forward to March, our economic forecast for 2017 implies that more than three rate hikes this year is still unlikely. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 For more historical background on the politicization of monetary policy, please see Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "The Politicization Of Monetary Policy: Should We Care?," April 15, 2013. Box 1 Potential New FOMC Members President Trump's view of the Fed appears to be flexible - he has expressed a wide range of opinions about the central bank and its Chair. Unlike Trump's inconsistent views about interest rates, he has been more steady in his belief that Fed positions should be filled by Republicans. Our bias is to expect President Trump's Federal Reserve nominations to be a greater mix of traditional versus non-traditional central banking profiles. Below, we present a shortlist of mainstream Republican economists that may fill a vacancy on the FOMC. It is worth highlighting that a majority of these names have a hawkish bias, which could help mitigate the risk of a more politicized Fed being inherently more inflationary. Our list is by no means exhaustive. John Taylor (Hawkish bias): Taylor is most widely known for The Taylor Rule. He has recently criticized the Fed for being behind the curve, although has not explicitly advocated for a policy change. He also served as Under Secretary of Treasury for International Affairs from 2001 to 2005. Kevin Warsh (Hawkish bias): A former Morgan Stanley banker (and BCA Conference speaker!) has been forthright with his views that higher interest rates would actually be good for the U.S. economy. Glenn Hubbard (Neutral): Hubbard is Dean of Columbia Business School and has advocated a "wait and see" approach for monetary policy in face of current fiscal uncertainty. Hubbard headed the Council of Economic Advisers under the Bush Administration. Tom Hoenig (Hawkish bias): Hoenig is current FDIC Vice-Chair and former Kansas City Fed President. In the latter position, he was a voting member of the FOMC. Throughout 2010, Hoenig was the lone dissenter on the committee, voting always in favor of a rate hike and for the Fed to move away from ultra-accommodative policy. He is also a harsh critic of "too big to fail".

Highlights Risk assets have rallied smartly, yet key indicators like the relative performance of Swedish stocks or the price of kiwi equities are not corroborating these moves. With the Fed now very likely to increase rates in March, the broad-trade-weighted dollar could be about to resume its rally. This would prompt a correction in metals, and EM as well as commodity currencies. We think the tactical correction in the broad-trade-weighted dollar is over, and the cyclical dollar rally can resume. EUR and JPY will not suffer as much as the commodity currencies, go long EUR/AUD, short NZD/JPY. Feature In the Roman calendar, the Ides of March corresponds to the 15th of that month. Consigning that date to posterity in the year 44 BCE, Julius Caesar was assassinated on the floor of the senate in Rome, with his adoptive son Brutus, being among the conspirators. This event prompted yet another round of civil war in the republic, and ultimately a regime shift: the end of the Roman Republic and the Beginning of Imperial Rome under Augustus in 27 BCE. Fast forward 2061 years to the present. March 15th will be the day when the FOMC meeting ends. Will the period around the Ides of March represent a regime shift once again - albeit on a much different scale - where risk assets finally correct? Can the dollar resume its ascent? We believe the answer to both questions is yes. Unusual Market Moves Strange market dynamics have piqued our interest. In recent weeks, DM stock prices, and bond yields have been moving up (Chart I-1). This is consistent with investors pricing in an improving growth outlook and a Fed moving toward a tighter policy. On the other hand, EM stocks, metals, and gold in particular have also been moving up (Chart I-2). This move is more disturbing as it tends to imply an easing in monetary conditions, especially the strength in gold, even if it may have ended yesterday. This strange performance could be explained if the dollar was weakening or inflation expectations were moving up. However, the dollar has been strengthening in recent days and inflation expectations have been flat. Additionally, the U.S. yield curve has flattened, suggesting that the adjustment in the Fed's expected rate path is beginning to have marginally negative implications for future growth (Chart I-3). Chart I-1More Growth, More Hikes Chart I-2More Reflation As Well Chart I-3No Sign Of A Fed Behind The Curve So based on current information, how are these market moves likely to resolve themselves? Let's look at indicators. In the past, we have followed the common-currency performance of Swedish relative to U.S. equities as a gauge for the global growth outlook, and particularly non-U.S. growth relative to U.S. growth. This reflects the fact that U.S. stocks tend to be defensive, while Swedish stocks are very pro-cyclical. This dynamic is accentuated by the nature of the Swedish economy. Sweden is a small open nation that trades heavily with EM. While its biggest trading partner is the euro area, where it tends to export many intermediate goods and machinery, which are then re-exported as finished products to the EM space. Currently, Swedish equities continue to underperform U.S. ones. What is most striking is that this underperformance has happened despite a strong performance in EM stocks and metals, a very rare divergence (Chart I-4). Another worrying signal comes from New Zealand stocks in USD terms. New Zealand is another small open economy with deep trade links to the EM space. It is therefore very sensitive to global growth dynamics. While Kiwi equities did flag the rebound in EM growth and global manufacturing activity that happened in 2016, since late January, they have stopped participating in the rally in global risk assets despite a booming New Zealand economy. They have even begun swooning in recent weeks (Chart I-5). Chart I-4A Strange Divergence Chart I-5Are Kiwi Stocks Telling Us Something? Finally, two other reliable indicators of global growth are also not corroborating any further improvement in global growth from here: Small caps are underperforming large caps and oil is underperforming gold (Chart I-6). Obviously the next question becomes: are all these indicators likely to converge back toward EM equities, the AUD and the BRLs of the world or are the risk assets mentioned above likely to be the ones experiencing a downward adjustment? Here economics should give us a clue. For one, the 2016 rally in EM and risk assets can be explained by the large improvement in economic conditions. G10 and EM surprise indexes have moved up vertically in recent months (Chart I-7). However, this move might reflect the past not the future. Chart I-6Some Growth Indicators Are##br## Not Doing Well Anymore Chart I-7Too Much Of##br## A Good Thing? China has been a key reason explaining why EM assets and economic activity have been so positive. However, the large dose of fiscal stimulus that has supported that economy has dissipated (Chart I-8). Based on the IMF's October Fiscal Monitor, the fiscal thrust in China was 1.7% of potential GDP in 2015 (heavily loaded to the second half of that year), and 0.3% in 2016. It is moving to 0% in 2017. This means that as the lagged effects of the late 2015 fiscal surge dissipate, a key reflationary wind behind the global economy will disappear. The Keqiang index is mirroring these dynamics. After flirting with cyclical highs, and therefore highlighting a sharp improvement in the Chinese industrial sector, it has begun to roll over (Chart I-9). More weakness is likely in the cards. Fiscal dynamics have followed a similar pattern on a global level. The overall EM fiscal thrust was at its strongest in 2015, at 0.6% of EM potential GDP, fell to 0.1% in 2016, and is expected to hit -0.2% in 2017. In the DM, the pattern is slightly different. The high point of fiscal stimulus was 2016, when the fiscal impulse hit 0.4% of potential GDP. However, this measure is moving back to -0.1% in 2017. Chart I-8Losing A Source ##br##Of Reflation Chart I-9Chinese Industrial Activity ##br##May Be Rolling Over Additionally, the monetary environment is not as stimulative as it once was. Bond yields have risen in the whole DM space, with Treasury yields now more than 110bps higher than in July, Bund yields having moved from -0.18% to 0.31%, and JGB yields having adjusted 37bp higher to 0.07%. High-frequency loan data out of the U.S. already shows some strains caused by this rise in borrowing costs (Chart I-10). This combination points toward a deceleration in the growth impulse, especially in the goods sector. As such, we do expect the EM and G10 surprise indexes to roll over in coming weeks. Even if this phenomenon may prove temporary, the market is not priced for this event. Highlighting this vulnerability is the high level of complacency we have already flagged last week, which suggests that global investors are positioned for a continuation of the improvement in the growth outlook (Chart I-11). So high seems the conviction that growth will continue to accelerate that it is outweighing the move toward a tighter Fed going forward. Finally, the implied correlation in the S&P 500 has fallen to post 2010-lows. This could incentivize investors to take on more leveraged bets on portfolios of stocks. A low correlation results into higher diversification benefits and therefore, a lower portfolio volatility (Chart I-12). A rise in correlation would cause volatility to rise and thus a mini-deleveraging and de-risking cycle to take hold amongst investors. Chart I-10Response To Higher Yields Chart I-11Lots Of Complacency Globally Chart I-12Correlation-Induced Derisking On Its Way? Bottom Line: DM stocks are up, yields are up, the dollar is firming, yet EM equities, metals and gold especially have risen as well, and the U.S. yield curve is flattening while inflation expectations have recently been stable. We expect risk assets to end up buckling. Some reliable indicators of the trend in risk assets are pointing south, global investors are expecting further growth improvement in the coming months while global growth may in fact temporarily decelerate, and finally, if the low level of implied correlation in stocks normalizes, a correction may be catalyzed. What About The Fed Because Lael Brainard has been such a reliable dove on the FOMC, when she says that a hike is coming soon, we must listen. The fact that the market has come to price in an 83% probability of a Fed hike in March will only give the FOMC more comfort in increasing interest rate when it meets in two weeks (Chart I-13). While we have been expecting the Fed to move in line with its Summary of Economic Projection's interest rate forecast, and thus increase three times this year, we are surprised by the fast change of tune in recent days. Nonetheless, we are acknowledging this reality. Is this publication moving toward expecting four rate hikes in 2017? Not yet. We want to see how the market handles the coming hike going forward. A correction in risk assets, commodities, and EM is likely to force the Fed to pause again before resuming its hiking path. We are clearly expecting such a development. The broad dollar is likely to be caught in a bullish cross current. However, differentiation between the minors vis-à-vis the EUR and JPY might be essential for investors. Chart I-14 shows that recently, the broad-trade-weighted dollar has not kept pace with the increase in interest rate expectations for the U.S. With our capitulation index for this measure of the dollar moving closer to "oversold" territory, the weeks leading up to the Fed meeting could witness a stronger broad trade-weighted dollar. We are therefore removing our tactical short bias and moving in line with our cyclical bullish dollar stance. Chart I-13The Fed Tends To Telegraph ##br##Its Intention To Hike Chart I-14The Dollar Should ##br##Catch Up We believe that in this process, the dollar will be strongest against EM and commodity currencies. To begin with, the USD is trading near 19, 18, and 17 months lows against the BRL, ZAR, and RUB respectively. As recently as Wednesday, the AUD was also trading near the top of its distribution of the past two years (Chart I-15). Moreover, EM and commodity currencies are heavily geared to global growth. As such, the combination of a tightening Fed, rising bond yields, and a potential roll-over in global economic surprises may weigh especially heavily on them. On the other hand, in 2015 and 2016, the dollar has tended to be softer against the EUR and the JPY in periods of market turbulence. Thus, the call on EM and commodity currencies seems much cleaner than on these two currencies. In this regard, two crosses have caught our eye. One is EUR/AUD. Not only is it at the bottom end of a trading range established since June 2013, it has only traded lower at the apex of the euro area crisis between 2011 and the first half of 2013 (Chart I-16). The recent rollover in French / German bund spreads is potentially a good signal to buy this cross. The picture for JPY is now muddied. While higher interest rates should hurt the JPY, a period of risk-asset selloff should support the JPY. To play the cross-current described above, we are opening a short NZD/JPY position, a cross historically levered to rising volatility (Chart I-17). Chart I-15AUD Is Elevated Chart I-16To Fall From Here, EUR/AUD Needs A Euro Crisis Chart I-17Short NZD/JPY: A Risk-Off Play Bottom Line: The Fed moving forward its planned rate hike to March could be the ultimate catalyst to prompt a correction in risk assets, especially the segment of the market most levered to EM and growth conditions: EM and commodity currencies. We are removing our tactical USD stance and we are moving in line with our bullish cyclical stance. We are also buying EUR/AUD and shorting NZD/JPY. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar USD Technicals 1 USD Technicals 2 Recent data paints a healthy picture for the U.S. economy: Fourth quarter annualized GDP came in unchanged from the previous quarter at 1.9%; PCE Price Index increased at a 1.9% annual pace, near the Fed's target; Core PCE remained steady at 1.7% annually and increased to 0.3% monthly, indicative of a robust economy; ISM Manufacturing PMI went up to 57.7. The market is now pricing in an 83% probability of a rate hike. Further enhancing growth prospects were Trump's remarks at his Joint Address to Congress, where he stated that there will be a "big, big cut" in corporate tax, and that he will seek to gain approval for a $1 trillion infrastructure plan. Hawkish comments from the previous FOMC meeting strengthened the dollar in February; Trump's comments may be an additional tailwind to the dollar's upside this month. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Risks To The Cyclical Dollar View - February 3, 2017 Dollar Corrections, EM Outlook, Global Liquidity, And Protectionism - January 27, 2017 The Euro EUR Technicals 1 EUR Technicals 2 Fundamentally, the euro area economy remains resilient: Services sentiment, business climate, and industrial confidence all picked up in February, outperforming expectations; Germany recorded a decrease in unemployed persons of 14,000; German CPI picked up to a 2.2% annual pace, also beating expectations Nevertheless, EUR/USD is unlikely to see any substantive upside in the coming months. With the Dutch elections in around 2 weeks, considerable volatility could rise up, something which has not been priced in. The Euro Stoxx 50 Volatility Index is showing a low reading of 16.55, just above the all-time low of 12. The ECB will meet next week and is likely to display a dovish bias due to potential political turmoil. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 The French Revolution - February 3, 2017 GBP: Dismal Expectations - January 13, 2017 The Yen JPY Technicals 1 JPY Technicals 2 On a cyclical basis we are still bearish on the yen, as the BoJ will continue to pursue radical measures to pull Japan out of its liquidity trap. Recent data seems to indicate that these measures have been somewhat successful: Retail trade YoY growth outperformed expectations coming in at 1%. Housing starts YoY growth also outperformed, coming in at 12.8%. On a tactical basis the picture is more nuanced. While it is very possible that the coming rate hike could lift rate expectations in the U.S., lifting USD/JPY, there is a risks that the hike might trigger a sell-off in risks assets, which could be very positive for the yen. For this reason we are shorting NZD/JPY, as this cross is very vulnerable to an increase in volatility. Report Links: JPY: Climbing To The Springboard Before The Dive - February 24, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Dollar Corrections, EM Outlook, Global Liquidity, And Protectionism - January 27, 2017 British Pound GBP Technicals 1 GBP Technicals 2 The past week has not been kind to the pound, with GBP depreciating by about 2% against both the Euro and the U.S. Dollar. This was in part due to the prospect of a Scottish Independence referendum. On the economic side, data for the U.K. continue to be mixed: House prices annual growth outperformed expectations coming in at 4.5% M4 broad money annual growth continues to climb higher and it is now at 7%. On the other hand manufacturing PMI, although still high, underperformed expectations, coming in at 54.6. Although the cyclical dollar bull market should continue to weigh on cable, we are more bullish on the pound, particularly against the euro, as expectations for the U.K. economy continue to be too pessimistic, while the dark cloud of this year's election cycle looms on the euro. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Australian Dollar AUD Technicals 1 AUD Technicals 2 AUD lost 1.3% of its value Thursday morning amid disappointing trade data. It seems that the market largely ignored stronger data this week: GDP grew at a 2.4% annual rate Q42016 and both NBS and Ciaxin Chinese Manufacturing PMI beat expectations. Exports, however, contracted at a 3% pace and the surplus missed expectations by 66%, most likely due to the AUD's strength this year, even alongside higher commodity prices. This is also particularly worrying seeing that exports failed to pick up despite a previously strong Chinese PMI reading. Now, alongside a Keqiang Index that is topping out, the future for Australian exports could be limited. Additionally, this outlook is further supported by investment diverting to the non-resource sector. It is difficult to see whether the RBA will respond to this export slump, as the contractionary Q32016 GDP data was largely overlooked and dismissed. Nevertheless, we stand by our bearish outlook on AUD. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Risks To The Cyclical Dollar View - February 3, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 New Zealand Dollar NZD Technicals 1 NZD Technicals 2 The RBNZ continues to assert its neutral bias. On Wednesday, RBNZ Governor Graeme Wheeler stated that "there is an equal probability that the next OCR adjustment could be up or down". This caused the kiwi to come close to reaching 0.71, its lowest point since mid-January. We continue to believe that the RBNZ stance is not hawkish enough, as powerful inflationary forces continue to brew in New Zealand. That being said, it is very likely that the RBNZ will continue with its neutral tone up until the middle of the year, when we start to have a clearer picture about the outcome in European elections. Therefore, given that the Fed is likely to hike in March, diverging monetary policies should continue to weigh on NZD/USD until then. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Risks To The Cyclical Dollar View - February 3, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Canadian Dollar CAD Technicals 1 CAD Technicals 2 The BoC left their overnight rate target unchanged at 0.5% despite a high CPI reading of 2.1% in January. A further surprise was a particularly dovish tone, highlighting that higher energy prices will have a temporary effect on inflation, and indicating "material excess capacity in the economy". Additional weaknesses were highlighted with regards to competitiveness challenges for the export sector and subdued wage growth accompanied by contracting hours worked. Trade developments are an additional headwind for the Canadian economy that the bank is monitoring and will continue to do so until the outlook clarifies. CAD has lost more than 2% of its value against the USD in 3 days due also to a stronger dollar based on Fed rate hike expectations and Trump's potential infrastructure spending and tax cuts. It is unlikely that CAD will see any strength in the near future as the Bank has set forth a rather cautious tone. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 Swiss Franc CHF Technicals 1 CHF Technicals 2 Recent data has been mixed, which indicates that although economic activity in Switzerland is improving, it still is very tepid: The KOF leading indicator outperform expectations coming in at 107.2 Retail sales outperformed expectations. However they are still contracting by 1.4% GDP annual growth was 0.6%, falling significantly from last quarter reading of 1.4% The SNB is currently in a tight spot, as improvements are very marginal and it is evident that the economy is still plagued by strong deflationary forces. Meanwhile EUR/CHF is under 1.065 and has been unable to climb above this level this month, as the SNB continues to fight risk off flows coming into the franc due to the risks of the European election cycle. As these risks increase, the floor in this cross will continue to get tested. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Norwegian Krone NOK Technicals 1 NOK Technicals 2 Risks continue to point for further upside in USD/NOK. Oil is unlikely to rally much further from current levels, even if the OPEC agreement continues. Thus the movements in USD/NOK should be dominated by monetary divergences between the United States and Norway. These are likely to continue to favor the dollar, as the Fed should continue its hawkish tone. Meanwhile the Norges Bank is likely to stay dovish, as their economy has been to be very weak. GDP growth is negative, the output gap is over -2% of GDP and employment and real wages continue to contract. Meanwhile, the high inflation that Norway experiences last year is likely to continue its slowdown, as the effects of the currency depreciation should start to dissipate. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Swedish Krona SEK Technicals 1 SEK Technicals 2 In past reports, we have argued that the Swedish economy is robust and inflation is picking up. This has been corroborated by strong consumer and business confidence, and high resource utilization and inflation expectations. Recent data has supported this view: Retail sales picked up 2.2% annually; Producer price index was up 8.2% from last year in January; Annual GDP growth came in at 2.3% at the end of last year. Growth and inflation have been supported by expansionary monetary policy. With the Riksbank stating that "there is still a greater possibility that the rate will be cut than... raised in the near future", these conditions are unlikely to falter. Nevertheless, it is important to note that it is this cautionary stance by the Bank that is the reason for the SEK's recent weakness, not fundamentals. It is now the probable case that any upside in the SEK will be noted and limited by the Riksbank, capping the upside on the krona. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models - February 17, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights In this week's report, we update the "Three Controversial Calls"1 we made at BCA's New York Investment Conference held on September 26-27th, 2016. Call #1: "Trump Wins, And The Dollar Rallies." We still see 5% more upside for the greenback. Call #2: "Japan Overcomes Deflation." Inflation expectations have moved higher over the past five months, while the yen has weakened. This trend will persist. Call #3: "Global Banks Finally Outperform." Bank shares have beaten their global benchmark by 14% since we made this prediction. European financials have finally turned the corner. Feature Call #1: "Trump Wins, And The Dollar Rallies" Chart 1From Unrealistic To Even More Unrealistic We never bought into the notion that a Trump victory would cause investors to flee the dollar. On the contrary, we argued that most of Trump's policies were bond bearish/dollar bullish. In particular, we reasoned that Trump's attempts to browbeat companies into moving production back home would help reduce the U.S. trade deficit, boosting aggregate demand in the process. Efforts to curb illegal immigration would also push up the wages of low-skilled workers. Meanwhile, fiscal stimulus would fire up the labor market at a time when it was already approaching full employment. Fiscal Deficit On Upward Path With nearly four months having passed since the election, what have we learned? First, and foremost, a big increase in the budget deficit still looks likely. As Trump's address to the joint session of Congress on Tuesday night underscored, the president has plenty of specific areas in mind where he would like to increase spending (more money for defense, infrastructure, etc.) and a long list of taxes he would like to cut (corporate and personal income taxes, estate taxes, a new childcare tax credit,2 etc.). We do not take seriously Trump's pledge to pay for increased military spending by cutting annual nondefense discretionary spending by $54 billion relative to the existing CBO baseline. Chart 1 shows that under current budgetary rules, nondefense discretionary spending is set to decline from 3.3% of GDP in 2016 - already close to a historic low - to only 2.7% of GDP in 2026. Cutting that portion of the budget above and beyond what has already been legislated is unrealistic. There simply aren't enough programs like the National Endowment for the Arts that Republicans can take to the woodshed without facing a severe political backlash (Chart 2). As long as big ticket entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare remain unscathed - which Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin confirmed would be the case earlier this week - overall government spending will rise, not fall. Chart 2Nondefense Discretionary Spending: Where The Money Goes Trump And Trade The one category where Trump would be more than happy to see taxes go up is on imports. The constraint here is political. A unilateral move to legislate large-scale import duties would be in gross violation of WTO rules and could spark a global trade war. Many of Trump's Republican colleagues, as well as a fair number of Democrats, also favor free trade and would resist such an effort. One solution that Trump vaguely alluded to in his speech is to raise duties on imports within the context of a broader tax reform bill. A border adjustment tax, for example, would bring in $1.2 trillion in revenues over ten years.3 As we argued in a Special Report earlier this year, the introduction of a BAT would be highly dollar bullish.4 Pulling Back The Welcome Mat? On immigration, Trump has sent mixed messages. On the one hand, he continues to insist that he will build "the wall" and has maintained his hardline stance on refugee policy. On the other hand, he has backed off his campaign promise to reverse Obama's executive order protecting the so-called "dreamers." This order allows immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally as children to remain in the country indefinitely, provided they do not commit a serious criminal offence. During his speech, Trump signaled a willingness to shift the U.S. immigration system towards one based on merit, similar to what countries such as Canada and Australia already have. This is an excellent idea, but it raises the question of what will happen to the 11 million illegal aliens currently residing in the country, the vast majority of whom are poorly educated. It is important to remember that U.S. immigration laws are already very strict. Trump has given the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) greater leeway in enforcing these laws, while also pledging to hire 5,000 more border agents and 10,000 additional ICE officers. As such, a "status quo immigration policy" under Trump could prove to be much more restrictive than the one under Obama even if no new legislation is passed. A key implication is that labor shortages in areas such as construction and hospitality services may intensify. Solid U.S. Growth Outlook Favors A Stronger Dollar Meanwhile, the U.S. growth picture remains reasonably bright (Chart 3). This may not be obvious from current Q1 tracking estimates, which are pointing to real GDP growth of below 2%. However, the weak Q1 numbers are mainly due to an unexpectedly large jump in imports and a sharp decline in inventory accumulation. According to the Atlanta Fed's model, taken together these two factors have shaved a full percentage point off growth. Real private final demand is still rising at nearly 3% (Chart 4). If U.S. growth stays solid as we expect, the Fed will raise rates three or four times this year, starting in March. This is slightly more than the market is currently pricing in, which should be enough to ensure that the trade-weighted dollar strengthens by another 5% or so over the remainder of the year (Chart 5). We see the greatest upside for the dollar versus EM currencies, and as we discuss next, against the yen. Chart 3U.S. Economic Data Are Upbeat Chart 4Trade And Inventories Detract From ##br##A Bright Q1 Growth Picture Chart 5Real Rate Differentials Are ##br##Driving UpThe Dollar Call #2: "Japan Overcomes Deflation" Many of the forces that have exacerbated deflation in Japan, such as corporate deleveraging and falling property prices, have run their course (Chart 6). The population continues to age, but the impact that this is having on inflation may have reached an inflection point. For most of the past 25 years, slow population growth depressed aggregate demand by reducing the incentive for companies to build out new capacity. This generated a surfeit of savings relative to investment, helping to fuel deflation. Now, however, as an ever-rising share of the population enters retirement, the overabundance of savings is disappearing. The household saving rate currently stands at 2.8% - down from 14% in the early 1990s - while the ratio of job openings-to-applicants has soared to a 25-year high (Chart 7). Chart 6Japan: Easing Deflationary Forces Chart 7Japan: Low Household Saving Rate ##br##And A Tightening Labor Market Chart 8Investors Still Not Entirely ##br##Convinced Japan Is Eradicating Deflation Government policy is finally doing its part to slay the deflationary dragon. The Abe government shot itself in the foot by tightening fiscal policy by 3% of GDP between 2013 and 2015. It won't make the same mistake again. The Bank of Japan's efforts to pin the 10-year yield to zero also seem to be bearing fruit. As bond yields in other economies have trended higher, this has made Japanese bonds less attractive. That, in turn, has pushed down the yen, ushering in a virtuous circle where a falling yen props up economic activity, leading to higher inflation expectations, lower real yields, and an even weaker yen. Stay Short The Yen Consistent with this narrative, market-based inflation expectations have risen over the past five months. But with inflation swaps still pricing in inflation of only 0.6% over the next 20 years, there is plenty of scope for real rates to fall further (Chart 8). This implies that investors should maintain a structurally short position in the yen. A weaker yen will help boost Japanese stocks, at least in local-currency terms. As a relative play, investors should consider overweighting Japanese exporters versus domestically-exposed sectors. Multinational manufacturers stand to gain the most, as they will benefit from increased overseas sales, while the highly automated, capital-intensive nature of their operations will limit the burden of rising real wages. Call #3: "Global Banks Finally Outperform" Global bank shares have risen by 25% since we made this call, outperforming the MSCI All Country World Index by 14% (Chart 9). The thesis that we outlined five months ago still remains intact (Charts 10 and 11): Chart 9Global Bank Shares Have Bounced Chart 10Factors Supporting Bank Stocks Chart 11Global Banks Are Still Fairly Cheap Improving business and consumer confidence should continue to support credit demand. Stronger economic growth will reduce nonperforming loans. Capital ratios have improved significantly, reducing the risk of further equity dilution. Yield curves have steepened since last summer, which should flatter net interest margins. Despite the run-up in share prices over the past five months, valuations remain attractive. Looking across regions, European banks stand out as being particularly attractive over a cyclical horizon of about 12 months. BCA's European Corporate Health Monitor continues to improve, foreshadowing further progress in mending loan books (Chart 12). The ECB's lending survey indicates that a majority of banks are seeing stronger loan demand (Chart 13). This suggests that credit growth is not about to stall anytime soon. Meanwhile, euro area banks are trading at a miserly 0.8-times book value, which gives valuations plenty of upside. Chart 12Euro Area: Improving Corporate Health Chart 13Euro Area: Banks See Rising Loan Demand Political Risks Chart 14This Will Not Get Le Pen Into The Elysee Palace The risk is that European political developments sabotage this thesis. Our view here is "near-term sanguine, long-term cautious." We continue to think that populism is in a long-term secular bull market. However, unlike in the case of Brexit or Trump, populist leaders in continental Europe will have to wait until the next economic downturn (probably in two or three years) before they seize power. To that extent, the prevailing - though admittedly rather myopic - consensus view is correct: Marine Le Pen will not become president this year. Keep in mind that the National Front underperformed during regional elections in December 2015, just weeks after the terrorist attacks in Paris. Despite a recent uptick in the polls, support for Le Pen is actually lower now than it was back then (Chart 14). As long as the French economy continues to show signs of tentative improvement, the establishment parties will succeed in keeping Le Pen out of power. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three (New) Controversial Calls," dated September 30, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Despite the populist sounding nature of this proposal, the Tax Policy Center estimates that 70% of the childcare credits will go to households earning $100,000 and up. See Lily L. Batchelder, Elaine Maag, Chye-Ching Huang, and Emily Horton, "Who Benefits from President Trump's Child Care Proposals?" Tax Policy Center (February 27, 2017) for details. 3 James R. Nunns, Leonard E. Burman, Jeffrey Rohaly, Joseph Rosenberg, and Benjamin R. Page, "An Analysis of the House GOP Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center (September 16, 2016). 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017," dated January 20, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades

Highlights The supply of U.S. dollar outside America has been curtailed, yet there is large pent-up demand for dollars. This warrants another upleg in the greenback. The Trump administration's desire to shrink America's current account deficit will be very deflationary for the rest of the world, and mildly inflationary for the U.S. Such policies, if adopted, will exaggerate the paucity of U.S. dollars beyond America's borders and lead to notable dollar appreciation. The RMB is at risk because Chinese banks have created too many yuan, and deposit rates in real terms have turned negative as inflation has risen. Our negative view on EM has been and continues to be driven by our outlook on EM/China domestic demand, commodities prices and the U.S. dollar - not growth in advanced economies. Feature In recent weeks we met with clients in Asia and Australia. This week's report addresses some of the more common questions that we were asked to address. Question: You have written about "global U.S. dollar liquidity shortages." Why have these "global dollar shortages" occurred given the Fed expanded its balance sheet enormously from 2008 until 2014? How does one measure "global dollar shortages," and what does it mean for financial markets? By "global U.S. dollar shortages," we refer to deficiency in U.S. dollars outside the U.S., where U.S. dollar supply growth has fallen short of growth in demand for the greenback. We have the following pertinent observations on this issue: U.S. dollar shortages in the global banking system (eurodollar market) can be represented by U.S. banks' and other financial firms' claims on foreigners. This measure has been shrinking since early 2015 (Chart I-1). This corroborates the fact that U.S. banks, prime money market funds and other financial institutions have been unable/unwilling to supply dollars to the eurodollar market. This is consistent with rising LIBOR rates, which still continue to climb. U.S. non-financial entities' foreign assets have also fallen in the past year and a half but they are much smaller than banks and other financial institutions claims. As to U.S. banks' and other financial firms' claims on EM, they have also been shrinking since early 2015 (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Weak Supply Of U.S. Dollars To Rest ##br##Of World By U.S. Financial Institutions Chart I-2Shrinking Supply Of U.S. Dollars ##br##To EM By U.S. Financial Institutions Another way that the U.S. emits dollars to the rest of the world is by running a current account deficit. The U.S. current account deficit as a share of global GDP is now much smaller now than it was before the Great Recession (Chart I-3). This also means a smaller U.S. dollar supply relative to the size of the world economy. On the demand side, the widening in cross currency basis swaps indicates structural demand for U.S. dollar funding among euro area and Japanese investors (Chart I-4). Chart I-3The U.S. Emits Less ##br##Dollars To World Via Trade Chart I-4Pent-Up Demand For Dollars From Japanese ##br##And European Fixed-Income Investors These investors have been opting for exposure to dollar assets due to the higher yield on U.S. dollar fixed-income instruments - but they have been reluctant to take on exchange rate risk. In brief, they have avoided getting long exposure to the U.S. dollar. The reluctance to accept the exchange rate risk by European and Japanese investors means they are not bullish on the dollar. This goes against the widespread opinion among investors that the overwhelming majority of global investors are bullish on the U.S. currency. By hedging the exchange rate risk - in this case the risk of potential greenback depreciation - these investors are giving up a considerable portion of higher yield that they obtain in U.S. fixed-income market. In fact, if these basis swaps continue to widen or remain wide it might make sense for European and Japanese fixed-income investors to buy U.S. fixed-income securities and not hedge the currency risk. If and when these investors stop hedging their exchange rate risk, the U.S. dollar will appreciate versus the euro and the yen. Provided European and Japanese fixed-income investors are sizable players in global fixed income and hence currency markets, they have the potential to make a difference in exchange rate markets. In short, there is potential pent-up demand for U.S. dollars from these European and Japanese institutions. Such a widening in basis swaps is also consistent with the above observations that U.S. banks have been reluctant to take the other side of this trade - i.e., offer U.S. dollars to European and Japanese investors - even though it is a very profitable opportunity. Finally, the drop in EM central banks' foreign exchange reserves reflects demand for U.S. dollars in their economies, primarily in China (Chart I-5). The Chinese central bank has sold U.S. securities to meet mushrooming demand for U.S. dollars from Chinese households and companies. This entails there has been and remains considerable pent-up demand for dollars by mainland companies and households. With respect to the supply of currency, it is important to note that it is up to commercial banks - not the central bank - to create money. Central banks provide liquidity for commercial banks, but it is the latter that creates money.1 In a nutshell, by undertaking QE, the Fed provided reserves for U.S. commercial banks (Chart I-6), yet the latter have been reluctant to create too much money. Banks create money by originating loans and other types of claims. Chart I-5China: Selling U.S. Securities To ##br##Meet Domestic Demand For Dollars Chart I-6The Fed's Balance ##br##Sheet In Perspective U.S. banks have been very conservative in money creation especially outside America. In the U.S., banks shrunk their balance sheets and loans in the 2009-2011 period. That is why the Fed's QE programs have not led to inflation. Notably, U.S. banks' total assets - including bank loans - and broad money (M2) growth have lately rolled over (Chart I-7). This worsens the lingering dollar scarcity outside the U.S., which should in turn prop up the value of the dollar. The reasons why U.S. banks and financial institutions have been conservative is due to their own deleveraging objectives and because of regulatory changes in the financial industry. In regard to interest rates, U.S. nominal and real (inflation-adjusted) interest rates are very low yet they are high relative to European and Japanese real rates (Chart I-8). Given a relatively tight labor market, odds are that U.S. interest rate expectations will rise further in both absolute and relative terms. This will cause the dollar to appreciate. Chart I-7U.S. Banks Control ##br##The Supply Of U.S. Dollars Chart I-8U.S. And German ##br##Inflation-Adjusted Interest Rates Bottom Line: The pace of supply of dollars beyond the U.S. is falling short of growth in demand for this currency. Typically, this warrants greenback appreciation. Question: What about the U.S. administration's preference for a weaker dollar to improve America's trade position? Won't the greenback depreciate as the Trump administration expresses its desire for a weaker currency? Certainly U.S. officials can verbally influence the exchange rate and drive markets for a (short) period of time. Yet fundamentals and flows will re-assert themselves and the greenback will ultimately appreciate even if its rally is delayed by policymakers. The new U.S. administration intends to run mercantilist policies to create jobs in America and doing so will shrink the current account deficit. Nevertheless, a narrowing U.S. current account deficit ultimately entails diminishing flows of U.S. dollars to the rest of the world, which is bullish for the greenback. In brief, the U.S. administration can delay the dollar rally, but it will not be able to prevent it if and when it shrinks the U.S. current account deficit. This will be enormously deflationary for the rest of the world and ultimately for the global economy. The supply of dollars outside U.S. borders will become even more dearth. As their exports tumble, manufacturing-heavy Asian and European economies will have to run even more stimulative policies - reduce their real interest rates further - to offset such a deflationary shock to their economies. In the case where the Trump administration successfully manages to weaken the U.S. dollar, the ensuing boost to U.S. manufacturing and employment will be mildly inflationary given the already relatively tight labor market. Thereby, trade protectionism or policy-driven currency depreciation, if these occur, will lift U.S. inflation and U.S. interest rates will go up. Rising U.S. interest rates and lower interest rates throughout the rest of the world will propel the dollar's value higher. On the whole, in the case of U.S. trade restrictions, the exchange rates have to adjust to mitigate deflation in the rest of world and cap inflation in America. This ultimately entails a stronger U.S. dollar and weaker currencies abroad. A final note on exchange rates valuation. Based on unit labor costs, the U.S. dollar is not yet expensive (Chart I-9A). The same measure for other currencies is also shown in Chart I-9A and Chart I-9B. Chart I-9AReal Effective Exchange ##br##Rates Based On Unit Labor Costs Chart I-9BReal Effective Exchange ##br##Rates Based On Unit Labor Costs Financial markets tend to overshoot and undershoot before a major trend reversal. We believe the U.S. dollar is in a genuine bull market and will likely become more expensive before topping out. Bottom Line: The U.S.'s desire to shrink its current account deficit is very deflationary for the rest of the world. Such policies, if adopted in the U.S., will exaggerate the scarcity of U.S. dollars beyond America's borders and lead to notable dollar appreciation. Question: The RMB/USD exchange rate has been stable lately. Does this mean the authorities have reasserted their control over the exchange rate and will not allow it to depreciate? The authorities in China have partial and temporary control over the exchange rate. Ultimately, it will be Chinese households and companies that drive the exchange rate, barring full-out government controls over all export/import transactions, money transfers as well as financial and capital account flows. If mainland households and companies opt to convert a small portion of their liquid savings (deposits at banks) into foreign currency, there is little the authorities can do to defend the RMB, barring a complete closing of balance-of-payments transactions to companies and households. The primary risk to the yuan exchange rate is not currency valuation but an overflow of yuan in the system - i.e., excess supply of RMBs is the main factor that will cause currency depreciation. Unlike U.S. banks, Chinese banks have created too many yuan. Broad money (M2) in China has risen from RMB 48 trillion as of December 2008 to RMB 158 trillion currently - i.e., it has surged by 3-fold. M2 has risen from 150% to 210% of GDP in the past eight years (Chart I-10). In the meantime, the ratio of foreign exchange reserves to M2 has dropped to 14% (Chart I-11). Chart I-10Chinese Banks Have ##br##Created Too Many Yuan Chart I-11China: Foreign Reserves Are ##br##Small Relative To Money Supply The latter ratio implies that if Chinese companies and households decide to convert 14% of their deposits at banks into foreign currencies and the People's Bank of China (PBoC) sells its international reserves to offset it, the latter will simply evaporate. We are not suggesting this will actually happen. The point to emphasize is that mainland banks have created so much money that even the country's US$ 3 trillion foreign exchange reserves are not sufficient to back those deposits up. Chinese households and companies may already be sensing there is too much in the way of RMBs floating around, and intuitively may not trust the currency. They have paid astronomical multiples for real assets like property in China, and have recently been willing to shift assets into foreign currencies/assets. Importantly, the one-year deposit rate at banks is 1.5% in nominal terms but in real terms it has now become negative as inflation has picked up. Chart I-12 (top panel) demonstrates that the deposit rate deflated by core inflation is negative for the first time in the past 10 years. The bottom panel of Chart I-12 shows that the deposit rate deflated by headline CPI inflation is also negative. Interestingly, any time the real deposit rate turned negative in the past, the central bank hiked interest rates. It is impossible to know whether the latest pick up in China's inflation represents a temporary spike or is the beginning of a major and lasting uptrend (Chart I-13). We are surprised by how fast and sharply inflation has risen lately, given the growth improvement has so far been modest. Chart I-12China: Real Deposit ##br##Rates Have Turned Negative Chart I-13China: Inflation ##br##Is Rising, For Now The trillion- dollar question is what is the true output gap in China and, correspondingly, whether the latest rise in inflation is genuine and lasting or simply a statistical aberration. No one including Chinese policymakers knows the answers to these very essential questions. What type of adjustment China embarks on depends on monetary policy and banks in China. As and if Chinese banks slow down money creation, economic growth will tumble and deflationary tendencies will resurface. This scenario is good for creditors - households and companies with large amounts of deposits - because deposit rates in real terms will rise again. Yet this is a bad outcome for indebted companies, capital spending and employment. If mainland banks continue to create money at a double-digit pace as they have been doing, inflation will likely become persistent and durable. These dynamics are positive for debtors as real borrowing costs will drop further/stay negative, and growth will hold up. However, in such a case, negative real rates will buttress capital outflows and pressure the value of the RMB. By and large, the Chinese authorities are facing a profound choice: Policymakers can choose to help debtors (indebted companies) by accommodating continuous money supply expansion by banks, i.e., opt for negative real interest rates. The outcome will be much stronger downward pressure on the RMB. The latter will depreciate at a double-digit pace annually in the next several years. They can opt to force the banking system to slow down the pace of money/credit creation. This will lead to some sort of debt deflation. Money growth and inflation will drop and the currency will not be at a risk of major depreciation. Yet, economic growth/profits/employment will tumble. A third choice for the authorities is to resort to full-out government controls over all trade, transfers as well as financial and capital account transactions - i.e., take the country back to socialism. Only in such a case can the authorities control the exchange rate and interest rates simultaneously - i.e., they can inflate the credit bubble away while preventing households from converting their liquid savings into foreign currency. In brief, this entails financial repression, and it will erode the real value of Chinese deposits. It is not clear to us whether this is a politically more viable option than allowing some bankruptcies/layoffs and debt deflation. Besides, this will devastate China's vibrant private sector as businessmen and high-income employees become reluctant to invest and expand as they observe the real value of their savings/wealth decline. Chart I-14U.S. Dollar And Commodities ##br##Prices Unusual Decoupling As if there were not enough domestic challenges, Chinese policymakers are also facing a hawkish Trump administration on the issue of trade and the exchange rate. Putting it all together, we conclude it will be extremely difficult for the Chinese authorities to navigate through these challenges. One area where we disagree with many investors is that the Chinese authorities have a viable plan and strategy. Given the above constraints, there are no easy choices and it is hard to know which route the Chinese government will take. The latest bout of stability in the RMB has been due to a notable shutdown in outflows. Yet this is a temporary solution. The inability to convert liquid savings into foreign currency will only make households and companies more set on converting their yuan. Odds are that capital outflows will skyrocket on any relaxation of recent harsh restrictions. Bottom Line: In any country, the monetary authorities cannot simultaneously control the price of money (interest rates), the quantity of money, and thereby the exchange rate. This will prove to be true in China too. We continue betting on further RMB depreciation. Question: Why do you not think this commodities rally has further to go, given supply has been curtailed and demand is picking up as global growth improves? The strength in commodities prices in recent months when the U.S. dollar has been firm is a major departure from historical correlations (Chart I-14). Remarkably, oil forward prices have recently dropped and global energy share prices have relapsed in absolute terms, even though the spot price has held up (Chart I-15). This foretells that the marketplace does not believe in the sustainability of the current spot price level of crude. As to industrial metals, our hunch is that Chinese demand will weaken again as the nation's credit and fiscal impulse relapses (Chart I-16). Besides, the recent resilience in copper has been due to supply disruptions that may be temporary. Chart I-15Has Sell Off In Oil Market Begun? Chart I-16China's Growth To Peak Later This Year Notably, hopes that U.S. infrastructure spending - even if such spending turns out to be considerable - will boost demand for industrial metals are misplaced, because the U.S. is a small consumer of metals. China consumes six to seven times more copper, nickel, zinc, aluminum, tin and lead than the U.S. Hence, we view industrial metals as a pure play on China's capital spending. Bottom Line: We expect a combination of a stronger dollar, weaker Chinese growth and elevated oil inventories to produce a major reversal in industrial metals and oil prices. Chart I-17EM Stocks And U.S. ##br##TIPS Yields: Negative Correlation Question: Is your negative stance on EM contingent on weakness in DM growth? No, our negative stance on EM is not contingent on a relapse in DM growth. Some combination of the following key factors will trigger and drive weakness in EM risk assets: Higher U.S. real rates or a stronger U.S. dollar. Chart I-17 demonstrates the strong negative correlation between higher U.S. TIPS yields and EM share prices in the recent years. Lower commodities prices. Renewed weakness in China's economy. Our negative view on EM has and continues to be driven by our views on EM/China domestic demand/credit cycles, commodities and the U.S. dollar. Investment Conclusions Chart I-18EM/China Plays Are At Critical Juncture Exchange rates have been critical to financial market dynamics in recent years. This is unlikely to change. Odds favor another upleg in the U.S. dollar and a weaker RMB. As such, the outlook for EM risk assets is poor. EM currencies will be driven by a stronger dollar, a weaker RMB and lower commodities prices. EM share prices as well as global mining, and machinery stocks are at a critical juncture (Chart I-18). China-plays may soon start reacting to the PBoC's recent modest tightening as well as regulatory credit curtailment and begin to sell off in anticipation of weaker growth later this year. Global equity portfolios should continue underweighting EM stocks. Similarly, global credit (corporate bonds) portfolios should underweight EM sovereign and corporate credit. Finally, the outlook for weaker currencies does not bode well for EM local currency bonds. However, for fixed income investors we have several swap rate trades, relative value recommendations and yield curve positions that are published regularly in our Open Position Table on page 16. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to Trilogy of Special Reports on money/loan creation, savings and investment, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016, and "China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB," dated November 23, 2016, links available on page 17. Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Tensions are still high between the U.S. and China; China's neighbors are in the line of fire; Korea and Taiwan stand to suffer; We are bullish Thailand, Vietnam, and the Philippines; We are bearish Indonesia and Malaysia. Feature Over the past two weeks we have taken clients on a tour through Europe, where we think political and geopolitical risks are generally overstated in the short term. This provides ample room for European financial assets to outperform this year.1 This week we turn to Asia Pacific, where the situation is quite different. We see this region as the chief source of geopolitical "Black Swans," mainly due to rising U.S.-China tensions, which we have highlighted since 2012.2 While U.S. President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping have recently reassured the world that relations will be cooperative and stable, it is far too soon to declare that the two have resolved anything substantial. While we have addressed U.S.-China relations before, it is essential to watch the rest of EM Asia, where proxy battles between the U.S. and China continue to play out.3 If the Philippines shocked the world in 2016 by pivoting away from the U.S. and toward China, South Korea is the country that will do the same in 2017. In this report, we review the opportunities and risks afforded by this regional dynamic. I. Will Trump And Xi Cool Their Heels? Fundamentally, geopolitical risk in Asia Pacific is driven by the "Thucydides Trap," a struggle between the established regional and global power (the United States), and an emerging power that seeks to rewrite the region's geopolitical order (China).4 This dynamic emerged well before President Donald Trump's election.5 Trump is an unpredictable agent thrown into a structural dynamic. His election on an avowed platform of protectionism, his comments singling out China as a U.S. threat, and his break with the U.S. foreign policy establishment all suggest that the secular rise in Sino-U.S. tensions is about to get worse.6 Yet, since taking office, Trump has sent mixed signals. On the one hand, he threatens a policy of isolationism that would see the U.S. withdraw from its global security commitments. On the other hand, he has threatened to escalate geopolitical conflicts in order to get what he wants on business and trade. Table 1Market Implications Of ##br##Trump's Options Toward China As Table 1 illustrates, it is extremely important for investors which of these foreign policies Trump ultimately pursues - nationalist or isolationist - and whether he combines it with the trade protectionism (or mercantilism) that he has threatened. In the short term, the most bullish combination would be the economic status quo with a scaled-down U.S. presence. The most bearish would be mercantilism combined with nationalist foreign policy. Trump's recent interchanges with Xi were notable because for once he adhered to diplomatic protocol. He and Xi gave some initial - and we would add tentative - assurances to the world that Sino-U.S. relations will not explode in a ball of flames this year: Taiwan - Trump reaffirmed the One China Policy, i.e., that Taiwan has no claim to independence from the mainland. Trump's phone call with the Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen in December, and subsequent comments, had put this principle in doubt, raising the prospect of a new Cold War or actual war. North Korea - China has offered to enforce a stringent new set of economic sanctions on North Korea, namely barring coal imports for 2017. This is significant, given the short duration of China's previous punitive measures against the North and the hit that North Korean exports have already suffered from China's slowing economic growth (Chart 1). The Obama administration had begun sanctioning China as a result of its unwillingness to enforce, so with enforcement may come the Trump administration's deactivation of such threats for a time. The RMB - Trump did not accuse China of currency manipulation on "day one" of his administration as he had promised during his campaign, though he has informally called the Chinese the "grand champions" of manipulation.7 This strongly suggests that he will allow the Treasury Department's semi-annual foreign exchange review process to run its course (Diagram 1). On that time frame, the U.S. would issue a warning in the April report and then begin negotiations that legally should take a year. Of course, China does not qualify by the usual measures. Since 2015 it has been propping up its currency rather than suppressing it (Chart 2), and its current account surplus has dropped sharply from 10% to 2% of GDP over the past ten years (though still massive in absolute terms). Diagram 1Calling China A Currency Manipulator: The Process The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) - Trump yanked the U.S. out of the major multilateral trade initiative of the Obama administration, which was an advanced trade deal that excluded China and primarily benefited smaller Chinese competitors like Vietnam and Malaysia. Though Trump acted unilaterally - and therefore cannot have gotten any real concessions from China in exchange for killing an "anti-China" trade deal - he avoided the frictions with China that would have resulted over the coming years from implementing the deal. Chart 1Will China Cut Imports From Here? Chart 2The 'Grand Champions' Of Currency Manipulation In addition, the Trump administration is already embroiled in domestic politics with a number of its early actions. Thus it would not surprise us if Trump - exactly like Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush - needed to pacify relations with China despite his early tough talk. Meanwhile President Xi wants stability even more than usual this year as the Communist Party holds its "midterm" five-year National Party Congress. We will return to the party congress in an upcoming report, but for now we will simply reiterate that stability means neither excessive stimulus nor excessive reform (Chart 3). Chinese policymakers could trigger unintended consequences with their financial tightening, but that's why we think they will be exceedingly cautious.8 If Trump does not try to sabotage this politically sensitive year, China should be relatively stable. Chart 3China Wants Stability, Not Speed, Ahead Of Five-Year Party Congress So have U.S.-China ties become bullish all of a sudden? No. At least, not yet. Consider the following: South China Sea still a powder keg - On both sides, the idea of excluding "access" to the sea is being openly discussed, if disavowed.9 While there is conceivably a path for both sides to de-escalate, it will take very tough negotiations, and we are not there yet. Trade fight hasn't even begun - Though previous presidents got sidetracked, Trump was the first to campaign aggressively on a protectionist, anti-China platform, and to put a team in place to pursue that platform.10 We think he will get tough. We also think he will endorse the House Republicans' plan of a Border Adjustment Tax - a tax on imports - which would hurt China most of all as the country with the biggest trade surplus with the U.S.11 Japan is proactive - Japan has virtually no domestic political constraints and has an incentive to play up security threats. Why? Because Prime Minister Abe wants a nationwide popular referendum on revising the constitution to legitimize the Japanese Self-Defense Forces.12 And this is not even to mention that Taiwan and the Koreas are still major risks. Structurally, we still see Sino-U.S. tensions as the chief source of geopolitical risk and "Black Swan" events this year that could rattle markets in a very big way. Bottom Line: A modus vivendi between Trump and Xi is conceivable, but the U.S. and China are not out of the woods yet. II. What About The Neighbors? Short of the formidable "left-tail" risk of direct U.S.-China conflict, China's periphery is the chief battlefield and source of risk for investors. Asian EM economies have the most to risk from the reversal of the past decade's trade globalization (Chart 4). Investors also tend to underrate the fact that they are in the thick of the geopolitical risk arising from Sino-U.S. tensions and global "multipolarity" more broadly.13 A look across the region suggests that most Asian EM economies are shifting their policy to become more accommodative with China. This should reduce their geopolitical risk in the short term, though it is too soon to sound the "all clear." We remain strategically short EM stocks relative to DM. Within the EM space, we are bullish on Thailand, less so on the Philippines and Vietnam, and neutral-to-bearish on Taiwan, South Korea, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Chart 4De-Globalization Hurts Asia Pacific Most Of All Koreas - Here Comes The Sunshine Policy South Korea is at the center of the U.S.-China struggle as it faces a domestic political crisis, economic pressure from China, rising North Korean nuclear and missile capabilities, and a likely clash with the new U.S. administration. First, the Constitutional Court must decide the fate of impeached President Park Geun-hye. The market has rallied since the ruling Saenuri Party turned against her in early December, paving the way for her December 9 impeachment in the assembly. However, the politics of the court makes her removal from office less likely than the market expects, especially if the court does not rule by March 13, when a second judge this year retires from the bench.14 If the impeachment falters, it will lock South Korea into greater political instability throughout the year, at least until the scheduled election on December 20. Chart 5Leftward Policy Shift In South Korea ... However, it is virtually impossible for the Saenuri Party candidate, Acting President Hwang Kyo-Anh, to win the election, despite his fairly strong polling (Chart 5). His party has been discredited and split, and there are now calls for his impeachment as he defends Park from further investigation. The leading contenders are all left-of-center. They are contending in a primary election over how to redistribute wealth, crack down on the Chaebol (corporate conglomerates), engage North Korea, and improve relations with China. These policies are receiving a tailwind because Korean society has seen the economic system shocked by the end of the debt supercycle in the United States and the slowdown in China. Moreover, inequality has been rising in Korea (Chart 6). As in neighboring Taiwanese elections last year, the election is shaping up to be a backlash against the pro-trade and globalization policies of the preceding decade. Korea's share of global exports has increased, and its tech companies are profitable, but the government has engaged in conservative fiscal policies, its workers are overworked and underpaid, and its social safety net is non-existent (Chart 7). Redistribution and reforming the Chaebol could bring serious benefits over the long run, but both will negatively affect corporate profits on the margin. Internationally, improving relations with North Korea and China will mean that the new South Korean government, in H2 of this year or H1 of next, could be on a collision course with the United States and especially Japan. We expect Korea to go its own way for a time, giving the impression globally that another American ally is "pivoting to China" (after the Philippines in 2016).15 While this may seem bullish for Korea, as it did for the Philippines due to the fact that China is a growing economy, Korean exports to the U.S. and Japan are still a significant portion of its total exports (Chart 8). Korea is also constrained by the fact that China is increasingly a trade competitor, and Korea's exports to China mainly consist of goods that China wants to make itself: high-end electronic manufacturing, cars, and car parts. Thus, China will welcome greater ties as it looks for substitutes for the increasingly protectionist West in acquiring technology and expertise, but Korea's new government will see rising fears of economic "absorption" as it attempts to improve access to Chinese markets. Chart 6... As Inequality Has Risen Sharply Chart 7Workers Want More Largesse Chart 8Korea's Balancing Act What are the market implications? South Korea is in a decent place in the short run. Global growth, exports, and corporate earnings are improving, and stock valuations have come down, especially relative to EM. Over the long run, however, we are turning bearish. Korean labor productivity is in a downtrend (Chart 9), its population is not growing, and there is no reservoir of young people left to tap. There are three basic options for securing future growth. First, Korea could become a net investor nation like Japan (Chart 10). However, it is not yet wealthy enough to do so, and needs to build the aforementioned social safety net. Second, South Korea could reunify with the North, which would alleviate its labor force problems, though the costs of reunification would be extreme (Chart 11). Chart 9Reforms On Hold Until New Government Sits Chart 10Korea's Japanese Dream Chart 11Reunification Would Increase Labor Force Third, it could continue on its current path of trying to secure large markets like the U.S. and China, while conducting a balancing act between them as geopolitical tensions rise. The problem right now is that the first two options are not ready and the balancing act is getting too hard, too soon. The South stands to suffer from both protectionism and multipolarity, i.e., being sandwiched between resurgent Sino-U.S. and Sino-Japanese tensions. Furthermore, the Trump administration has not yet decided whether its North Korea policy will be one of engagement, aggression, or continued neglect. Yet the U.S. defense and intelligence establishment's threat assessment is reaching a level that will cause greater public concern and more demand for action. Until Trump's policy is clear, South Korea's attempts to launch a new "Sunshine Policy" toward eventual reunification will be extremely vulnerable. Over time, North Korea is likely to become more of a black swan than the red herring it has been in the past (Chart 12). Chart 12North Korean Incidents: Mostly Red Herrings Bottom Line: Now is ostensibly a good entry point for Korean stocks relative to EM stocks, but we remain reluctant due to the political and geopolitical factors. Also, the path of least resistance for the Korean won is down, so we recommend going long THB/KRW, discussed further below. Taiwan - "One China" Or More? Our prediction that China-Taiwan relations would deteriorate dramatically, and that Taiwan could be one of five "Black Swans" of 2016, has essentially played out.16 The two sides cut off formal contact, Trump accepted a phone call from the Taiwanese president in a sharp break with U.S.-China convention, and the Taiwanese navy accidentally fired a missile toward the mainland during a drill on the Chinese Communist Party's 95th birthday on July 1. Despite the tensions, hard data coming out of Taiwan have been strong. Its export-oriented economy is buoyed by strong global growth. Both its equities and currency are the few bright spots in the EM universe and investors have been responding positively to the strong data (Chart 13). Yet Taiwan remains highly vulnerable to geopolitical tensions, as its economy is "too open," especially to China. China has imposed discrete economic sanctions, as we expected. The number of mainland tourists to Taiwan have dropped by 50% (Chart 14). This trend will continue, hurting consumer sentiment. While Trump has backed away from his threat to break the One China Policy, a move markets view as very reassuring, he cannot unsay his words and China will not forget them. Moreover, his administration will attempt to shore up the U.S.-Taiwan alliance in traditional ways, including with new arms sales that will provoke angrier responses than in the past from Beijing (Chart 15). Chart 13Investors Do Not Fear Independence Talk Yet Chart 14China's Silent Sanctions Chart 15Plenty More To Come Crucially, Taiwan's domestic politics are not a major constraint on its actions, which heightens the risks of a cross-strait "incident." The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is in control at almost every level of government on the island. President Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP swept to power on a popular mandate to stall and roll back trade liberalization with China, which the public felt had gone too far under the previous Kuomintang government. Perhaps if Trump had never entered the picture, Taiwan and China would have found a new equilibrium in which Taiwan distanced itself while assuring the mainland it did not seek independence. Now, however, the odds of that solution are declining. Taipei may become overly aggressive if it believes Trump has its back, and this dynamic will ensure continuous Chinese pressures and sanctions, all negative for Taiwanese assets. Bottom Line: Despite the fact that Taiwan's economy has some bright spots (exports, capital formation), we are sticking with our "One China Policy" trade of going long Chinese equities / short Taiwanese and Hong Kong equities. BCA's China Investment Strategy agrees with this call and is shorting Taiwanese stocks relative to its mainland counterparts.17 We expect China to penalize these territories for expressing the desire for greater autonomy. We also suggest going short the Taiwanese dollar versus the Philippine peso, to be discussed further below. Thailand - The Junta's Persistence Is Bullish For most of the past fifteen years, the death of Thailand's King Bhumibol Adulyadej, which occurred on October 13 of last year, was feared as a catalyst for a total breakdown of law and order due to the deep socio-political and regional division in Thai politics that has pitted an urban royalist faction against a rural populist faction. But the 2014 coup was intended to preempt the king's death and ensure that the royalist, pro-military faction held firm control over the country during the risky succession period. The market responded positively during the coup in 2014 and upon the king's death last year (Chart 16). We recommended going long Thai stocks and THB last October, in a joint report with BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy, and both trades are in the black.18 Chart 16Thailand: Investors Cheered The Succession Crisis The junta's strategy has been to root out the leaders of the populist movement and rewrite the constitution to legitimize its ability to intervene in the future. The new monarch has cooperated with the military so far, upholding the status quo, but if at any point he favors the populists to the detriment of the military, political uncertainty will spike from its current historically low levels (Chart 17). The junta is fully in charge for the time being. It has pushed back elections to February 2018 or later, delaying the re-introduction of political instability into the Thai market. It is also surging public spending and transfers to the rural poor to ensure social stability. Historically, strong public capital investment and global exports coincide with strong Thai manufacturing output (Chart 18). Favorable domestic and external macro environments should be bullish for Thai equities, creating a near-term buying opportunity in the Thai market. Chart 17Junta Keeps A Lid On Politics... Chart 18... And Buys Friends With Public Money Thailand is distant from China's quarrels with its neighbors over the South China Sea. It was the first of the U.S. allies to hedge against President Obama's pivot and seek better relations with China instead, a strategy that has paid off. Thailand, like many regional actors, may be forced to choose between China and U.S. at some point, but for now it enjoys the best of both worlds. With a fundamentally strong macro-backdrop, including a large current account surplus of 12% of GDP, we are bullish on Thai assets relative to EM. Bottom Line: Thailand is the most attractive Asian EM economy right now from an investment-oriented geopolitical point of view. It is not too late to go long THB/KRW or long Thai stocks relative to EM. Philippines - The War On Drugs Is A Headwind The Philippines continues to display strong macro-fundamentals and market momentum in the EM universe. However, domestic political risks are significant and prevent us from returning to an overweight stance relative to EM.19 The inauguration of populist southerner Rodrigo Duterte as president of the Philippines in July of last year led the country into a bloodbath that has since claimed over 7,000 lives in a "war on drugs." Only recently has it shown any sign of abating, and it is not clear that it will. The political backlash is gradually building. Duterte's policy preferences are left-leaning and mark a partial reversal of the pro-market, reform orientation of the preceding Aquino government.20 As a result, foreign investment has dropped off from its sharp rise, though it remains elevated (Chart 19). The Philippines may also fall victim to its own success. Due to the booming economy under the Aquino presidency, bank loans and deposits have enjoyed strong growth in recent years. However, the loan-to-deposit ratio is getting overextended and the economy is showing signs of heating up with inflation creeping above 2% in 2016 (Chart 20). Populist policies and the advanced cyclical expansion may add more heat. Thus, it is becoming more likely that monetary policy will tighten as the economy moves into the advanced stage of its cyclical expansion. Duterte could create a problem if at any point he decides to interfere with the central bank or technocratic management of the economy more broadly. In terms of geopolitical risk, Duterte is engineering a pivot away from the United States toward Russia and China, aggravating relations with the former, its chief ally (Chart 21). As relations with China improve, they will bring some investment in infrastructure and a calming of the near seas. Chart 19Duterte Marked The Top Chart 20Credit Is Strong, Inflation Creeping Back Chart 21Duterte's 'Pivot' To Asia Ultimately, however, we view this calming as temporary, since China's assertiveness is a long-term phenomenon. We also think that the fundamental U.S.-Philippine alliance will survive any major disagreements of the Duterte era. Duterte is constrained by his weakness in the Philippine Senate and the popularity of the United States among Filipinos, which is among the highest in the world. In essence, the public is not anti-American but "anti-colonialist" - many feared that the U.S. "Pivot to Asia" of the Obama and Aquino administrations would put the Philippines into a subordinate "colonial" role highly vulnerable to Chinese aggression. Like other U.S. allies in the region, the Philippines wants to be a partner of the U.S. and not just a naval base. Thus, for now, we see the Philippines in a gray area of frictions with the U.S. yet disappointing hopes with regard to China. Until Duterte removes the headline risk to internal stability from his belligerent law and order policies - and compromises on his more anti-market economic stances - we are at best open to tactical possibilities. Bottom Line: Considering its strong macro-fundamentals, advanced cyclical expansion, and politically driven uncertainty, we are only willing to entertain short-term, tactical opportunities in the Philippines. Now is a decent entry point for equities relative to EM. Also, our colleagues at BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy point out that the peso is currently trading at a 10% discount.21 We recommend going long the peso versus the Taiwanese dollar to capitalize on the dynamics outlined for both countries above. Indonesia - A Dream Deferred Indonesia outperformed our expectations throughout 2016.22 President Joko Widodo ("Jokowi") managed to corral his party behind him despite an internal leadership struggle. And the large bureaucratic party, Golkar, joined his coalition in parliament, creating a strong legislative majority. These were our two preconditions for a more effective government; Jokowi has also found allies within the military, as we surmised. As a result, he managed to make some progress on his tax-raising, union-restraining, and infrastructure-building initiatives. Nevertheless, the market has sniffed out the difference between a pro-reform government and the enormous difficulties of pulling off reform in Indonesia. Long-term investment has fallen even as short-term portfolio investment has rallied on the back of the EM reflation trade (Chart 22). While Jokowi reduced the size of costly domestic fuel subsidies in his first year, it was easy to do so amid the oil-price collapse in 2014. Since then, Indonesian retail gasoline prices have remained subdued, indicating that subsidies are still significant. As the global oil prices continue increasing, so will the subsidy (Chart 23), adding to the country's budget deficit. Jokowi also put forth minimum-wage reforms in 2015, introducing a formula which requires the minimum wage to be adjusted every year based on inflation and economic growth (rather than ad hoc negotiations with local unions and governments). Predictably, wages have skyrocketed since the indexing policy was implemented, which is negative for profit margins (Chart 24). Chart 22Investors Skeptical Of Jokowi's Reforms Chart 23Fuel Subsidies Still In Effect Chart 24No Wage Rationalization Yet Indonesia is on the outskirts of China's claims in the South China Sea and has a domestically driven economy that should suffer less than that of its neighbors in a context of de-globalization. In that sense, we are inclined to view it favorably. However, its currency is at risk from twin deficits - current account and budgetary reforms have stalled, and the credit impulse is weakening. If Jokowi's favored candidate wins the heavily contested gubernatorial run-off in Jakarta in April, it will not be very bullish, but a loss would be bearish for Jokowi's reform agenda ahead of the 2019 elections. Bottom Line: We are still short Indonesia within the EM space - its underperformance since the second half of last year can persist. Vietnam - No American Guarantee Vietnam is highly vulnerable to a geopolitical conflict with China which would impact markets. Unlike the Philippines and Thailand, it cannot count on an underlying bedrock of American defense to anchor its pivot toward China - and yet, it has the greatest historical and territorial conflicts with China of all the Southeast Asian states. Chart 25Fighting In The Teeth Of The Dragon Nevertheless, in the short term, geopolitical risks are abating. Relations have improved since a recent low point in 2014.23 And Vietnamese leaders, having invested heavily in the TPP as the trade pact's biggest potential beneficiaries, are trying to make amends with China now that it is canceled. Thus, we remain long Vietnamese equities relative to EM. This is mostly due to the country's strong domestic demand and export competitiveness (Chart 25), attractive environment for foreign investment, and ability to capitalize on diversification away from China. The country's reforms are not perfect, but it has at least recognized NPLs and begun privatizing some SOEs. Bottom Line: We are sticking with long Vietnamese equities versus EM, though downgrading it to a tactical trade due to our wariness of a turn for the worse in China relations or the broader trade environment. Malaysia - Going To The Pawnshop Malaysia, with Vietnam, was to be the top beneficiary of the TPP. It, too, has lost greater access to the U.S. market that the deal would have provided and must now make amends with China. The latter process has already begun, as Malaysia's government has turned to China for a $33 billion deal in exchange for energy assets and valuable land in the state of Johor. The general election of 2013 and the economic slowdown have catalyzed domestic political divisions, especially ethnic and religious ones, igniting a drastic push over the past two years to have Prime Minister Najib Razak ousted for his alleged embezzlement of funds from the state-owned 1MDB corporation. Najib chose to crack down on the opposition and ride out the storm, which he has managed so far, causing unprecedented political instability. Najib's decision to sell land to the Chinese will not sit well with much of the Malay population. Many will see it as undignified; and historically, there is much animosity toward the local Chinese. Najib already faces an intense political struggle due to the exodus of high-ranking politicians from his ruling United Malay National Organization (UMNO). Former strongman leader Mahathir Mohammad and ex-Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin are leading the defectors to form a new Malay party that will pose a serious challenge in the 2018 elections. Recent flirtation between the ruling UMNO and the Islamist Pan-Malaysia Islamic Party (PAS) also injected new uncertainty into the already turbulent domestic political environment. In essence, the one-party state that investors once knew (and loved) is forming new factions that will contest the upcoming elections with abandon. Chart 26Growth Slowing, Credit Drying Up This struggle over the 2018 election promises to be emphatically unfriendly to investors. And until Najib gets a new mandate, he can do very little to arrest the economic breakdown. As long as the support and continuity of Najib's policies are in question, it is difficult to take a directional view of Malaysian assets. A victorious UMNO does not mean that investors should be bullish, but it will resolve the question of "Who is in charge?" At that point, we can reassess the market attractiveness based on the higher "certainty" of the policy preferences of the country. Meanwhile the constraints to Malaysia's economy are clear from a host of weak data, from domestic trade to the property market to the current account and the currency, along with a rise in NPLs that will undermine the inadequately provisioned banks' willingness to lend (Chart 26). While palm oil and petroleum prices have recovered, which is positive for Malaysian markets, this is not enough to outweigh the negative factors. Bottom Line: We are bearish on Malaysian assets and currency. Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Climbing The Wall Of Worry In Europe," dated February 15, 2017, and BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "A Fat-Tails World," dated February 22, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Looming Conflict In The South China Sea," dated May 29, 2012, available at gis.bcaresearch.com, and BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think," dated October 4, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see Graham Allison, "The Thucydides Trap: Are The U.S. And China Headed For War?" The Atlantic, September 24, 2015, available at www.theatlantic.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Underestimating Sino-American Tensions," dated November 6, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "The Geopolitics Of Trump," dated December 2, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Be Aware Of China's Fiscal Tightening," dated February 16, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 9 In the short time since Trump's and Xi's phone call, the U.S. has announced that it intends to intensify the Freedom of Navigation Operations around the rocks in the South China Sea to assert its rights of navigation and overflight. Meanwhile Chinese lawmakers have revealed that they want to pass a new maritime law by 2020 that would encourage maritime security forces to bar foreign ships from passing through Chinese "sovereign" waters if they are ill-intentioned. 10 Trump's Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin was only just confirmed by the Senate and could not have taken any significant action yet. His appointees, notably Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, National Trade Council chief Peter Navarro, and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, are China hawks. If not currency, Trump's team will rotate the negotiations to focus on China's capital controls and failure to liberalize the capital account, its lackadaisical cuts to industrial overcapacity, and the negative business environment for U.S. firms. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Congress Pass The Border Adjustment Tax?" dated February 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com, and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017," dated January 20, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 12 The first nationwide evacuation drill in the event of a North Korean missile attack will take place sometime in March of this year. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Bringing the total number of judges from nine to seven, and thus reducing the threshold for a vote in favor of retaining Park in office from four to two, for constitutional reasons. All but one of the judges were appointed by Park or her party's predecessor. 15 For instance, if the new administration reverses the deployment of the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, it will provoke a crisis with the U.S., but if it does not, China will continue its underhanded economic sanctions on the South, and the new South Korean president's North Korean policy will be stillborn. 16 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Reports, "Taiwan's Election: How Dire Will The Straits Get?" dated January 13, 2016, and "Scared Yet? Five Black Swans For 2016," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 17 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Taiwan's 'Trump' Risk," dated February 2, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 18 Please see "Thailand: Upgrade Stocks To Overweight And Go Long THB Versus KRW," in BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "The EM Rally: Running Out Of Steam?" dated October 19, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Philippine Elections: Taking The Shine Off Reform," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 For instance, he is imposing controls on the mining sector that will scare away investors, in an echo of Indonesia's mining fiasco implemented since 2013, and he is working on eliminating a "contract worker" system that enables employers to avoid the costs of full-time hiring. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Philippine Elections: Taking The Shine Off Reform," dated May 11, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 21 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, "Updating Our Long-Term FX Value Models," dated February 17, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Stick To Long Modi / Short Jokowi," dated November 23, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 Vietnam has moved toward better crisis management with China since the HYSY-981 incident in 2014, when a clash broke out over a mobile Chinese oil rig in the South China Sea. Significantly, the Vietnamese Communist Party's leaders removed former Prime Minister Nguyen Tan Dung, the highest-ranked China hawk and pro-market reformer on the Politburo, in the January 2016 leadership reshuffle.