Policy

Highlights The divergence in political uncertainty measures and the VIX index suggests that equity prices are vulnerable to Washington disappointments. Longer term, a self-reinforcing, low-inflation recovery is in place, which sets a fundamentally positive cyclical backdrop for equities. Monetary policy is still in a sweet spot for risk assets. Fed policy decisions throughout the current cycle have been in line with the Taylor Rule, once the model is adjusted for regional growth disparities. The most recent Senior Loan Officer Survey runs counter to most other data on the consumer. Improved consumer confidence should lead to stronger consumer loan demand, while banks should be more willing to lend when their customers have jobs and rising incomes. Feature Equity market performance over the past few weeks has been impressive. Still, there are starting to be signs that investors are becoming nervous. Safe-haven assets have been undergoing a stealth recovery since mid-December: gold, the Japanese yen, and the Swiss franc have all appreciated (Chart 1). In relation to these trends, the equity market is the so-called "odd man out": even though several safe-haven assets bottomed out mid-December, the stock market continued to make new highs. A second worrying divergence is the behavior of two popular risk indexes: the VIX and the Global Policy Uncertainty Index. The former - a measure of the cost of equity insurance - remains very low, while political uncertainty is making record highs. In fact, Chart 2 shows that the gap between these two risk measures is at a historic extreme. This reinforces our view that the equity market is vulnerable to negative surprises. Chart 1A Message From Safe Havens? Chart 2Different Signals? One main risk is that investors will become disappointed with the timing and magnitude of market-friendly policies from Washington. Meanwhile, the possibility of less friendly policies being passed is rising. Our Geopolitical team believes that the Trump administration will ultimately accept the House GOP's Border Adjustment Tax (BAT) proposal, though the road between here and there will be tortuous, as past attempts at tax reform show.1 We would expect market volatility to rise as the BAT debate intensifies. Longer term, the economy is entering a self-reinforcing phase. And since it is premature to expect inflation to flare up to a point that would require aggressive monetary tightening,2 we expect that the cyclical bull market will be prolonged. Policy Sweet Spot We have shown on several occasions3 that equities perform well in the early phases of a rising interest environment, i.e. for as long as rates remain in accommodative territory. We have identified four phases of the fed funds rate cycle, which are defined by the policy rate relative to its equilibrium level (accommodative or restrictive) and the direction of its last move: Phase I = Policy is accommodative, but the Fed funds rate is rising. Phase II = Policy is tight and the Fed funds is still rising. Phase III = Policy is tight, but the Fed is cutting rates. Phase IV = Policy is easing and the Fed is cutting rates. As one would expect, the best equity market returns occur when the Fed funds rate is accommodative (below the equilibrium rate) and the Fed is still cutting and/or on extensive hold, i.e. Phase IV. The second best phase for equity performance is the current one: when policy is still accommodative, but rates are rising (Chart 3). Granted, the magnitude of returns in this phase depend markedly on earnings performance, but the general message is that risk assets will continue to eke out positive gains, so long as the Fed finds reason to stay accommodative. Chart 3Policy Sweet Spot Can Last A Long Time To this end, this week we examine the Taylor rule - which prescribes a value for the federal funds rate based on the values of inflation and economic slack - and its usefulness in the current economic (and political) environment. The Robotization Of The Fed In mid-January, FOMC Chair Janet Yellen gave a speech4 that outlined the merits of using statistical rules to guide monetary policy. Her speech served as a rebuttal to the FORM Act (Fed Oversight Reform and Modernization Act). The FORM Act - whose main feature is to have Fed officials determine a mathematical formula to guide their interest-rate decisions - is only one of several measures that have been proposed over the years to revamp the Fed to put it under greater Congressional scrutiny and limit its discretionary powers. The Senate has never voted on the FORM Act, but Yellen's speech on rule-based approaches to monetary policy suggest that this type of legislation should be on investors' radars. In the past, plenty of simple policy rules have been suggested to guide central banks' decisions.5 But in her speech, Yellen spoke about the relevance of the Taylor Rule. The Taylor rule calls for systematic adjustments in the federal funds rate relative to its expected longer-run neutral level in response to movements in inflation and the output gap, defined as the percentage difference between actual output and the economy's productive potential. The traditional Taylor Rule shows that the Fed is currently behind the curve and should be much more hawkish (Chart 4, top panel). Chair Yellen's preferred variant is to use a "balanced approach," which is twice as responsive to the movements in resources utilization (Chart 4, bottom panel). Simply put, it doubles the coefficient of the output gap, putting more emphasis on maintaining sustainable growth. But even with this methodological tweak, Yellen warned of the danger of using simple rules to conduct policy and quoted the uncertain footing of the global economic growth pattern. She also highlighted that the uncertainty related to upcoming fiscal policy: "simple rules ignore such important factors as fiscal policy, trends affecting global growth, structural developments influencing supply of credit, and overall financial conditions." For this reason, we created an Augmented Taylor rule that improves on the Traditional as well as Yellen's preferred modified Taylor rule. Our version of the Taylor rule has a better track record in explaining the Fed's policy decisions historically. Chart 4Taylor Vs. The Fed Chart 5Different Rates For Different States Augmenting The Taylor Rule One of the difficulties in conducting monetary policy in the U.S. is that growth is unevenly distributed. For example, according to the BEA, state level real GDP growth varied between -0.1% (In Alaska and New Mexico) and 7.1% (in South Dakota). Regulating interest rates over such an eclectic base has the potential to create distortions. Therefore, determining a mathematical formula for monetary policy should take into account these asymmetric patterns. By studying state-specific variables, we augment the Taylor Rule and come up with a more accurate reading of the Fed's behavior. The Augmented Taylor Rule is calculated using an average of 51 state-specific Taylor rules,6 using state GDP deflator and state unemployment rate as inputs. Please note that the following work does not make us advocates for the Fed following a mathematical formula. However, our model does better formulize the Fed's historical actions. To construct our Augmented Taylor rule we do the following: Step 1 - State Taylor Rules: NAIRU and the Fed's targets for interest rates and for inflation were used at the national level. As such, we used state-specific variables for the rest of the variables. Specifically, we used each states' GDP deflator and unemployment rate as inputs for inflation and resource utilization, respectively. With these variables, we calculated each states' Taylor Rule using Janet Yellen's preferred formula, the balanced approached. We then aggregated the data by calculating a simple average of the 51 Taylor Rules. As a reference, the top panel of Chart 5 shows that the averaged state Taylor Rules and Yellen's balanced approach are similar despite slightly different methods. Step 2 - Quantifying Asymmetry: As the middle panel of Chart 5 shows, there are large divergences between states' Taylor Rule-prescribed interest rates throughout time. Therefore, we calculated the standard deviations of the Taylor Rules across the 51 states Taylor Rules to come up with a value of asymmetry measure (Chart 5, bottom panel). Step 3 - Augmenting The Taylor Rule: We then deducted the asymmetry measure from the average Taylor Rule (Chart 6). The rationale for doing so is that it is much more difficult for the Fed to raise rates when outputs gaps vary greatly across states. Step 4 - Validating The Rule: Chart 7 shows the relationship between the national balanced Taylor rule (i.e. Yellen's preferred approach) and the Fed funds rate, and the augmented Taylor rule and the Fed funds rate. The main difference between our adjusted Taylor rule and Yellen's balanced approach is that we give equal weight to each state Taylor rule and then subtract the variance across states. Recall that both the Traditional and Balanced Taylor rules use national aggregate data, and do not account for state variances. The augmented Taylor Rule improves the R2 over the national rule, therefore providing more explanatory power of the Fed's decisions. Chart 6The Fed Is Constrained By Asymmetry Chart 7Validating The Augmented Taylor Rule The bottom line is that the Augmented Taylor Rule allows us to understand and quantify the economic asymmetry within the U.S. Further, it appears as though the Fed has been following this rule even if policymakers are not aware of it! Given the current message from our rule, investors should expect the Fed to remain gradual in raising rates. We do not foresee the Fed "catching up" with the Traditional Taylor (which currently calls for a policy rate of over 4%). The above Taylor Rule analysis corroborates our view that policy will stay in a sweet spot for equities. The bond market currently is priced for two rates in the next twelve months. If that is realized, interest rates would still be below the equilibrium rate, underscoring that monetary policy will be a benign factor for risk assets. Economy Update: Too Early To Worry About Rising Rates The most recent Fed Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey, completed after most of the run up in interest rates, showed that banks' lending standards for loans to businesses remained largely unchanged, though lending standards for consumer loans stiffened, especially for auto loans and credit cards (Chart 8). There was also reportedly less demand for consumer credit. These results run counter to most other data on the U.S. consumer. As we highlighted in previous reports, consumer confidence has soared to its highest level in the cycle and the labor market is approaching full employment. These trends should lead to stronger consumer loan demand, while banks should be more willing to lend when their customers have jobs and rising incomes. This was not borne out in the Fed's Q1 lending survey, especially as it relates to auto and credit card loans: banks expect the asset quality of auto and credit card loans to further deteriorate this year. These survey results are difficult to ignore as they tend to correlate reasonably well with consumer spending patterns. We maintain an optimistic view on household spending for 2017, driven by the strong labor market, though the next survey (to be released in early May) will tell whether the Q1 results were an aberration or the start of a weaker trend. Importantly, recent work from our Bank Credit Analyst service7 concluded that household interest payment burdens will rise only modestly, and from a low level, over the next couple of years even if borrowing rates increase immediately by 100bps for today's levels. According to their analysis, it would require a much more significant shock, i.e. 300bps or greater, to move interest payments as a share of GDP back toward historical averages. Projections are shown in Chart 9. Chart 8Banks Are Still Cautious On Lending Chart 9Rising Rates Are Not Problematic More broadly for the major economies, global debt has soared by over 40 percentage points since 2007. However, The BCA report uncovers that a doomsday scenario for global growth due to a rising interest rate environment (led chiefly by the Fed) is unlikely to unfold. First, the starting point for debt service burdens in the corporate, household and government sectors is low. These burdens have generally trended down since 2007 because falling interest rates have more than offset debt accumulation, with the major exception of China. Second, the maturity distribution of debt means that it takes time for interest rate shifts to filter into debt servicing costs. For example, the average maturity of corporate investment-grade bond indexes in the major economies is between 3 and 12 years. The average maturity of government indexes range from 7½ to 16 years. Moreover, the majority of household debt is related to fixed-rate mortgages. Even a significant portion of consumer debt is fixed for 5 years and more in some countries. Third, even following the backup in yield curves since the U.S. election, current interest rates on new loans are still significantly below average rates on outstanding household loans, corporate debt and government debt. The implication is that most older loans and bonds coming due over the next few years will be rolled over at a lower rate compared to the loans and bonds being replaced. This will even be true if current yield curves shift up by 100bps in many cases (except for the U.S. where current yields are closer to average coupon and loan rates). The bottom line is that a rising interest rate backdrop will only become problematic much later in the economic cycle. In the meantime, the strength of the consumer spending upcycle depends on (stronger) income trends and banks' willingness to spend. We are optimistic about the former and will continue to monitor the latter. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com David Boucher, Editor/Strategist davidb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Will Congress Pass The Border Adjustment Tax?," dated February 8, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Inflation In 2017: An Idle Threat," dated January 9, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "Lingering In The Policy Sweet Spot," dated September 26, 2016 and "Stocks And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle," dated December 23, 2013, available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see a transcript of Janet Yellen's January 19, 2017 speech, https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/yellen20170119a.htm 5 Taylor, J. and Williams, J. "Simple and Robust Rules for Monetary Policy," Federal Reserve Bank Of San Francisco, Working Paper Series, Dated April 2010. 6 We used the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 7 Please see, The Bank Credit Analyst Special Report "Global Debt Titanic Collides With Fed Iceberg?," dated February 2017, available at bca,bcaresearch.com. Appendix Monthly Asset Allocation Model Update Our Asset Allocation (AA) model provides an objective assessment of the outlook for relative returns across equities, Treasuries and cash. It combines valuation, cyclical, monetary and technical indicators. The model was constructed as a capital preservation tool, and has historically outperformed the benchmark in large part by avoiding major equity bear markets. Please note that our official cyclical asset allocation recommendations deviate at times from the model's recommendation. The model is just one input to our decision process. The model's recommendation for cash has been upgraded to benchmark at the expense of bonds. The weightings for the major asset classes are: neutral equity exposure at 60% (benchmark 60%), neutral Treasury allocation at 30% (benchmark 30%) and cash at 10% (benchmark 10%). The diffusion index of the three components for The Equity Model remained neutral. The technical component retained its "buy" signal, with slight advances for both the breadth & trend and momentum indicators. The monetary component, which measures overall liquidity conditions, though still favorable for equities, is giving a less bullish signal. The earnings-driven component continues to give a cautious signal. Even as real operating earnings continue to gradually improve, they still remain at a significant distance from positive economic expectations which have moved higher yet again. Earnings momentum is also still sluggish, based on our earnings diffusion index. The model's recommendation for bonds is now at benchmark which fits with our neutral qualitative stance for Treasuries in balanced portfolios since November 7, 2016. Although the valuation and cyclical components of the bond model are still constructive, the deterioration of the technical component triggered a "sell" signal changing the allocation from overweight tot benchmark. Chart 10Portfolio Total Returns Chart 11Current Model Recommendations Note: The asset allocation model is not necessarily consistent with the weighting recommendations of the Cyclical Investment Stance. For further information, please see our Special Report “Presenting Our U.S. Asset Allocation Model”, February 6, 2009.

Highlights The USD bull case is now well known by the market, but this is not strong enough a hurdle to end the dollar's run. The behavior of positioning, the U.S. basic balance of payments, interest rate expectations, and relative central bank balance sheets suggest we are entering the overshoot phase of the rally. Volatility will increase and differentiation on the dollar's pairs is becoming more important. Reflation plays are especially in danger, and the euro could be handicapped by political risk. The yen remains the preferred mean to play the ongoing dollar correction. Feature The dollar bull market has been echoing the path traced in the 1990s (Chart I-1). The key question for investors now is whether the dollar can continue to follow this road map or is the bull market over. The dollar bullish arguments are now well known by market participants, increasing the risk that purchases of the dollar might exhaust themselves. We review the indicators that worry us most and conclude that the dollar bull market could run further. However, as the dollar is now moving into overshoot territory, we expect that the volatility of the rally will only grow. Also, divergences in the dollar on its pairs are becoming more likely. We remain short USD/JPY, and explore the risks to the euro's near-term outlook. Signs Of An Overshoot? Sentiment The first factor that worries us about the future of the USD bull market is the near universality of the positive disposition of investors toward the dollar. However, two observations are in order. First, both sentiment and net speculative positions are not nearly as stretched as they were at the top of the Clinton USD bull market (Chart I-2). Second, it took six years of elevated bullishness and long positioning to prompt the end of the bull market in 2002. Either way, the dollar can continue to climb despite this handicap. Chart I-1Will History Repeat Itself? Chart I-2In The 1990s, The Consensus Was Right This reflects the fact that currency markets can often fall victim to something called the "band-wagon" effect, where a strong trend attracts more funds and perpetuates itself. Chart I-3America Is Great Again, ##br##At Least According To Investors We think this is caused by two factors. Valuation signals in the currency market have a poor track record at making money on a less than 2-year basis. This means that such signals need to be extremely strong before investors act on them. The dollar being 10% overvalued does not fit this description, instead a 20% to 25% overvaluation would hit that mark. Also, a strong upward move in a currency attracts funds to that economy. This creates liquidity in that nation's banking sector, alleviating some of the economic pain created by a rising currency or the tighter monetary policy that often caused the currency in question to rise in the first place. Today, the U.S. economy fits this bill, as private investors are rapaciously grabbing U.S. assets (Chart I-3). The Basic Balance Of Payments We have been struggling with how to interpret a strong basic balance of payment position. On the one hand, an elevated basic balance suggests that there is buying out there supporting a nation's currency. On the other hand, a strong basic balance position, especially if not caused by a current account surplus, suggests that market participants have already implemented their purchases of that nation's currency's and assets. These investors thus need further positive shocks to buy even more of that currency in order to lift its exchange rate ever higher. Today, the basic balance of payments in the U.S. is at a record high of 3.8% of GDP, begging the question of how it can climb higher from here (Chart I-4). However, as the same chart reveals, each of the previous dollar bull markets ended a few years after the U.S. basic balance of payments had peaked. Thus, we currently continue to expect the dollar to strengthen even if the U.S. basic balance position were to deteriorate. Additionally, the euro area basic balance is very depressed today at -3.4% of GDP, despite a current account surplus of 3% of GDP. However, in 1999, the region's basic balance bottomed at -5.6% of GDP, and it took until 2002 before the euro could durably rally, at which point the euro area basic balance had move back near 0% of GDP. Therefore, we would need to see a marked improvement in the euro area's basic balance in order to buy and hold the euro on a 12-to-18 months basis. Interest Rate Expectations Investors have rarely been as convinced as they are today that the Fed will increase interest rates over the coming months. This implies that the room for disappointment is large. However, as Chart I-5 illustrates, this is still not a reason to begin betting on an end to the dollar cyclical bull market. An overshoot in the dollar is marked by a fall in expectations of interest rate hikes as the strong dollar hurts the economy, preventing the Fed from hiking as much as anticipated. Moreover, except in 1994, a decreasing prevalence of rising rate expectations has lead dollar bear markets by more than a year. This suggests that there is room for the dollar to strengthen even if markets downgrade their U.S. rates expectations. Chart I-4The Basic Balance##br## Is A Small Hurdle Chart I-5In An Over Shoot, The Dollar Can Rally ##br##Even If Investors Doubt The Fed Even when looked comparatively, the broad consensus of investors regarding the continuation of monetary divergences between the Fed and the ECB is not yet a hurdle for the dollar to continue beating the euro on a 12-18 months basis. Not only is EUR/USD currently trading in line with relative expectations, previous euro rallies have been preceded by a big upgrade of the expected path of policy in Europe relative to the U.S. We currently expect the ECB to go out of its way to telegraph that even if asset purchases get curtailed in the second half of 2017, this will in no way foretell an imminent increase in European rates. Meanwhile, the Fed is in a firm position to increase rates as U.S. slack has dissipated (Chart I-6). Moreover, the proposed fiscal stimulus of the Trump administration should create inflationary pressures in this environment, solidifying the Fed's resolve to hike rates further. Chart I-6The Fed Pass Toward Higher Rates In Being Cleared Balance Sheet Positions One indicator concerns us more than the others at this point in time. As we wrote two weeks ago, one factor that has propelled the dollar higher has been its relative scarcity. The limited supply of dollar in the offshore markets - courtesy of the meltdown in the prime money-market funds industry and the heavier regulatory burden on banks - has caused cross-currency basis swap spreads to widen, pushing the greenback higher.1 Chart I-7Balance Sheet Dynamics And##br## The Scarcity Of Dollars Currently, the cross-currency basis swap spreads are hovering near record lows. However, as Chart I-7 illustrates, the surplus of euros created by the ECB's balance-sheet expansion as the Fed stopped its own purchases had a role to play in this phenomenon. While we expect the ECB to stand pat on the interest rate front for the foreseeable future, a further tapering of asset purchases in the second half of 2017 and beyond is very likely. This could limit the widening in cross-currency basis swap spreads that has been so helpful to the dollar, especially if the Fed elects not to curtail the size of its balance sheet. Net Net Many indicators suggest that the potential for dollar buying may be on the verge of exhausting itself. However, when looked closer, while these factors are a cause for concern, they still do not preclude an overshoot in the dollar. In fact, if anything, they suggest that the dollar is only now beginning its overshoot phase, a leg of the bull market that historically begins to inflict deeper pain on the U.S. economy as the dollar gets ever more dissociated from its fundamentals. So What? While the above indicators do not yet point to an end of the bull market, they in no way suggest that the dollar cannot suffer episodic corrections. We believe we are in the midst of such an event. Can the correction last further? Yes. To begin with, while the heavy net long positioning in the dollar does not represent much of a cyclical hurdle to beat, it does still constitute an important tactical risk. Our models corroborate this view. DXY is only currently fairly valued based on our intermediate-term timing model. Historically, tactical corrections fully play out once this model is in cheap territory (Chart I-8). Moreover, our capitulation index paints a similar story. This indicator has corrected some of its overbought excesses but remains above levels suggestive of an oversold environment. To the contrary, the fact that this index is still below its 13-week moving average points to additional selling pressures on the USD (Chart I-9). Chart I-8The Dollar Tactical Correction Is Not Over Chart I-9Confirming The Dollar Tactical Downside However, other factors suggest that the dollar could strengthen on certain pairs. The outlook seems especially grim for the reflation plays like the commodity currencies. Our reflation gauge, based on the prices of lumber, industrial metals, and platinum, has moved upward exactly as the U.S. dollar has rallied, a short-lived phenomenon that happened in 2001, 2002, and 2009. In all these cases, the Fed was easing policy and U.S. rates were softening relative to the rest of the world (Chart I-10). We doubt this phenomenon can continue much longer, especially as the Fed is currently tightening policy and U.S. rates are rising relative to the rest of the world. Moreover, Chinese fiscal stimulus was crucial in supporting this divergence in both 2009 and 2016. However, Chinese government spending went from growing at a 25% annual rate in November 2015, to a near 0% rate now. Moreover, the PBoC has already increased rates twice on its medium-term facilities and has also stopped injecting liquidity in the interbank market despite recent upward pressures on the SHIBOR. This tightening could prove problematic for natural resources like coking coal, iron ore, or copper, commodities highly levered to the Chinese real estate market and of which China recently accumulated large inventories (Chart I-11). Chart I-10An Unusual Move Chart I-11Elevated Chinese Metal Inventories Additionally, on the back of the longest expansion in the global credit impulse in a decade, G10 economic surprises have become very perky. However, it will be difficult to beat expectations going forward. Not only have investors ratcheted up their global growth expectations, the recent increase in global interest rates limits the capacity of the credit impulse to grow further. In fact, the recent tightening in U.S. banks credit standards for consumer loans, the fall in the quit rates in the U.S. labor market, and the underperformance of junk bonds relative to Treasurys since late January only re-inforce this message. Sagging global growth, even if temporary, is always a problem for commodities and commodity currencies. The euro faces its own risk: France. Last week, along with our colleagues from BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service, we wrote that the chance of a Le Pen electoral victory is still extremely low and we would buy the euro on any sell-off caused by a rising euro-area breakup risk premium.2 Yet, we are not oblivious to the risk that before the second round of the election is over on May 7th, investors can continue to place bets that Marine will win and that France will exit the euro area. The recent widening of the OAT/Bund spread reflects these exact dynamics as François Fillon's hardship and Macron's love life have taken center stage. So real has been the perception of this risk that spreads on Italian and Spanish bonds have followed suit (Chart I-12). While we are inclined to lean against this move, it is a risk that investors may want to bet on or hedge against. At the current juncture, the euro is fully pricing in these developments, and no mispricing is evident. However, as our model based on real rates differentials, commodity prices, and intra-European spreads shows, if France spreads were to widen further, EUR/USD could suffer (Chart I-13). In fact, if French spreads retest their 2011 levels, the euro could fall toward parity. Chart I-12Le Pen Is Causing A Repricing ##br##Of The Euro Area's Breakup Chance Chart I-13The Euro Will Suffer If French ##br##Bonds Underperform Further Investors wanting to speculate on the French election but wanting to avoid taking on some USD exposure can do so by shorting EUR/SEK, a very profitable strategy when the euro crisis was raging (Chart I-14) or could short EUR/GBP, as interest rates expectations have begun to move against the common currency and in favor of the pound (Chart I-15). While EUR/CHF tends to weaken during times of euro-duress, it is currently trading close to the unofficial SNB floor and we worry that growing intervention by the Swiss central bank will limit any downside on this pair. The currency that is likely to benefit the most against the dollar remains the yen. Not only are investors still very short the yen, but based on our intermediate-term timing model, the yen remains very attractive (Chart I-16). Moreover, the recent large improvement In the Japanese inventory-to-shipment ratio only highlights that the Japanese economy has gathered momentum, decreasing the likelihood of an enlargement of the current set of ultra-stimulative measures from the BoJ. Chart I-14Short EUR/SEK: A Hedge Against Le Pen Chart I-15Downside Risk For EUR/GBP Chart I-16Yen: Biggest Winner If USD Corrects Additionally, any risk-off event caused by a correction of the reflation trade would benefit the yen. Falling commodity prices will hurt Japanese inflation expectations and lift real rate differentials in favor of the yen. A correction in the reflation trade would also put downward pressure on global bond yields, which means that due to the low yield-beta of JGBs, Japanese nominal interest rates spread would further contribute to a narrowing of real interest rate differentials in favor of the JPY. Finally, if investors begin to bet even more aggressively on a breakup of the euro area fueled by the perceived prospects of a Le Pen electoral victory, the vicious wave of risk aversion unleashed around the globe by such an event would likely support the yen beyond our expectations. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Corrections, EM Outlook, Global Liquidity, And Protectionism", dated January 27, 207, available at fes.bcaresearch.com 2 Please refer to the Foreign Exchange/ Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The French Revolution", dated February 3, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 As we highlighted in previous reports, DXY's losses extended no further than the 99-100 support range, and the index has rebounded since then. A key external driver of the USD is EUR, whose roll-over has coincided with the DXY's rebound. In the coming months, EUR/USD could display downside risk as markets price in election jitters. This could be bullish for the greenback. The budget plan is in discussion. Due in around a month, the tentative plan comprises tax cuts and defense spending mostly. While this is still speculative, this plan may be bullish for the dollar. Until then, it is likely that the DXY will follow in its seasonal trend and be largely unchanged with little upside this month. Report Links: Risks To The Cyclical Dollar View - February 3, 2017 Dollar Corrections, EM Outlook, Global Liquidity, And Protectionism - January 27, 2017 U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017 - January 20, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Two main factors are weighing on the euro this week. Firstly, Draghi continues to retain his dovish stance. He stated that there is still "significant degree of labour market slack", which is limiting wage growth, a key contributor to underlying inflation. Secondly, and more substantial, are politically-induced anxieties in the run up to the European elections. In particular, French elections have increased risk premia, forcing the 10-year OAT-Bund spread to reach early-2014 highs. Greek 2-year yields have also spiked above 10%. Volatility is likely to be elevated in the lead up to the French election and possibly through Italian elections. The longer-term outlook will remain dictated by the development of the ECB's monetary policy stance. Report Links: The French Revolution - February 3, 2017 GBP: Dismal Expectations - January 13, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Then yen continues to rally, with USD/JPY already down by almost 5% this year. Uncertainty surrounding the European elections should help continue this trend, given that the yen should benefit from safe haven flows. Nevertheless, the outlook for the yen remains bearish on a cyclical basis, as the measures that the BoJ has taken, such as anchoring 10-year rates near 0, and switching to de facto price level targeting will eventually lower Japanese real rates vis-à-vis the rest of the world. The BoJ has taken these measures to kick start an economy plagued by deflation. Early returns from this policy are mixed: Machinery Orders grew by 6.7% YoY, outperforming expectations. However both housing starts growth and Nikkei Manufacturing PMI fell below expectations, coming at 3.9% and 52.7 respectively. Report Links: Dollar Corrections, EM Outlook, Global Liquidity, And Protectionism - January 27, 2017 Update On A Tumultuous Year - January 6, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 On Wednesday, the U.K. House of Commons finally gave their approval to a bill authorizing the government to start exits talks with the European Union. The House of Lords will be the next hurdle that Brexit hopefuls will have to overcome. Although cable suffered from some volatility following the decision it has remained relatively unaffected. We continue to think that the pound has further upside, particularly against the euro, as the negative consequences of Brexit on the British economy are already well priced into cable. Furthermore, increasing uncertainty regarding the French elections should also be bearish for EUR/GBP. If the fear of a Le Pen presidency starts to increase, Brexit will become an afterthought as exiting the European Union takes on a completely different meaning if the integrity of the EU starts being put into question. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The RBA held rates at 1.5% this week on the basis of upbeat business and consumer confidence, and above-trend growth in advanced economies. This decision helped the AUD, as investors repriced dovish bets and interpreted a change in stance. While above-trend growth is possible, Chinese demand is particularly important for Australia. Last week, the PBoC silently tightened their 7-, 14-, and 28-day reverse repo rates by 10 bps each to help alleviate looming risks in the real estate market and general financial stability. This may signal an end to an easing cycle, which may limit demand growth going forward. Australia has its own financial worries. Household debt is at its highest ever, at 186% of disposable income, which would be catastrophic if rates are raised. Lowe also highlighted concerns about a strong AUD and its impact on Australia's economic transition. Report Links: Risks To The Cyclical Dollar View - February 3, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 The RBNZ decided to keep interest rates unchanged at 1.75% in their monetary policy meeting this Wednesday. Additionally, as expected, Governor Graeme Wheeler stated that the RBNZ had shifted from having a dovish bias to a having neutral one. Nevertheless, the kiwi has depreciated sharply since the announcement, not only because Governor Wheeler highlighted that the currency "remains higher than is sustainable for balanced growth" but also because the RBNZ showed a cautious approach by stating that "premature tightening of policy could undermine growth and forestall the anticipated gradual increase in inflation". However, we believe that the RBNZ will turn more hawkish, as inflationary forces in the economy will eventually put upward pressure on rates. This will lift the NZD, particularly against the AUD. Report Links: Risks To The Cyclical Dollar View - February 3, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Uncertainty has come up as a key issue in the Bank of Canada's headlights, as Poloz remains nervous about the future of U.S.-Canada relations. CAD has recently displayed some strength despite this uncertainty. It has appreciated against USD, AUD and NZD. This is likely due to a brightening perception of the Canadian economy with the Ivey PMI recording a reading above 50 for January, at 52.3, above the previous 49.3. Additionally, housing starts beat expectations, dampening housing market concerns. Exports have been strong, which has also fed into this appreciation. A rapidly appreciating currency would exacerbate trade concerns further and adversely affect the Canadian economy. Therefore, it is likely that the BoC remains tilted to the dovish side, which will generate downside for the CAD through rate differentials. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 EUR/CHF has reached its lowest level since August 2015. At around 1.065, this cross is hovering in the lower range of the implied floor set by the SNB. Increased uncertainty caused by the upcoming European elections cycle will continue to test this floor, as the increased odds of an Eurosceptic government in France will not only decrease the value of the euro but will also put upward pressure on the franc, given its safe haven status. Nevertheless, the SNB will do everything in its power to weaken its currency as the Swiss economy continues to be plagued by deflationary forces: After showing glimpses of a recovery last month Real retail sales contracted by 3.5% YoY, falling well short of expectations. The SVMI Purchasing Manager's Index also came below expectations coming in at 54.6. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 USD/NOK has rebounded after reaching 8.20, its lowest level since Trump got elected. Interestingly, the NOK has not been as correlated with oil prices since the start of 2017 as it has been in the past. This is a trend worth monitoring. The inflation picture remains complex, although core and headline inflation have deaccelerated slightly as of late, inflation expectations are at their highest level of the last 9 years. Additionally house prices are growing at nearly 20%, a pace not seen since before the 2008 crisis. The Norges Bank is now facing a tough dilemma between risking an inflation overshoot if they keep their dovish bias or raising rates in an economy where growth for employment, real retail sales and nominal GDP is still in negative territory. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 The SEK continues to duplicate the dollar's movements, rolling over slightly from the 7% appreciation it saw over a month and a half. A more accurate measure of the SEK's value, EUR/SEK, paints a similar picture. These movements have been more or less in line with the Riksbank's desired developments, as it indicates a deceleration in the pace of recent appreciation. However, we believe that the rebound in EUR/SEK is not likely to run further. Political turbulence is being priced into the euro. After sustaining near oversold levels, the rebound could be nothing more than momentum exiting from oversold territories. Nevertheless, it is likely that EUR/SEK will correct in the coming months due to European elections. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights Fears that the Trump Administration will brow-beat America's trading partners into strengthening their currencies have pushed down the dollar in recent weeks. The likelihood of another Plaza-type accord remains extremely low, however. History suggests that such agreements only work when currency interventions are aligned with the underlying macroeconomic fundamentals. With the Fed eager to hike rates, that is not the case today. The only situation where a multilateral agreement to weaken the dollar could be reached is one where the dollar ascends so high that major financial stresses begin to form, particularly in emerging markets. We are not there yet. The real trade-weighted dollar is likely to rise 5%-to-10% by the end of the year. A stronger greenback will hurt U.S. corporate profit margins, allowing European and Japanese stocks to outperform in local-currency terms. Feature Dollar Under Pressure Chart 1The Recent Dollar Dip Is Not ##br##Reflected In Interest Rate Spreads After rallying sharply following the U.S. presidential election, the greenback has given up some of its gains. Since peaking in late December, the trade-weighted dollar has fallen by around 2.5%. Notably, the dollar's swoon has not been accompanied by a narrowing of 2-year real interest rate differentials between the U.S. and its trading partners (Chart 1). This suggests that shifts in relative growth expectations have played a relatively minor role during this latest dollar selloff. In our view, the more important factor has been the "weak dollar" rhetoric coming out of the Trump administration. Historically, U.S. officials have at least given lip service to America's "strong dollar policy." As with many other political customs, Trump has thrown this one out the window. Peter Navarro, head of Trump's National Trade Council, made headlines last week by calling Germany a "currency manipulator" - even though, strictly speaking, Germany does not have a currency to manipulate. This came on the heels of Trump's comments to The Wall Street Journal earlier in January where he lamented that "our currency is too strong... it's killing us." The President reiterated that sentiment last week, telling a group of pharmaceutical company executives: "You look at what China's doing, you look at what Japan has done over the years ... they play the devaluation market and we sit there like a bunch of dummies." A Deal That Worked The Trump administration's efforts to talk down the dollar have raised the question of whether another Plaza Accord is on the horizon. The original agreement was concluded at The Plaza Hotel in 1985. As fate would have it, Trump ended up buying the landmark property three years later. It would go on to be the setting for such historically momentous events as Trump's wedding to Marla Maples and his Oscar-worthy cameo in Home Alone 2: Lost In New York. The Plaza Accord prescribed that G5 nations - the U.S., Japan, Germany, the U.K., and France - intervene in currency markets with the aim of driving down the value of the dollar. At least in this respect, the Accord was a smashing success. Between early 1985 - when rumors of a deal began to swirl - and January 1987, the dollar fell by 54% against both the yen and the mark, 49% against the franc, and 44% against the pound. In fact, so effective was the Plaza Accord that it necessitated the Louvre Accord two years later, an agreement that was drawn up in order to halt the dollar's slide. Chart 2A Widening Current Account ##br##Deficit Sowed The Seeds For The Plaza Accord Then And Now: Some Similarities... There are some clear similarities between 1985 and the present. Just like today, the greenback strengthened significantly in the years leading up to the Accord. At first, the Reagan administration was content to let the dollar appreciate, seeing this as validation of its pro-growth policies. The Fed was also happy to go along with a stronger dollar since lower import prices helped to dampen inflation. As time wore on, however, the damage from an overvalued dollar became increasingly apparent: The current account balance swung from a modest surplus at the start of the 1980s to a deficit of 2.7% of GDP by the end of 1985 (Chart 2). The Big Three automakers, along with companies such as Caterpillar, IBM, and Motorola, began to lobby the U.S. government for trade sanctions against foreign competitors. With Reagan's appointment of James Baker to the post of Treasury Secretary in February 1985, U.S. trade policy moved away from being governed by a doctrinaire free market philosophy and took on a more pragmatic tone. Fearing further protectionist measures, the Japanese and Europeans agreed to take action to strengthen their currencies. ...But Some Notable Differences Despite the clear parallels between 1985 and the present, there are also a number of critical differences. First, there is the issue of magnitude. By early 1985, the greenback was entering the seventh year of a massive bull market - one that had lifted the real broad trade-weighted dollar up 53% from its lows in October 1978 (Chart 3). In contrast, the current dollar bull market is a mere 2.5 years old and has seen the dollar strengthen by "only" 20% since July 2014. Moreover, the current bull market began from a point where the dollar was highly undervalued. As a consequence, as of today, the real trade-weighted dollar remains 21% below its 1985 peak and 11% below its 2002 peak. Second, one of the reasons the Plaza Accord worked so well was because policymakers ensured that their currency interventions were consistent with the macroeconomic fundamentals. The combination of tight monetary policy and loose fiscal policy created a fertile backdrop for the dollar's ascent in the early 1980s. By 1984, however, those bullish dollar fundamentals started to break down. Chart 4 shows that the dollar continued to appreciate into 1985, even though U.S. interest rates were declining relative to other G5 economies. The dollar, in other words, had entered a full-fledged bubble - one that was ripe for a pricking. Chart 3The Dollar Is ##br##Below Past Peaks Chart 4A Full-Fledged Dollar ##br##Bubble Preceded The Plaza Accord Once the dollar bubble burst, monetary policy amplified the downward pressure on the greenback. Most notably, the Federal Reserve continued cutting interest rates, ultimately taking the effective Fed funds rate down from 11.8% in July 1984 to 5.8% in October 1986. As a result, the 2-year nominal interest rate differential shrank by 454 basis points against Japan over this period. For the U.K., the interest rate differential fell by 630 basis points, while for Germany it declined by 407 basis points. In contrast to the mid-1980s, the Fed is unlikely to lean into dollar weakness this time around. The output gap in the U.S. has been nearly eliminated and the economy continues to grow at an above-trend pace. This suggests that the Federal Reserve will keep raising rates. We expect the Fed to hike rates three times this year, one more than the market is pricing in. Most other central banks are nowhere near the point where they can start tightening monetary policy. As such, the interest rate differential between the U.S. and its trading partners is likely to widen further. In a world where foreign exchange trading now exceeds $5 trillion per day, any currency intervention - unless it is backed by an underlying shift in the economic fundamentals - is bound to backfire. A Political Reality Check Chart 5China's Weight Matters Political considerations also render another Plaza Accord highly improbable. In the 1980s, West Germany and Japan were politically subservient to the U.S. That is less the case today. China's role in the global economy has also expanded. The RMB now accounts for 22% of the Fed's broad trade-weighted dollar basket, the largest weight of any country (Chart 5). China's government will fiercely resist negotiating any agreement that is not in the country's best interests. The economic circumstances facing most of America's trading partners could also scuttle any hopes for a deal to weaken the dollar. Inflation expectations in Japan have risen over the past six months, but still remain well below the BoJ's 2% target. A stronger yen would undermine efforts to reflate the economy. The German economy is certainly benefiting from an undervalued exchange rate. However, a continued weak currency is necessary for Southern Europe, where unemployment is still very high. Moreover, it is not clear that Germany could stomach a much stronger euro. The German unemployment rate is at a 25-year low, but that is because the country is running a massive 9% of GDP current account surplus. Take away Germany's ability to export its excess savings abroad, and the German economy would look a lot like Japan's. The only scenario in which a new multilateral accord would be seriously entertained is if a rising dollar began to wreak havoc on the global economy. A modestly stronger dollar would boost global growth to the extent that it redistributed demand from the U.S. to economies such as Europe and Japan with greater levels of economic slack. However, if the greenback were to ascend into bubble territory, this could instigate a vicious circle where an appreciating dollar increases the local-currency value of EM dollar-denominated debt, leading to a wave of bankruptcies and defaults, and, in the process, generating even further selling pressure on EM currencies. That said, the dollar would probably need to appreciate by another 15% or so before a crisis occurred. And even if a meltdown seemed imminent, the bar for currency intervention would remain quite high. No emerging market wants to go cap-in-hand to the IMF or the U.S. Treasury. This is particularly true for China, which would likely shun any offers of assistance, even if capital were flooding out of the country. In any case, if a deal were reached, it would likely seek to prevent the dollar from rising further, rather than falling in value. That is a critical distinction. Trump, Trade, And The Fed The discussion above suggests that a new Plaza-style accord is not in the cards, at least not unless the dollar strengthens substantially from current levels. Where does that leave Trump's pledge to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S.? We see two possible ways that Trump could try to square this circle. First, Trump could lean on the Fed to maintain a highly accommodative monetary stance. Since inflation expectations are likely to rise further as the economy begins to overheat, it is possible that real rates would actually decline unless the Fed raised rates fast enough, pushing down the dollar in the process. The problem with this theory is that Trump's public pronouncements on monetary policy have generally been on the hawkish side. He criticized Janet Yellen on the campaign trail, accusing her of trying to goose the economy in order to help the Democrats at the polls. Granted, Trump's views on the hard money/easy money debate may have changed now that he is President and poised to benefit politically from a more stimulative monetary policy. Nevertheless, it will be difficult for him to make a complete U-turn on the subject, especially since Congressional Republicans are likely to resist efforts to pack the FOMC with doves. As long as the economy is doing well, our guess is that Trump will accede to Republican demands that he nominate members to the FOMC with a somewhat hawkish disposition. This should keep the dollar uptrend intact. If a policy U-turn does occur, it will happen towards the end of the decade, by which time the economy will be due for another recession. With another presidential election looming at that point, Trump might end up taking a page out of the old Nixon playbook and browbeat the Fed chair into pursuing a massively expansionary monetary policy.1 This could set the stage for a stagflationary episode, a prediction we discussed at length in our latest Strategy Outlook.2 In the meantime, Trump will try to mitigate the effects of a stronger dollar on U.S. manufacturing by pursuing a more protectionist trade agenda. This is likely to entail expanding the use of countervailing duties which target foreign industries that are alleged to be engaging in unfair trade practices - similar to what Obama did when he slapped an extra 35% duty onto Chinese tires in 2009. Trump is also likely to continue "twitter shaming" companies that have moved, or are contemplating moving, production abroad. On the whole, however, a radical departure from existing trade policy is unlikely as long as the economy continues to expand. Nevertheless, as with his approach to Fed policy, Trump could break with all established traditions if unemployment starts rising and his poll numbers begin tumbling. In other words, a major trade war is coming, just not yet. Investment Conclusions Chart 6The Dollar Can Climb Amid ##br##Bullish Sentiment In politics, as in life, preferences are not the only things that matter. Constraints are as important, if not more so. Just as in the early 1980s, the U.S. is pursing a policy of fiscal easing and monetary tightening. As was the case back then, this has led to a stronger dollar. It would be easy to say that Trump could badger other countries into tightening monetary policy in order to keep the dollar from appreciating. Even if we ignore the political implausibility of such a strategy, it still would not work. If a country needs a low interest rate to keep growth from stalling, then raising rates is unlikely to boost that country's currency. The market will realize in short order that the central bank will eventually have to reverse course and cut rates to keep deflationary forces from setting in. The point is that trying to influence exchange rates without changing the economic fundamentals is destined to fail. We expect the real trade-weighted dollar to rise 5%-to-10% by the end of the year. Granted, bullish dollar sentiment is widespread these days (Chart 6). However, dollar bulls were around in even greater numbers in the second half of the 1990s, and this did not prevent the greenback from scaling to new highs. If the dollar resumes its ascent, as we expect, this could hurt U.S. corporate profit margins, allowing European and Japanese stocks to outperform in local-currency terms. A stronger greenback would also weigh on commodity prices, with metals being the most vulnerable. The risks to our dollar view are fairly symmetric. On the downside, the failure of the Trump administration to loosen fiscal policy could prevent the Fed from hiking rates as much as planned. The risk here is not so much that the tax cuts will be scuttled, but rather that Congressional Republicans succeed in pushing through big spending cuts as part of any budget deal. On the upside, the passage of a Border Adjustment Tax - something to which we assign 50% odds - would lift the dollar.3 Rising stress in emerging markets could also push money into safe haven markets such as U.S. Treasurys, similar to what happened during the late 1990s. This could cause the dollar to appreciate more than our baseline forecast implies. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 Burton A. Abrams, "How Richard Nixon Pressured Arthur Burns: Evidence From The Nixon Tapes," The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 20, no. 4 (2006), pp.177-188. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook First Quarter 2017: From Reflation To Stagflation," dated January 6, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 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 latest adjustment of the interest rates of some PBoC lending facilities reflects China's ongoing moves toward market-driven interest rate reforms. Domestic growth improvement calls for higher interest rates, but it is too soon to conclude whether the latest interest rate adjustment is the beginning of a new tightening cycle or a temporary pause in a broad reflation process. The PBoC will remain data dependent and policy will remain accommodative. The interest rate increases in the PBoC lending facilities will likely lead to higher cost of funding for the corporate sector as well as mortgage borrowers The economic impact of the rising cost of funding should not be significant. Feature In the past three weeks, the People's Bank of China (PBoC) has raised the interest rates it charges financial institutions through various lending facilities. Questions abound over how the PBoC's latest maneuvers differ from their traditional monetary policy tools, and more importantly how these changes impact the economy and financial markets. What? In a slew of actions since late January, the PBoC has increased interest rates on several liquidity management facilities. On January 25th interest rates on the Medium-Term Lending facility (MLF) were raised, the first increase since the MLF debuted in 2014. Last week interest rates on reverse repurchase agreements (repos) were also hiked by 10 basis points. Meanwhile, interest rates on the Standing Lending Facility (SLF) were also lifted. Overall, these actions have increased financial institutions' funding costs on borrowing from the central bank. Table 1The PBoC's Tool Box There have been important changes in how the PBoC conducts monetary policy in recent years. While conventional measures such as the benchmark lending rate and reserve requirement ratio (RRR) have not been abandoned, the PBoC has been increasingly focusing on utilizing various new tools (Table 1).1 The RRR has been left unchanged, while the central bank has been actively dealing with financial institutions directly to manage interbank liquidity. The latest move shows a further departure from conventional monetary operations: instead of directly adjusting benchmark policy rates on lending and deposits of commercial banks, the PBoC has targeted interest rates on its claims to financial institutions. These changes reflect China's ongoing moves toward market-driven interest rate reforms, which at this stage have become quite advanced. Commercial banks are no longer under the administrative constraints on interest rates they pay to depositors and charge borrowers, and therefore their marginal cost of funding has become increasingly important for setting their own loan rates. Meanwhile, targeting interest rates of these lending facilities rather than benchmark interest rates or the RRR provides some important advantages from the PBoC's point of view. The newly created alphabet soup of various lending facilities gives the PBoC much more flexibility to "fine-tune" interbank liquidity in terms of both magnitude and timing, and can be quickly reversed if necessary. The RRR adjustment, on the other hand, is inherently much more blunt and harder to turn. These lending facilities can aid the central bank's macro-prudential policy. For example, banks that fail to meet certain conditions of the macro-prudential assessment (MPA) will have to pay punitive interest rates to borrow from the PBoC. Similarly, the PBoC can offer subsidized loans to policy lenders for certain prioritized projects. Direct adjustment on commercial banks' loan and deposit rates is not only against the broad trend of the country's interest rate reform, but also requires coordination of various government departments under the State Council. The PBoC has much higher discretion in changing its own interest rates that it charges commercial banks. Chart 1Policy Rates Catch Up To The Market Why? The PBoC's latest adjustments on interest rates of various lending facilities and open market operations should not be surprising, given the significant increase in interbank interest rates and domestic bond yields since late last year. For example, both the seven-day interbank rate and one-year government bond yields have increased from about 2.3% to 2.6% (Chart 1). If the PBoC left its short-term lending rates unchanged, it would potentially create arbitrage opportunities in which commercial banks could borrow from the central bank and lend out to other institutions. In other words, the PBoC has already begun to tighten by allowing market interest rates to inch higher since late last year, and the recent policy rate adjustment is in fact a "catch-up." A few reasons may be behind the central bank's tightening bias. The economy has recovered considerably, with both quickening activity and easing deflation. Nominal GDP growth accelerated to 9.6% in the last quarter, up from a bottom of 6.5% in late 2015 when benchmark interest rates were cut to current levels2 (Chart 2). The January macro numbers are likely distorted by the Chinese New Year effect, but holiday sales have been quite strong compared with a year ago, and the latest PMI numbers suggest continued acceleration in both the industrial and service sectors. All of this naturally calls for higher interest rates. It is possible that the January credit numbers are uncomfortably high for the PBoC, which may have pushed the authorities to send a signal to lenders to cool things off to prevent overheating and damp further property price gains. The central bank has been concerned about leverage and overtrading in the interbank market as well as local bond markets by financial institutions, and the latest tightening moves have also been designed to reduce financial excess (Chart 3). Repo transactions in the interbank market have already dropped sharply since late year when the PBoC began to push interest rates higher. This, together with regulators' latest administrative overhaul on commercial banks' wealth management products and off-balance-sheet items, all underscore the determination to rein in excesses in the banking sector. Chart 2Growth Rebound Generates Upward Pressure ##br##On Interest Rates Chart 3The PBoC Aims To Tame##br## Financial Excess So What? Whatever the reason, the PBoC will likely continue to shift away from "conventional" tools and increasingly focus on the new framework that has emerged in recent years in conducting monetary policy. Benchmark loan and deposits rates are already on the way out, and the RRR will also be gradually faded. The problem is that the RRR is still at 17% for large banks and 15% for smaller lenders - both of which are still elevated compared with historical norms. As a result, commercial banks have been putting ever rising reserve deposits with the central bank, while at the same time their borrowings from the PBoC have also skyrocketed - leading to an ever-expanding balance sheet at the PBoC (Chart 4). Technically, it is likely that the RRR will be lowered to a more reasonable level, cutting the central bank's liability, while at the same time the PBoC can reduce its claims to commercial banks on the asset side. This operation will shrink the PBoC's balance sheet, but does not necessarily change the liquidity situation in the banking system. It is too soon to conclude whether the latest interest rate adjustment is the beginning of a new tightening cycle or a temporary pause in a broad reflation process. We expect the PBoC will remain data dependent, and that the Federal Reserve's actions will also be taken into consideration. In the near term, a few observations can be made. First, the interest rate increases in the PBoC lending facilities, together with the increase in market-driven interest rates, will likely lead to higher cost of funding for the corporate sector as well as mortgage borrowers (Chart 5). Already, discount rates of bank acceptance bills, a proxy for short-term funding costs of the corporate sector tightly linked with interbank rates, have surged in recent months. The expected returns of Wealth Management Products (WMPs), an alternative to conventional bank deposits that set banks' marginal funding costs, have also picked up notably since October. This means the average interest rate on commercial banks' loans likely have already been rising. Chart 4The PBoC's Liquidity Operation Chart 5Corporate Cost Of Borrowing Will Likely Rise The economic impact of the rising cost of funding should not be meaningful, in our view, as it is accompanied by a strengthening economy and easing deflation. The overall monetary conditions index, which takes into consideration both real interest rates and the exchange rate, has continued to ease, thanks largely to the rapid increase in producer prices. Furthermore, there is still massive scope for the Chinese authorities to reform the financial sector and reduce the funding costs of the country's dynamic smaller private enterprises - although falling sharply in recent years, the Wenzhou private loan rate, a proxy for private enterprises' borrowing costs, still stands at 16% (Chart 6). This will likely continue to drift lower as the country's financial reforms continue to deepen. In short, the latest policy tightening does not change our cyclical assessment on the broader economy. In this vein, higher interest rates may introduce some near-term turbulence in stocks, but will not change the cyclical profile. The marginal increase in interest rates will not derail the growth improvement, profit growth should continue to recover and policymakers are unlikely to overkill. Meanwhile, strategically we continue to favor Chinese equities in global and EM portfolios. Finally, rising interest rates in China should lend some support to the RMB, due to the close link between China-U.S. interest rate differentials and the USD/CNY exchange rate (Chart 7). The interest rate gap between Chinese government bonds and U.S. Treasurys has widened notably since late last year, which should marginally make RMB assets more attractive in the near term. Nonetheless, the broad trend of the dollar against other majors will remain the dominant force setting the USD/CNY cross rate. The PBoC still faces challenges to contain capital outflows and maintain exchange rate stability. Chart 6Private Loan Rate Needs ##br##To Drop Further Chart 7China - U.S. Interest Rate Gap And##br## USD/CNY Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "A Closer Look At The PBoC's Balance Sheet," dated September 23, 2015, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Growth Watch," dated January 19, 2017 available at cis.bcaresearch.com. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights Global competitiveness equalisation occurs: For Germany, at EUR/USD = 1.35 For the Euro area, at EUR/USD = 1.20 For Spain, at EUR/USD = 1.17 For France, at EUR/USD = 1.15 For Italy, at EUR/USD = 1.10 But today EUR/USD = 1.07. The main culprit for the over-competitive euro is the ECB. Feature President Trump is right about one thing. The ECB's own analysis - available at https://www.ecb.europa.eu/stats - shows that the trade-weighted euro needs to appreciate by 10% to cancel the euro area's competitive advantage versus its major trading partners including the United States. To cancel Germany's competitive advantage, the ECB calculates that the euro needs to appreciate by 25% (Chart I-1). Chart I-1ECB Analysis Supports President Trump: ##br##The Euro Is Over-Competitive Even more controversially, the central bank's own analysis shows that the ECB itself is to blame for the euro area's significant competitive advantage. Prior to the ECB's extreme and unprecedented policy easing, the euro area's competitiveness was exactly in line with its trading partners (Chart I-2). The ECB says that it does not target the exchange rate, but it is fully aware that negative interest rates and trillions of euros of asset purchases carry major ramifications for the euro's value. Chart I-2The ECB Caused The Over-Competitive Euro The ECB's Ultra-Looseness Is Counterproductive The ECB could be forgiven for its ultra-looseness if the euro area were on the edge of a deflationary abyss. But as we showed in Fake News In Europe1 euro area inflation and inflation expectations are little different to those in other major economies when compared on an apples for apples basis. Chart I-3Emergency Monetary Policy##br## Not Needed Furthermore, the euro area is among the world's top-performing major economies through the past three years (well before ECB easing started), and the percentage of the working age population in employment is at an all-time high. These are hardly the hallmarks of an imminent deflationary threat which warrants emergency monetary policy (Chart I-3). Perhaps the ECB's ultra-looseness is trying to quell a flare-up of ever-present political risk. If so, the strategy is becoming counterproductive. As well as irking President Trump, the extreme policy is riling Germany's Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, who has blamed Mario Draghi for "50 per cent" of the success of the populist right-wing Alternativ Für Deutschland. And by frustrating voters worried about the low interest rates on their hard-earned savings, the ECB is also playing right into the hands of Marine Le Pen's Front Nationale. Admittedly, the euro area's current economic 'mini-upswing' is likely approaching its end. But as we showed last week in Slowdown: How And When?,2 a deceleration is likely to be even more pronounced outside the euro area. Even the ECB acknowledges that "the risks surrounding the euro area growth outlook relate predominantly to global factors" rather than domestic factors. If the ECB is right, the extent of anticipated monetary tightening outside the euro area is overdone. If the ECB is wrong, then the extent of anticipated monetary tightening inside the euro area is underdone (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). Either way, the investment conclusion is the same. Chart I-4Expected Divergence In Monetary Policy Drives##br## Relative Bond Market Performance... Chart I-5... And ##br##The Euro Stay underweight German bunds versus U.S. Treasuries. Stay long the euro, with our preferred crosses being euro/pound in the near term and euro/yuan in the long term. And given that euro/pound (inversely) drives relative stock market performance, stay underweight Eurostoxx600 versus FTSE100. The Great Currency Manipulation Manipulation: (noun) - the controlling or influencing of a situation cleverly. The creation of the euro in 1999 was arguably the greatest currency manipulation of modern times. To be absolutely clear, this is not a criticism, just a statement of fact. In 1999, when European policymakers killed national currencies such as the deutschemark, franc, lira and peseta and replaced them with the new-born euro, the action clearly fitted the dictionary definition of manipulation. Our preceding analysis about the euro area's competitive advantage today assumes that the euro started its life at the right value. The evidence suggests that this assumption is correct. In 1999, the euro area' external trade was in balance, and the bloc's real competitiveness versus its major trading partners was exactly in line with its long-term average. Likewise the evidence suggests that national currencies such as the deutschemark, franc, lira and peseta converted to the euro at the right exchange rates. The euro area's constituent economies had much in common in 1999 and were broadly in balance with each other. Surprising as it now seems, in 1999 Germany and Italy scored identically on exports as a share of GDP (Chart I-6) and on total debt as a share of GDP (Chart I-7). And German wages had been rising in lockstep with productivity (Chart I-8). Chart I-6After The Euro, Germany's ##br##Exports Soared Chart I-7After The Euro,##br## Italy's Debt Soared Chart I-8After The Euro, German Wages##br## Lagged Productivity It was only in the decade after 1999 that the euro area developed its major internal imbalances. Germany depressed its wages relative to productivity and used the resulting ultra-competitiveness to build an export-driven business model. In the seven years before 1999, net exports had made zero contribution to Germany's economic growth (Chart I-9), but in the seven years after 1999, net exports accounted for all of Germany's economic growth (Chart I-10). Chart I-9Germany Pre Euro: Net Exports ##br##Contributed Nothing To Growth Chart I-10Germany Post Euro: Net Exports Contributed ##br##Everything To Growth Prior to the one-size-fits-all exchange rate, a rising deutschemark would have largely snuffed out the increased competitiveness from wage depression and thereby thwarted the export-driven business model. However, once locked in the euro, Germany's exchange rate could no longer rise sufficiently to choke off external demand. Meanwhile, Italy and Spain could suddenly rely on a debt-driven business model - especially given that their strong national cultures of homeownership provided the perfect collateral for borrowing. Prior to the one-size-fits-all interest rate, higher domestic interest rates would have thwarted this business model. But once locked in the monetary union, their interest rates could no longer rise sufficiently to choke off borrowing. By 2010, the imbalances had become monsters. Germany, through its wage depression, had become 20% over-competitive versus its major trading partners. Spain and Italy, through their reliance on debt-fuelled growth, had become 20% under-competitive. Understand that this is not a morality tale of good versus bad, as many commentators portray. The mirror-image imbalances were just the opposite sides of the same (euro) coin. Spain Is The Star-Performer Today, the good news is that the euro area's internal imbalances have narrowed sharply, as the under-competitive economies have taken draconian corrective measures. External competitiveness has also been boosted by a substantially weaker euro. The bad news is that Germany's over-competitiveness versus the world remains excessive. But as Wolfgang Schäuble correctly argues, it is extremely difficult for Germany to rebalance its global competitiveness when it is swimming against the tide of the ECB's extreme easing and resulting depression of the euro. The award for the most spectacular rebalancing goes to Spain. Eight years ago, Spain was 15% less competitive than France on the ECB's harmonised competitiveness indicator based on unit labour costs. Today, on the same measure Spain is 2% more competitive than France. This makes it very difficult to justify any yield premium on Spanish Bonos versus French OATs. The yield premium is a compensation for perceived redenomination risk. The expected annual loss of owning a Bono versus an OAT equals: The annual probability of euro breakup Multiplied by The expected undervaluation of a new peseta versus a new franc. But if Spain is now as competitive as France, a new peseta ultimately should be as valuable as a new franc. The second item of the multiplication would be zero (Chart I-11). So irrespective of the probability of euro breakup, the yield premium should also be zero. Yet today, Spanish 10-year Bonos are still trading at a substantial 65 bps yield premium over French 10-year OATs (Chart I-12). Chart I-11Spain Is As Competitive ##br##As France... Chart I-12... Bonos Should Not Have A ##br##Yield Premium Over OATs Stay long Spanish Bonos versus French OATs. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President European Investment Strategy dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 Published on January 26, 2017 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com 2 Published on February 2, 2017 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* A tactically short position in equities is warranted. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-13 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Fractal Trading Model Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch##br## - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch ##br##- Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights The U.S. Border Adjustment Tax is likely to pass; Yet the political pieces are not in place; Trump himself will be the decisive factor; Trade retaliation would detract from trade benefits of the tax; Stay long volatility; small caps versus large caps; and long USD versus EM currencies. Remain short China-exposed S&P 500 stocks, and German exporters versus consumer services. Feature Donald Trump is a trend-setter. After winning the U.S. election on a protectionist platform that played well to voters in the Midwest, Trump has established an anti-globalization brand of politics. His success has revealed the preferences of the American "median voter."1 Other U.S. politicians are taking notice. The "Border Adjustment Tax" (BAT) is part of this new political trend, though it did not originate with Trump. The House GOP leadership has presented it as a response to economic dislocation in the American heartland, which propelled Trump to the White House. Is it protectionism? Yes, and in this analysis we explain why. The rest of the world is highly unlikely to treat the BAT as a standard Value Added Tax (VAT). It will therefore spark trade retaliation unless Congress addresses outstanding issues. So far President Trump is on the fence, and his support is necessary for passage. We think he will ultimately go with the proposal. The prospect of turning the tables on the U.S.'s trade partners, while spurring domestic investment and capital spending, speaks to his core promises to his voters. Trump's support for the plan should be read as a headwind for markets in the short term due to the uncertainties of implementation and trade disputes. If he should oppose the plan, it would be bullish for U.S. stocks in the short term, since it would mean cutting the corporate tax without radically altering the global status quo. It would signal that he is more interested in economic growth and corporate profits than changing the world or balancing the U.S. budget. Why Reform The Corporate Tax System? American policymakers have long struggled with the country's corporate income tax system. Leaving aside party politics, there are three main complaints:2 Corporate tax revenues are weak: Revenues have disappointed as companies have shifted profits to tax havens and used deductions and loopholes to avoid paying the 35% statutory rate. This erosion of the tax base has contributed to budget deficits as well as public dissatisfaction with governing institutions (Chart 1). U.S. companies have lost competitiveness: American businesses are overtaxed relative to their developed-market peers, taking a toll on competitiveness both at home and abroad (Chart 2). The middle class is losing out: U.S. workers are not as well compensated as their developed-market peers and have lost their share of American wealth in recent decades (Chart 3). The corporate tax contributes to this because companies foist the tax onto workers. Chart 1Over-Taxation Is In##br## The Eye Of The Beholder Chart 2U.S. Competitiveness##br## Has Suffered Chart 3Labor Suffers From##br## High Corporate Tax Rates The Republican Party examined fundamental tax reform in 2005 but could not make progress on it - instead it settled for the Bush tax cuts, which focused primarily on cutting household tax rates.3 Now that the Republicans have control of all three branches of government again, its leaders are attempting broad tax reform anew. The GOP is primarily concerned with corporate competitiveness, but they also need to appease the middle class - the source of the populist angst that supported both Obama and Trump (the former being the Republicans' arch-nemesis, the latter a strange bedfellow). The GOP also wants to raise some revenue to make their desired tax rate cuts "revenue neutral," i.e. somewhat fiscally defensible, at least enough to pass the bill. Enter Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House, and Kevin Brady, Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and their "Better Way" tax plan, which proposes a sweeping overhaul of the U.S. tax system.4 The core idea is to pay for tax cuts by transforming the current corporate income tax system into a "destination-based cash-flow tax" (DBCFT) with border adjustability ("border adjustment tax" or BAT for short).5 We will get to the definition of that, but first, what is the ultimate point? The plan would purportedly drive corporate investment and economic growth by allowing companies to write off the expense of new investments immediately, the first year, rather than gradually through depreciation. (Depreciation schedules often mean that the tax write-off barely covers the cost of investment, thereby causing companies to err on the side of risk-aversion.) The plan would also remove the preferential treatment of corporate debt over equity, which is built into the current tax code through the deduction of interest - this change would discourage corporate indebtedness and encourage equity financing. Finally the plan would not allow U.S. companies to write off the expense of imported goods, as currently, and as such is essentially a tax on the U.S. trade deficit. Roughly, it could yield about $108 billion in revenue (assuming a 20% rate on the $538 billion deficit). The BAT is the chief tax uncertainty today for investors. That is because there are few constraints on the GOP passing some kind of corporate tax cut this year. 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. There is every reason to think it will happen fast. 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 other words, Trump and his party would need to have a train wreck to fail to pass something this year. That is not beyond belief! But the overriding question is whether the tax reform will be focused on cutting rates, or transforming the system. Currently, the market seems to think the BAT will go through. A basket of stocks based on potential winners and losers suggests that investors believe it will pass (Chart 4). Meanwhile, however, the share prices of high-tax companies (who should benefit the most if taxes are cut) have fallen back from the pop after Trump's election. This could signal the opposite expectation, or that that investors recognize that many high-tax sectors stand to lose from a tax on imports (Chart 5). There is considerable uncertainty in this measure. We think the Trump administration will ultimately accept the House GOP's BAT proposal. But the road between here and there will be tortuous, as past attempts at tax reform show. We expect dollar volatility, which is relatively restrained at present, to rise as the BAT debate intensifies, given that the proposal is bullish for the greenback (Chart 6). Chart 4Exporters Think Border##br## Adjustment Tax Will Pass Chart 5High-Tax Companies##br## Fear Policy Disappointments Chart 6No Border Adjustment##br## Tax Effect On The Dollar Yet Bottom Line: The Trump administration and GOP would have to be unusually incompetent to fail to achieve tax reform this year. The question is whether it will be mere rate cuts or a radical reform to the tax system as a whole. This is critical to the U.S. and global economy - especially given that the passage of a BAT will intensify trade disputes with the U.S. Why Is A Border Adjustment Tax "Protectionist"? Diagram 1 provides a simple illustration of how the current U.S. corporate tax works compared to the proposed BAT. The current system is a "worldwide" corporate income tax. The U.S. government taxes American companies based on their global profits (global revenues minus global costs). No matter where they incur costs, they can write them off, and no matter where they make profits, they must pay tax on them, at least in principle. Diagram 1Explaining The Border-Adjusted Destination-Based Cash-Flow Tax The new system, by contrast, would be a "destination-based" tax in which the government taxes companies only on domestic profits (domestic revenues minus domestic costs). This means that revenues earned abroad from exports or sales in foreign jurisdictions would be free from tax. However - and here is the tricky part - it also means that costs incurred abroad, imports or purchases in foreign jurisdictions, would be ignored by the tax authority, i.e. they could not be written off like domestic costs. As the "rebate" in the Diagram shows, the BAT is effectively a tax on imports and subsidy to exports. This is not as egregiously protectionist as it sounds at first, because it is very similar to a Value-Added Tax (VAT), which is the dominant tax system across the world. The U.S. is a massive outlier for not having a VAT. But notice that the amount of the rebate to the exporting company in the diagram is higher (at $40) than the amount of tax that would be due if it paid a tax on its foreign profits, since ($200 - $100) x 20% = $20. The WTO may rule against the law if it believes major U.S. exporters will pay net negative taxes as a result of the rebate. Moreover, the BAT has certain differences from a VAT that ensure that the world will see it as a protectionist affront. The BAT is a combination of a VAT, which is a tax on consumption, and an income tax, which is the current system. However, the BAT would allow companies to write off wages and salaries as costs, just like under the current system. Under VAT systems, this is not possible because wages are not consumption and therefore not deductible.6 If the GOP proposal becomes law without addressing this difference - that is, without denying corporates the wage deduction, or taxing them in some other way to compensate - it will likely prompt global trade retaliation. While the World Trade Organization may deem the BAT legal by interpreting it as a VAT, it will not do so if U.S. companies cannot show that they are not getting a leg up on their international rivals by retaining the wage deduction from the former corporate income tax code. Wages are obviously a very large part of a company's expenses. They make up about 68-72% of U.S. companies' costs (Chart 7), and have grown at about 2-4% each year for the export-oriented sector (Chart 8). If U.S. companies can write off the wage expense in their exported goods, then foreign countries will have to adjust, possibly by imposing duties to counteract the share of taxes avoided by that write-off. Chart 7Wages Make For A Large Tax Deduction Chart 8Exporters Face Strong Growth In Wages Bottom Line: The BAT is a hybrid of tax systems. It is likely that the WTO and U.S. trading partners will object to it as an import tax and export subsidy, particularly because of the wage deduction. The House GOP could adjust the proposal ahead of time or afterwards to avoid this conflict, but that has not happened yet. In addition, corporate lobbying against removing wage deductions would be severe. Will A BAT Get Passed Into Law? Currently, the House GOP leaders face a rising wave of criticism about the BAT proposal and have begun to signal greater flexibility in drafting the law so as to win over various stakeholders. A salient point to remember about U.S. tax legislation is that it is very rare in recent decades for a ruling party to bungle it. Only eight pieces of tax legislation have been vetoed by presidents since 1975, only two of which were serious bills, and in both cases the president vetoed the legislation pushed by an opposition-controlled Congress (Table 2). By the time a serious tax bill makes it to the president's desk, a veto is unlikely, especially if the president and Congress belong to the same party. Table 2Major Tax Legislation Is Set Up For Success Even more salient, only 23 pieces of tax legislation since 1975 have been struck down in either of the two houses. Of these, seven were attempts to amend the constitution (not likely to pass), nine were attempts to amend the internal revenue code for highly specific things (spirits, cigars, the holding of conventions on cruise ships). Only seven were major bills, and in only one of these cases did the Senate strike down the bill, which was a case of a Republican Senate defending a Republican president from an opposition Congress. In only one case did the ruling party in the House kill a serious tax bill proposed by one of its own members, but it is not comparable to the tax reform in question today.7 What this means is that the BAT is highly likely to be passed into law if the House remains loyal to its leader Paul Ryan, and to the Ways and Means Committee chair Kevin Brady, the two authors of the BAT proposal. However, Trump could derail Ryan's best laid plans. Trump seemed to throw a wrench in the gears when he cast doubt on border adjustment tax, saying that it was too complicated. However, the Trump administration has recently made comments favorable to the BAT. Peter Navarro, chief of the new National Trade Council, highlighted it as a way to bring manufacturing supply chains back into the U.S. (note the protectionist angle of the comment). Meanwhile Sean Spicer, Trump's spokesman, said it would be a good way to make Mexico pay for the infamous wall to be constructed on the border (again, note that the angle is protectionist and populist, not about balancing the budget).8 In each case, the Trump team has gone to pains to emphasize that the BAT is only one option among many. Yet the fact that they have repeatedly brought it up as a solution to their own populist promises is suggestive. We think Trump will ultimately hew to the Republican Party leadership on tax reform.9 Why? Time's a'wastin': Party control of all three branches is a fleeting boon and 2018 mid-term campaigning would make the BAT harder to pass because it could hike the prices of consumer goods. Republicans have a plan ready to go, the House ultimately controls the purse, and Trump wants to move fast on tax cuts and boosting the economy. Furthermore, Republicans remember how short-lived the Democrats' control of Congress was after 2008. Trump wants to be transformative, not merely transactional:10 Trump was elected in a populist revolution and has vowed to improve American manufacturing and trade. His protectionist and mercantilist vision is fundamentally aligned with the chief aims of the BAT: remove the "tax" on corporate investment to improve U.S. capital stock and productivity, and remove incentives to locate, operate, and stash profits offshore. There is at least some positive correlation between higher VAT rates and positive trade balances, and the law is simultaneously supposed to boost productivity (Charts 9 and 10). Chart 9Higher Investment Helps Productivity Chart 10Some (Not Much) Correlation Between Value-Added Tax Rates And Trade Surpluses Trump needs domestic and international "legitimacy": His protectionist platform will stand on firmer ground if he adopts policy that is at least debatable at the WTO, as opposed to imposing tariffs willy-nilly through bare executive power, which is eventually vulnerable to congressional and judicial oversight. Domestic courts have already shown an inclination to halt Trump's controversial executive orders.11 By contrast, they would almost certainly defer to Congress even on the most radical tax reforms. Trump needs a tradeoff for infrastructure spending: Unpopular presidents cannot set the legislative agenda.12 But Trump may be able to trade GOP-style corporate tax reform - which offsets tax cuts with new revenue provisions, such as the BAT - in return for infrastructure spending, which the GOP is reluctant to embrace. Trump is willing to lead a crusade against the WTO: This may be a necessary prerequisite for the passage of this bill, and Trump is heaven-sent to play the role. He would be to the WTO what George W. Bush was to the United Nations. It would be disastrous for the U.S.-built international liberal order, but it would give Trump the ability to pursue protectionism while rallying the public around the flag against America's "globalist" enemies. (Sovereignty over taxation is a cause that is hard to beat in the U.S.)13 BAT allows Trump to save face on the "Wall" with Mexico: As the White House spokesman hinted, Trump may use creative accounting to satisfy his promise that Mexico would pay for the wall. Moreover, if Trump comes out in support of the BAT, it will likely get passed: Chart 11Conservatives Agree With Trump Precedent: President John F. Kennedy's and Jimmy Carter's efforts at tax reform failed because Congress was not supportive, which is not a problem today; whereas Ronald Reagan's personal support for the 1986 tax reform - despite his reservations about the attempt to transform the system and broaden the base - proved critical in helping the bill move through Congress.14 Political science: The political context is a better determinant of presidential success than individual talents, and rising political polarization in the U.S. has created an environment in which "majority presidents," those whose party has a majority in Congress, are even more likely to be successful, while "minority presidents" are more likely to fail on key initiatives. The relevant factors of political context are the party's grip on Congress, the extent of polarization, and, somewhat less significantly, whether the president is in his "honeymoon period" and enjoys public support.15 Of these factors, Trump is only weak on public support, though not among conservatives (Chart 11), who could vote their representatives out of office if they defy Trump on tax reform. The Senate could still cause a serious hang-up. But if Trump and the House GOP stand behind the legislation then Senate Republicans would have to be suicidal to oppose it.16 What about the corporate lobbies that oppose the BAT? Certainly it is highly controversial at home. The tax could hurt import-heavy U.S. businesses and punish citizens with a high propensity to consume - i.e. the poor and elderly, both constituents that make up an important part of Trump's base. But that suggests that there will be carve-outs or phased implementation for key imports like food, fuel, and clothing. Such compromises will be messy, and will mitigate any dollar appreciation and reduce the tax revenues to be gained, but would probably enable the bill to get passed. The opposition of retailers like Wal-Mart and Target is overrated in terms of their power as a lobby. Importers form a slightly larger lobby than exporters, which makes sense given that the U.S. is a net importing economy, but neither of them comprises a large share of total lobbying (Chart 12). The sectors that suffer the most from the import tax also tend to pay higher effective tax rates and thus stand to benefit from the rate cuts (Chart 13). The opposition of the Koch brothers is also overrated, given their unhelpful attitude toward Trump's candidacy for president! Chart 12'Import Lobby' Not A Giant Lobby Chart 13Cuts In Tax Rates Mitigate A New Import Tax Somewhat Bottom Line: The BAT is a radical plan to spur corporate investment and production in the United States, and that goal matches Trump's vision. Trump will be hard pressed to find a more effective, structural way of achieving his goals. And the two-year window with assured GOP control of government will close faster than one might think. Risks To The View A major risk to the BAT is that Trump will fear the repercussions on his political base of higher consumer prices, as hinted above. Consumer pain is a necessary consequence of his mercantilist vision of rebalancing the U.S. from consumption to investment and bringing down the U.S. trade deficit, so Trump will have to decide whether he means what he says. Moreover, if the dollar rises sharply as a result of the BAT, as expected, it would cause pain for the economy and S&P 500 companies, which source 44% of earnings outside the U.S. According to BCA's Global Investment Strategy, the impact of a much stronger dollar on U.S. assets denominated in foreign currencies could amount to a loss worth of 13% of U.S. GDP! (Not to mention Trump's personal wealth from overseas.) Given the huge uncertainties of a totally new tax system, and potential disruption to the economy, it would be perfectly understandable if Trump refused to hitch his fate as president to this wonkish grand experiment. Further, it is not as if there is no alternative to the BAT. Since Republicans will be humiliated if they fail to deliver on tax cuts, Trump's opposition to the BAT would force the House GOP to go back to good ol' fashioned tax cuts without significant revenue raising measures, and specific add-ons to deal with concerns like corporate inversions. Trump would still likely get the repatriation of overseas earnings, a political win, and the economy would experience an increase in investment from tax rate cuts without the uncertain consequences of deeper change. Ronald Reagan's administration offers a precedent for this sequencing, since he began his term with simple tax cuts in 1981 and only later attempted the dramatic tax overhaul of 1986. There is also a risk that the business lobby against the BAT proves stronger than expected and gains traction in the media and popular opinion as a result of the feared consequences on consumer prices. Tax reform is never going to be easy and will always hang in a precarious balance. These are serious risks, but we think Trump and the GOP will move now rather than make any assumptions about their ability to win subsequent elections and enact massive tax reform. The fact that the GOP controls all three branches of government, the BAT plan is well in the making, and Trump is looking to reshape the American economy in ways that align with the BAT, make the odds of passage higher than 50%. Unfortunately, this also means the world should brace for a sharp spike in trade disputes. Bottom Line: There are plenty of reasons to think the BAT plan could collapse of its own weight. The path of least resistance is certainly not the BAT. But we think the preponderance of power in GOP hands in Washington favors radical change, even if it ends up being a policy mistake. Investment Implications: Trade War The WTO is supposed to presume innocence with a country's laws, and it might also approve the BAT on the basis that proponents argue: the U.S. imposing the BAT is not much different from a VAT country increasing its VAT rate while simultaneously slashing the payroll tax (as France has done under President Hollande's administration). This view is misguided. The WTO will rule on the statute and international trade treaties, not the special pleading of the advocates. It may or may not accept that the BAT is equivalent to a VAT; it may or may not object to the wage deduction as a holdover from the "direct" tax on income. The GOP has not yet introduced a draft law, but given the express intention - in the Ryan plan, not even to mention Trump - to put "America first" with a "pro-America approach for global competitiveness," it seems likely that a clash of interests is in the making. In other words, American proponents of the tax are not even hiding its overt protectionist intentions. The WTO will probably discover a subsidy for U.S. exporters and a violation of the principle of trade neutrality with respect to imports. WTO litigation will take years. When the European Union sued the U.S. over its use of Foreign Sales Corporations, a comparable dispute, the proceedings began in 1999 and the WTO ruled against the U.S. in 2002. Ultimately, the U.S. Congress amended the law to avoid retaliation in 2004.17 Trump and the GOP would be less likely to amend their pet project in the current environment, especially if the litigant is the EU at the WTO! Trump, as mentioned, would be inclined to take the fight to the WTO - he has even threatened to withdraw the United States from it. His support group feeds on conflict with supra-national bodies and he may see foreign retaliation as a convenient reason to impose tariffs of his own. The trade environment would deteriorate in the meantime. In 2002, it was assumed that the U.S. and EU could work out an agreement without punitive measures, but that assumption does not hold today. And it would not only be the EU leveling complaints. In short, the U.S. would face foreign retaliation, during the proceedings and likely as a consequence of the WTO ruling. The Trump administration would attempt to mitigate the blowback through a series of bilateral deals, and perhaps the U.S. law would ultimately be modified, but the entire saga would have a negative impact on global trade. Financial markets had many factors to contend with during this period (like the dot-com bubble), and they will similarly respond to large currents in the coming years aside from any BAT. Nevertheless, the tax would reinforce our themes of global multipolarity, mercantilism, and protectionism - and thus reinforce several of our existing trades: We continue to favor small caps over large caps. Small caps are insulated from global trade, will benefit most from the cut in tax rates, and will suffer least from any appreciation of the dollar. Long volatility - Long VIX 20-25 call spread for expiration in March; Long USD versus short EM currencies; Short China-exposed S&P stocks; Short German exporters versus long consumer services. If Trump comes out in opposition to the BAT, he would send a bullish signal for markets in the short term. It would mean, first, that the U.S. will have corporate tax cuts without the broader uncertainties of the BAT; and second, that Trump is actually a pragmatist who eschews radical change if he thinks it will cause too much trouble for U.S. consumers or economic growth. However, it would not necessarily mean that the U.S. would avoid a trade conflict, given Trump's executive powers.18 Of course, the BAT's failure - which is not our baseline - would also be worse for the deficit and debt, as the GOP tax cuts would have no offsetting revenue increases but would rely purely on creative accounting, "dynamic scoring," to appear fiscally acceptable. This legislation would also likely fail to simplify the tax code as much as the BAT would. Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Alan J. Auerbach, "A Modern Corporate Tax," Center for American Progress, dated December 2010, available at www.americanprogress.org. 3 Please see President's Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform, "Final Report," dated November 1, 2005, available at govinfo.library.unt.edu. 4 Please see "A Better Way: Our Vision For A Confident America: Tax," dated June 24, 2016, available at abetterway.speaker.gov. 5 Our colleagues at BCA's Global Investment Strategy have recently provided a very helpful Q&A on the border adjustment tax (BAT), and we would refer readers to that report for a detailed discussion. Please see BCA 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. 6 Please see Reuven S. Avi-Yonah, "Back To 1913?: The Ryan Blueprint And Its Problems," Tax Notes 153: 11 (2016), 1367-47, reprinted by University of Michigan, available at www.repository.law.umich.edu. 7 Amo Houghton, a liberal-leaning Republican from New York, proposed the Taxpayer Protection and IRS Accountability Act of 2002, a bill to streamline IRS administration. It failed in the Republican Congress under President Bush. 8 Please see Shawn Donnan, "Trump's top trade adviser accuses Germany of currency exploitation," Financial Times, January 31, 2017, available at www.ft.com, and Bob Bryan, "Trump press secretary says the administration is considering a 20% border tax on Mexican imports to help pay for the wall," Business Insider, January 26, 2017, available at www.businessinsider.com. National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn has also indicated that the BAT is an option but not yet decided upon, see CNBC, "Squawk on the Street," February 3, 2017, available at www.cnbc.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Transformative Vs. Transactional Leadership," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already issued a temporary injunction against President Trump's executive orders on immigration. Please see "State of Washington & State of Minnesota v. Trump," available at www.ca9.uscourts.gov. 12 Please see John Lovett, Shaun Bevan, and Frank R. Baumgartner, "Popular Presidents Can Affect Congressional Attention, For A Little While," Policy Studies Journal 43: 1 (2015), 22-44, available at www.unc.edu. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Reports, "The Trump Doctrine," dated February 1, 2017, and "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?" dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Joseph A. Pechman, "Tax Reform: Theory and Practice," The Journal of Economic Perspectives 1:1 (1987), pp. 11-28 (15). 15 Jeffrey E. Cohen, Jon R. Bond, and Richard Fleisher, "Placing Presidential-Congressional Relations In Context: A Comparison Of Barack Obama And His Predecessors," Polity 45:1 (2013), 105-126. 16 The Senate Financial Services Committee's support will be critical. Chairman Orrin Hatch has criticized but not yet declared against the BAT. Even if he does, it would not necessarily kill the deal. One of his predecessors, Senator Bob Packwood, initially opposed the Tax Reform Act in 1986 but was ultimately persuaded to support it. If Hatch and the Finance Committee support the initiative, it will pass the Senate. First, the tax overhaul can be accomplished by "reconciliation," a congressional trick that will enable the GOP to avoid a Senate filibuster and pass the tax reform with a simple majority. Second, the Republicans today have almost exactly the proportion of seats in the Senate as the average in previous examples of successful tax reform (see Table 1). So there would have to be a higher share of Republican defectors than in the past to overturn the bill. This is possible but unlikely if Trump and the House GOP are behind the bill. 17 Please see Congressional Research Service, "A History of the Extraterritorial Income (ETI) and Foreign Sales Corporation (FSC) Export Tax-Benefit Controversy," dated September 22, 2006, available at digital.library.unt.edu. 18 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Brazilian growth will recover modestly in 2017, but it will be insufficient to stabilize the public debt-to-GDP ratio. With interest rates still at double digits, public debt dynamics will become unsustainable as the ratio reaches or surpasses 85-90% of GDP over the next couple of years. The central bank has been financing the government by buying local currency bonds. Going forward, the path of least resistance, and most likely scenario, is direct or indirect public debt monetization by the central bank of Brazil. This will allow the nation to avoid fiscal stress/crisis but the price for it will be large exchange rate depreciation. In the end, investors will lose capital in Brazilian financial markets in U.S. dollar terms. Feature Brazil's financial markets have rallied sharply over the past 12 months, even as the economy has continued to disappoint. Growth has fallen short of even our downbeat expectations, yet the tremendous rally in its financial markets had sent our bearish strategy wide of the mark. In the past year, we have argued that even if the Brazilian economy recovers, it is likely headed towards a public debt trap because the recovery will be muted and the starting point of fiscal accounts/government debt is already quite poor. So, has Brazil achieved escape velocity - i.e., has growth gained enough momentum to thwart concerns about public debt sustainability? Escape Velocity Chart I-1Despite A Strengthening Global Economy, ##br##Brazilian Growth Is Relapsing It is tempting to conclude that the rally in Brazilian markets has been so powerful that the country has broken away from its five-year bear market, and hence that public debt sustainability is not an issue at all. In other words, financial markets seem confident that Brazil has achieved escape velocity. We do not think so. Notably, in recent months Brazil's economy has surprised to the downside, despite the ongoing improvement in global growth: Brazil's manufacturing PMI overall index has rolled over decisively, despite broad-based strength in the global business cycle (Chart I-1). More importantly, export prices in general, and iron ore and soybean prices in particular, have rallied a lot in the past year. Hence, the external sector has been a positive force for the economy, yet the latter has failed to revive. Having appreciated dramatically, the currency is no longer cheap. This is confirmed within Brazil's trade dynamics since export volumes are slipping relative to import volumes. As fiscal spending growth has until now been decent, the epicenter of the retrenchment has clearly been household consumption and business investment (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2Brazilian Households Are ##br##Still Feeling Massive Pain... Chart I-3...As Is The ##br##Business Sector Household debt-service costs remain elevated at 22% of disposable income (Chart I-4). This, and ongoing job losses, are keeping a lid on consumer spending. Manufacturing production is still collapsing, and capacity utilization is at a 20-year low (Chart I-3, bottom panel). This is not a sign of a competitive exchange rate or vibrant manufacturing sector. Due to the economic contraction, Brazil's primary and overall fiscal deficits have reached 2.5% and 8.9% of GDP (Chart I-5), respectively, despite the authorities' attempts to secure considerable one-off revenues. Chart I-4Brazil: Elevated Household Indebtedness ##br##Will Prevent A Consumption Rebound Chart I-5Brazil's Fiscal Accounts Remarkably, the level of Brazil's real GDP has already contracted by 7.6% from its peak in 2014, producing the worst depression in more than 116 years (Chart I-6). Bottom Line: Not only has Brazil failed to achieve escape velocity, but also its growth dynamics have underwhelmed even the most pessimistic of forecasts. As a result, public debt dynamics have become unsustainable. Fiscal And Credit Impulses In 2017 Going forward the outlook for Brazil's economy will hinge on credit and fiscal impulses: If government spending rises by 6.3% in 2017, which is equivalent to the 2016 IPCA inflation rate as mandated by the fiscal spending cap (known as PEC 55), the federal fiscal spending impulse in 2017 will be 79 billion BRL, or 1.23% of GDP (calculated using our 2017 nominal GDP estimate) (Chart I-7, top panel). Chart I-6Brazil's Worst Recession In 116 Years Chart I-7Fiscal And Credit Impulses The impact of fiscal policy on growth is defined by government spending and taxes. Odds are that taxes need to be hiked to achieve the 2017 budget targets. Unless growth recovers strongly, doubtful in our view, there are non-trivial odds of impending tax hikes. The latter will counteract the positive fiscal impulse from government expenditures. The credit impulse is calculated as an annual change in credit growth, or the second derivative of the outstanding stock of credit. If we assume private and public banks' credit growth will be 0% and -5%, respectively, in 2017 overall loan growth will contract by 2.5%, and the credit impulse will be 0.54% of GDP (Chart I-7, middle panel). Even though interest rates are declining, real (inflation-adjusted) rates remain high at 5.4%, and banks' balance sheets are impaired by mushrooming NPLs following the credit boom years. This will preclude a revival in loan growth in the banking system. Aggregating the fiscal spending and credit impulses together, there will be about a 2% boost to nominal GDP growth in 2017 (Chart I-7, bottom panel). However, as it is likely that taxes will rise, the overall combined effect on the economy will be less than that. Bottom Line: Odds are that the aggregate fiscal and credit impulse will be only mildly positive in 2017 - assuming no tax hikes. This portends only moderate nominal GDP growth in 2017. Government Debt Simulation Revisited The Brazilian economy will probably recover and our baseline view assumes real GDP growth will be modestly positive for 2017. However, the recovery will not be vigorous enough to halt the exponential rise in the public debt-to-GDP ratio. Table I-1 presents a scenario analysis for Brazil's public debt. Table I-1Brazil: Public Debt Sustainability Scenarios 2016-2019 We considered three scenarios: base case, optimistic and pessimistic. For each scenario, we have made assumptions for nominal GDP growth, nominal government revenue growth, nominal government expenditure growth (based on the fiscal spending cap), and on the average (or blended) interest rate on all local currency public debt. Chart I-8Brazil's Is Headed Towards ##br##A Public Debt Crisis In our base case scenario, the public debt-to-GDP ratio reaches 84% in 2018 and 91% in 2019 (Chart I-8). With double-digit interest rates, the 91% public debt load spirals out of control. In short, even in our base case scenario, which assumes a return to modest growth in 2017 and a decent recovery in economic activity in 2018 and 2019, Brazil is unlikely to avoid a debt trap. For the base case, we use the following assumptions For nominal GDP growth in 2017 we use the most recent Brazilian Central Bank Survey year-end forecast of real GDP growth of 0.5% plus our estimate of 5% inflation to arrive at 5.5%. In 2018, we assume real GDP growth of 2.5% plus 4.5% inflation to arrive at 7%. And in 2019 we also assume growth of 7%. For nominal government revenue growth, we use 5% in 2017 and 8% for both 2018 and 2019, as we assume government revenue reasonably tracks nominal GDP growth. A caveat: the actual 2016 federal government revenue growth number of 4.3% was heavily boosted by non-recurring revenues such as privatization revenue, repayment by the national development bank (BNDES) of 100 billion BRL, tax amnesty/repatriation programs, and so on. In brief, the government used all means at its disposal to boost its revenue via one-off items. As these are non-recurring and impossible to predict, we did not attempt to account for them. Yet, in future, these non-recurring sources of fiscal revenue will be harder to come by. To be consistent, we do not incorporate one-off expenditures, such as financial support for local governments, or recapitalization of public banks and state-owned companies. In a nutshell, we assume potential one-off public sector revenues will offset one-off expenditures. With the dire state of the economy, and likely need for bailouts and financial assistance from the federal government, this is a reasonable assumption. Besides, with most states and local governments near bankruptcy, staving off insolvency remains a much more urgent matter that will likely drain central government coffers in the near term. As to nominal government expenditures, since these are capped by the previous year's inflation rate due to the fiscal spending cap (or PEC 55), we use 6.3% growth in 2017 (i.e. 2016 IPCA inflation), and 5% in both 2018 and 2019, respectively. Investors, however, should keep in mind that the spending cap only applies to primary expenditures. Critically, it does not include interest on public debt, spending on education and health in 2017, and nonrecurring expenditures. If anything, federal government spending will likely exceed the 2017 cap as the government may spend more on healthcare and education to offset overall fiscal austerity. Table I-2Composition Of Brazilian Federal Debt For the average, or blended, interest rate on public debt, we used calculations by Dr. Jose Carlos Faria, Chief Brazil Economist at Deutsche Bank.1 We use Dr. Faria's assumptions for local currency average interest rate on public debt in 2017, 2018 and 2019, for our pessimistic scenario. The impact of lower policy interest rates (i.e. the central bank's SELIC rate) on the public debt service is a drawn out process because not all debt is rolled/re-priced over every year. Table I-2 illustrates the breakdown of Brazil's public debt by type. Therefore, the impact of declining interest rates on public debt dynamics will be slow. Bottom Line: With interest rates still in the double digits, Brazil's public debt dynamics will become unsustainable if the ratio reaches or surpasses 85-90% of GDP. The odds are substantial that this limit will be breached in the next few years. The best cure for debt sustainability is growth. So far, however, Brazil has failed to achieve growth strong enough to stabilize its public debt trajectory. A Word On Social Security Reform It is widely accepted that pension (social security) reform is desperately needed to help keep Brazil's public debt on a sustainable path. It does appear that reforms will be passed this year, as they have good momentum in Congress. That said, it will take many years for the positives of pension reforms to kick in and help the fiscal accounts, and in turn improve Brazil's public debt profile. According to the IMF,2 it will take roughly until 2020-2025 to see any decrease in social security expenses as a percentage of GDP, even if the reforms involve an increase in the retirement age, a benefits freeze, and a removal or change of the indexation of pensions to the minimum wage (and/or a change to the minimum wage formula). Bottom Line: The benefits of social security reform will only come into effect after 2020-30 or so, if passed in full. Therefore, they will not prevent Brazil's public debt-to-GDP ratio from surpassing the 85-90% mark in 2019. A Way Out: Debt Monetization? Chart I-9Brazil's Central Bank Has Been ##br##Expanding Its Local Currency Assets Being strangled by economic contraction, high debt/fiscal deficits, and a lack of political capital to embark on painful fiscal austerity, the path of least resistance for any country in general and Brazil in particular is debt monetization. That would lead to a considerable exchange rate depreciation. There are already hints that the central bank has been funding the government since 2014. In particular: The Brazilian central bank's domestic currency assets have expanded dramatically - by 640 BRL billion, or 10% of GDP - since January 2015 (Chart I-9). Most of this balance sheet expansion - 460 BRL billion or 7% GDP has been due to the rise in the central bank's holdings of federal government securities (Chart I-10). On the liability side of the central bank's balance sheet, a considerable rise has occurred in Banco Central do Brasil repos with commercial banks and deposits received from financial institutions. The amount of outstanding repos and these deposits has risen by 220 BRL billion since January 2015 (Chart I-11). Chart I-10The Central Bank Has Been ##br##Accumulating A Lot Of Public Debt... Chart I-11....But Withdrawing Liquidity Via ##br##Repos & Deposits Received Essentially, the central bank has purchased 460 BRL billion of government securities since January 2015 and, hence, injected a lot of liquidity into the banking system. Then, Banco Central do Brasil simultaneously withdrew liquidity via repo agreements and deposits received from financial institutions. This has basically sterilized half of the central bank's government bond purchases, i.e. the operation withdrew half of the liquidity expansion that was first made. Without the central bank intervention to buy 460 BRL billion of government securities in the past two years, the 626 BRL billion and 557 BRL billion overall fiscal deficits in 2015 and 2016, respectively, would not have been financed and local bond yields would have risen. Chart I-12The BRL Is Expensive Again Looking ahead, as the fiscal accounts continue bleeding, public debt burden will rise to around 85% of GDP and the banking system - wounded by non-performing loans - will struggle to expand its balance sheet further. In turn, the central bank might be tempted to continue monetizing the government's debt without, however, sterilizing its operations. In such a scenario, the currency will depreciate meaningfully. Markedly, Brazil's real effective exchange rate has risen above its historical mean and is somewhat expensive (Chart I-12). Brazil needs lower interest rates, more abundant banking system liquidity and a cheaper currency to embark on a sustainable recovery. The latter is required to avoid the fiscal debt trap. The exchange rate depreciation is an important relieve valve. Given that only 4% of government debt is denominated in foreign currency, a deprecation of the Brazilian real is the least painful solution. Bottom Line: Going forward, the only way for Brazil to stabilize the public debt-to-GDP ratio is to boost nominal GDP growth. This can be achieved by reducing interest rates aggressively, injecting large amounts of liquidity into the wounded banking system and devaluing the currency. Unless financial markets in Brazil sell off, there is a non-trivial probability that the authorities will embark on outright or covered public debt monetization. This would allow the country to avoid fiscal stress/crisis. Yet, the price will be large exchange rate depreciation. Chart I-13Stay Underweight Brazil ##br##Versus The EM Equity Benchmark Investment Implications We have been wrong on Brazilian markets in the past 12 months, but we do not see a reason to alter our view. The currency will plunge due to the ongoing debt monetization, and foreigners will not make money in Brazilian financial markets in U.S. dollar terms. We reiterate our short positions in the BRL versus the U.S. dollar, ARS and MXN. Stay long CDS and underweight Brazilian credit within EM sovereign and corporate credit portfolios. Continue underweighting this bourse within an EM equity portfolio (Chart I-13). Interest rate cuts will continue, but with the BRL set to depreciate considerably versus the U.S. dollar in the next 12 months - as we expect - buying local bonds for the U.S. dollar based investors is not the best strategy. Santiago E. Gomez, Associate Vice President santiago@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 These figures come from the appendix on page 9 of the Deutsche Bank report titled, "Brazil at a Debt Crossroad - Again", dated January 23, 2017. 2 Please refer to the following IMF report on Brazil, available at http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2016/cr16349.pdf Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Signing executive orders and memoranda post-Inauguration is a common tactic for new presidents. Unfortunately for investors, political rhetoric has caused uncertainty to surge, while actions affecting profitability have been minimal. The potential for radical changes to trade policy changes should not be underestimated. However, details about timing and contours are too vague to be of any support to potential industry-specific beneficiaries. Fed policymakers will focus primarily now on wage and price inflation to guide them on the appropriate pace of rate hikes. Policymakers increasingly believe the economy is operating at full employment. Feature Chart 1Policy Uncertainty Surge It has been a confusing two weeks in Washington. Since taking oath, President Trump has signed eighteen executive orders and presidential memoranda.1 This is not uncommon: Barack Obama signed an equal amount during his first week of his first presidential term, and executive orders are a frequent tactic used by new presidents to quickly deliver on campaign promises. Unfortunately for investors, Trump's signature has not yet found its way to policies that alter the profitability of U.S. businesses and/or clearly lower the risk premium for financial assets (although at the time of writing, there are rumors about an order that will affect Dodd-Frank). Instead, there has been a tremendous amount of rhetoric that has caused political uncertainty to spike higher (Chart 1). We have warned in past weekly reports that it would be difficult for equity prices to sustain gains built on the premise that a new American government will succeed in implementing a pro-business strategy while simultaneously avoiding any negative shocks from trade reform and foreign policy blunders. Actions under the new administration so far support this view. On Trade: Trade is the area of most confusion thus far in the Trump presidency. As our Geopolitical team highlighted in a recent report,2 the new White House seems focused on bringing the U.S. current account deficit down and will attempt to do so by using three primary tools: Protectionism, possibly in the form of a "destination-based border adjustment tax," as discussed in our Special Report two weeks ago.3 Dirigisme: President Trump has not shied away from directly intervening to keep corporate production inside the U.S. and has insisted on a vague proposal to impose a 35% "border tax" on U.S. corporates that manufacture abroad for domestic consumption, though details are scant. Structural Demands: Trump and team appear ready to lob threats at other countries with trade surpluses, such as China - by charging the country with currency manipulation. Note that the above tools are in the White House's toolbox, but are yet to be employed. In terms of concrete action to date, President Trump has signed orders to pull out of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). But this was a non-event since the TPP was never ratified by Congress. Takeaway: The potential for radical changes to trade policy should not be underestimated. However, details about timing and contours are too vague to be of any support to potential industry-specific beneficiaries. On the flipside, confusing and vague rhetoric should not (yet) form the basis of a negative economic and profit outlook. On Infrastructure: Trump signed an executive order to expedite environmental reviews for high-profile infrastructure projects. This executive order may expedite already approved projects, but any new spending requires approval from Congress. The budget will be announced only in mid- to late- April. Moreover, it is still an open question as to whether Congressional Republicans will try to axe government spending. Senior members of Trump's transition team have proposed a plan to cut federal spending by $10.5 trillion over the next 10 years! That would amount to a severe fiscal drag, rather than the much hoped-for fiscal thrust expected from infrastructure spending and tax cuts. Takeaway: As we have argued in the past, infrastructure spending could provide a fillip to U.S. growth, but at minimum, investors should not expect that to occur until late 2017 or 2018. On Taxes: None of the executive orders or memoranda directly address taxes. However, a majority of pundits believe that Trump's executive order on January 25 to Build The Wall with Mexico will be funded by U.S. taxpayers. Takeaway: Tax reform requires congressional approval. There has been no step forward as yet for a more market-friendly tax backdrop. On Regulation: On January 30, President Trump signed an executive order stating that for every new regulation proposed, two existing ones would be repealed. On the surface, this seems like excellent news for businesses, especially smaller ones that consistently argue that "red tape" is a major problem for their companies (Chart 2). After all, the U.S. ranks very poorly among global peers on how easy it is to start a business (Table 1). Note that the World Bank assigns the U.S. a much higher overall score for ease of doing business (8th), but this is due to high scores in only two areas: access to credit and bankruptcy protection laws! Chart 2(Part II) Regulation Is A Problem Table 1(Part I) Regulation Is A Problem Unfortunately, the language of the executive order is sufficiently vague that it is not clear what impact there will actually be. First, it is impossible to know which agencies and branches of government the order applies to. Second, it is not clear that a President has the legal authority to mandate the number of regulations, i.e. this executive order may be impossible to uphold. The President also signed a memorandum to streamline and reduce the regulatory burden for manufacturers. Though there is no immediate impact on businesses, the memorandum opens a 60 day window for the secretary of commerce to consult stakeholders. Takeaway: The President is serious about deregulation, but if anything, the 2-for-1 regulation order only serves to underscore that unwinding the regulatory burden is a complicated process that is unlikely to be achieved in the first 100 days of office. The bottom line is that the new administration has been busy, but little of their work thus far has been of direct concern to financial markets and underlying profitability. Instead, policy uncertainty has risen: protectionism, de-regulation and tax reform are all high on their agenda, but details are scant. This has left investors with little visibility. Our view is that the underpinnings of a self-reinforcing recovery are in place and thus will fuel outperformance of stocks relative to bonds on an intermediate time horizon (see last week's Special Report and also below).4 However, the rise in policy uncertainty serves to solidify our conviction that at current prices, risk assets are vulnerable to a near-term correction. Indeed, although not uniformly bearish, equity technical readings are beginning to herald a more treacherous phase ahead. Equity Technicals: Mixed Messages We are monitoring technical indicators for warning of a near-term equity pullback within the context of a longer term bull market. So far, the message is mixed. For example, our composite technical indicator is in the middle of its range and is not heralding danger. However, sentiment readings are at a bullish extreme. Our composite sentiment indicator remains near historic highs, which tends to be a good contrarian indicator (Chart 3). Meanwhile, the number of stocks above their 30 week and 10 week averages has also shot higher. Importantly, insiders are taking advantage of the price rally to sell their stock. The insider sell/buy ratio has soared to levels that typically herald corrections. Somewhat curiously, the VIX index - a measure of the cost of insurance - remains at bargain basement levels. This suggests that investors may be complacent to a near-term correction. Overall, sentiment readings have become extreme as has price momentum. As highlighted above, we expect that the near term catalyst for a pullback will likely center around policy disappointment. A more encouraging intermediate term outlook is supported by stronger economic fundamentals and, at least for now, a go-slow Fed. Fed & Economy Last week's FOMC policy statement included only minor tweaks from the previous one. Policymakers were silent as to how they view the impact on growth and inflation from the new Administration. Data released since the December minutes - when it appeared that the committee was shifting to a less dovish stance - have supported the Fed's more optimistic outlook. For example, the ISM manufacturing is trending higher, while the non-manufacturing index continues to be strong (Chart 4). On the manufacturing side, the composite index rose again in January, as the sector recovers from an energy-led recession. New orders held onto earlier impressive gains. The new orders-to-inventories ratio ticked down, but remains elevated, suggesting that there is more upside for industrial production in the coming months. Chart 3Equity Technicals: Mixed Message Chart 4Positive Economic Momentum In addition, as highlighted in our January 16 Weekly Report, conditions are ripe for a rebound in consumer spending.5 As confidence in the employment backdrop rises, the likelihood for a lower savings rate improves. Indeed, the January employment report, released on Friday, surprised to the upside, as non-farm payrolls grew by 227 000 (Chart 5). Despite the strong payrolls growth, the unemployment rate ticked higher to 4.8% due to an increase in the participation rate and average hourly earnings increased by a meager 0.1% m/m. Still, we expect that wages will rise as the labor market steadily tightens and Fed policymakers will focus primarily now on wage and price inflation to guide them on the appropriate pace of rate hikes. To this end, more policymakers are making the case that the economy is at full employment. In a speech in mid-January, San Francisco Fed president Williams argued that the economy has achieved full employment and that the economy only needs to create about 80 000 jobs to keep up with labor force growth.6 The implication is that with an average monthly payroll of 180 000, job creation will quickly put downward pressure on the unemployment rate. The San Francisco Fed has introduced a new, "Non Employment Index"7 which attempts to correct for the structural decline in participation (Chart 6). To construct the index, researchers treat everybody in the population as potentially in the labor force and construct a broader unemployment rate-a "non-employment index." This measure incorporates the unemployed and nonparticipants alike, based on their respective tendency to find jobs. They argue that when one carefully accounts for the availability of nonparticipants this way, the resulting broad non-employment index is consistent with a labor market at full strength. As the top panel of Chart 6 shows, even accounting for participation in this way, the non-employment index gives a very similar message to the standard unemployment rate. Chart 5Solid Employment Fundamentals Chart 6Full Employment = Wage Pressures The bond market is currently priced for two rate hikes later this year. We agree with this assessment, though view any surprises to the upside. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 The latter have less legal weight than an executive order but serve as guidelines for the priorities of government. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report "The 'What Can You Do For Me' World?," dated January 25, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017," dated January 23, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Special Report "The State Of The Economy In Pictures," dated January 30, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report "U.S. Consumer: The Comeback Kid," dated January 16, 2017, available at usis.bcaresearch.com 6 http://www.frbsf.org/our-district/press/presidents-speeches/williams-speeches/2017/january/looking-back-looking-ahead economic-forecast/?utm_source=frbsf-home-president-speeches&utm_medium=frbsf&utm_campaign=president-speeches 7 https://www.richmondfed.org/research/national_economy/non_employment_index

Feature The FX Market has a strange way of proving everyone wrong. Currently, we are finding ourselves uncomfortable with our cyclically bullish stance on the dollar as it has become a consensus view. A review of the rationale and risks to our view is in order. To begin with, let's review valuations. The dollar is overvalued by 8% at the current juncture. However, this overvaluation is still much more limited than the overvaluation of 22% registered in 1985 and of 17.7% recorded in 2002 (Chart I-1). Chart I-1Dollar Is Not Cheap, Yet It Can Get More Expensive This has two implications. First, we have always considered valuations as the ultimate measure of sentiment. After all, it is a reflection of how much people are willing to pay for an asset or currency, and therefore, how optimistically they view the prospects for that asset/currency. The USD's overvaluation being limited compared to previous instances suggests that investors' love affair with the greenback has yet to reach the exuberant heights reached in 1985 and 2002. In fact, at this point in time, the U.S. basic balance has improved considerably, especially vis-à-vis the euro area (Chart I-2). This suggests that investors are finding more attractive investments in the U.S. than in the euro area, and that so far, the strong dollar has not had a deleterious enough effect to hurt the perceived long-term earning power of the U.S. This can continue to weigh on EUR/USD, lifting DXY in the process. Second, the dollar has yet to represent the same drag on the U.S. economy that it did at its previous peaks. It is true that U.S. potential GDP growth is now lower than previously, dragged down by both lower labor force growth and lower trend productivity growth. However, manufacturing represents a much smaller share of employment than in these two instances, suggesting that the labor market should prove more robust in the face of the strong USD (Chart I-3). Chart I-2Basic Balance Dynamics Have ##br##Favored The USD Until Now Chart I-3The U.S. Dwindling ##br##Manufacturing Employment Thus, we continue to expect that the ongoing labor market tightening can run further. With the amount of slack in that market having now vanished, we are disposed to expect a quickening in wage growth in the coming quarters (Chart I-4). Additionally, we expect the U.S. labor market to promote a virtuous circle for the economy. As the job market tightens, wages and salary as a share of the economy rise. This skews the income distribution away from the top 1% of households - families who derive more than 50% of their incomes from profits, rents, and proprietors' incomes - toward the middle class. This redistribution effect should support consumption: middle class and poor households have marginal propensities to spend ranging between 90% and 100% while rich families have a marginal propensity to spend of around 60% Not only does household consumption represent nearly 70% of the U.S. economy, but also 70% of this consumption goes toward services. Services are principally domestically sourced and are a sector of the economy where productivity is hard to come by. As a result, we expect the boost in household consumption to be a key mechanism that will support employment and wage growth. Additionally, the strength of wages and salaries as a share of gross national income, coupled with the high degree of consumer confidence, could be a harbinger of a revival in capex. Historically, when these two measures of household health are behaving as they currently do, investment in the economy increases (Chart I-5). A few factors can explain this relationship: First, this strength in households boosts residential investment; Second, it also gives confidence to the business sector that final domestic demand is durable, a key factor boosting domestic producers willingness to invest; Third, the boost to residential investment lifts investment in the sectors of the economy linked to consumer durable goods. Moreover, the stabilization of U.S. profits, along with the narrowing of U.S. corporate spreads have boosted the capex intentions of businesses, a move that began even before Trump won the election. This has historically been a reliable leading indicator of both capex and the overall business cycle (Chart I-5). Chart I-4A Tight Labor Market ##br##Will Support Households... Chart I-5...And Households Support ##br##Domestic Businesses With U.S. trend GDP growth having fallen, lower growth is needed than in prior cycles to absorb the slack in the economy. In fact, our composite capacity utilization gauge currently shows an absence of slack (Chart I-6). Any further acceleration of growth would move the economy into "no slack" territory, an environment that has historically coincided with protracted Fed tightening campaigns. Chart I-6If The Fed Doesn't Heed The Message From Capacity Utilization, The Dollar Will Weaken However, if the Fed does let capacity move much above its constraint and does not react as much as it ought to, the inflationary outcome created by such a move would be devastating for the dollar: Rapidly rising U.S. price levels would hamper the USD's long-term PPP fair value; The process would also result in falling U.S. real yields, especially vis-à-vis nations with more signs of excess capacity, like the euro area, pushing down the greenback from a real interest-rate parity perspective; The easy Fed policy would ease global liquidity conditions, creating a shot in the arm for the global economy and EM in particular. Historically, an accelerating global economy hurts the dollar. We remain with the view that the Fed is unlikely to let such an outcome materialize. Yellen has gone out of her way to highlight that generating a "high-pressure" economy in the U.S. was a dangerous outcome that the FOMC wanted to avoid. In fact, the potential for Trump's fiscal stimulus, whenever it may be enacted, only raises the likelihood that the Fed leans against the inflationary under-current created by dissipating economic slack. The second risk to the dollar is the growing talk of a new Plaza Accord in the U.S. At this point, with Trump attacking China, the EU, and in fact, most trading partners, we think that the likelihood of moral suasion achieving its goal is low. However, we want to study this topic in more detail before coming to definitive conclusion. So where does this leave us with regard to our original discomfort with standing in the middle of the crowd? We continue to expect the dollar cycle to expand. However, we expect that the correction that begun after the December Fed meeting could run further before exhausting itself. This would be the key mechanism through which the stale longs that are accumulating will get shaken off. In fact, the current push-back against Trump by the political establishment, from both the republicans and the bureaucratic apparatus could raise doubts on Trump's ultimate capacity to achieve his fiscal policy goals. While we expect that these doubts will stay just that, doubts, and that Trump will ultimately make stimulus into law, this period of questioning could be enough to hurt a dollar still too loved by investors. Bottom Line: We are finding ourselves in the middle of the consensus with our cyclical dollar-bullish stance. However, U.S. economic fundamentals are still firmly bullish for the dollar and valuations are not yet potent enough to prompt the end of the dollar bull market. Short AUD/NZD After a long hiatus, inflation is making a comeback in New Zealand. Last week, inflation numbers for Q4 came in at 1.3%, marking the first time since 2014 that it exceeded 1%. This has significant implications for the RBNZ, given that persistently low inflation was the shackle that kept its dovish bias in place. As inflation starts to creep up, this should put upward pressure in rates and lift the NZD. Chart I-7Domestic Factor Points Will Help ##br##The Kiwi Outperform The Aussie Nevertheless, we are reticent to buy NZD/USD outright, as the dollar bull market should continue to weigh on the kiwi as well as on other commodity currencies. Instead we are expressing our view by shorting AUD/NZD. The outlook for these Oceanian countries could not be more different. New Zealand has been the best performing economy in the G10 with real GDP rising by 3.5% and employment growing at a staggering 6% pace, the highest level of the last 23 years. Meanwhile, Australia's real GDP growth has slowed down to 1.7% while employment growth is currently in negative territory. This contrast in economic performance is likely to dramatically increase inflationary pressures in New Zealand relatively to Australia, particularly if one considers that New Zealand's economy is growing at 2% above potential GDP while Australia's output gap is far from closed. Furthermore, growing divergences in housing and stock prices are also pointing to a widening in rate differentials (Chart I-7). These factors along with inflation should push kiwi rates up vis-à-vis Australian rates, and consequently weigh on AUD/NZD. The outlook for New Zealand's and Australia's main commodities (dairy products and iron ore respectively) also points to further downside in this cross. As previously highlighted, a weakening Chinese industrial sector and a tightening of global dollar liquidity should translate to an underperformance of base metals in the commodity space, given that China consumes roughly half of the world's industrial metals and that these commodities are highly sensitive to EM liquidity conditions. Meanwhile, although China is also the main consumer of dairy products, prices should hold up thanks to the recent loosening in the "One child" policy, which should increase demand for baby formula.1 This view is not without risks. The all-time low for AUD/NZD of 1.02 is not that far away, and could likely provide significant support to this cross. Indeed, one could argue that much of the widening in rate differentials is probably already priced in the cross. However, the difference in overnight rates between the central banks of these countries is a measly 25 basis points (with roughly another 25 basis points priced by the market until the end of 2017). Given the stark difference between the outlooks for these two economies we believe further widening could be warranted. Moreover, while it is true that the recent disappointment in kiwi unemployment numbers might provide fuel for the doves in the RBNZ for a bit longer, the markets have already reacted accordingly, with AUD/NZD rallying sharply since. Thus, we think that this recent rally provides a good entry point to short this cross. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Juan Manuel Correa, Research Assistant juanc@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "The OPEC Debate", dated November 24, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 The FOMC held the federal funds rate at 0.75%, as expected. The Committee highlighted that the economy is growing "at a moderate pace", also as expected. The labor market, consumer and business sentiment, and household spending all are improving. It is also expected that this trend continues and eventually leads to their 2% inflation target. Unlike the other G10 central banks, the FOMC sees near-term risks to the economic outlook as "roughly balanced", which may warrant a greenlight for their planned hikes. ISM Prices Paid, Manufacturing PMI, and the change in employment all beat expectations, confirming the economy's healthy path. The dollar will likely display limited movements, according to both seasonality and the economy developing as expected, and will likely remain relatively weak, in wait of fiscal policy information. Report Links: Dollar Corrections, EM Outlook, Global Liquidity, And Protectionism - January 27, 2017 U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017 - January 20, 2017 Update On A Tumultuous Year - January 6, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Economic activity within the common market this week was mixed, however the overall euro area is accelerating: Confidence indicators (consumer, services, overall economic, and industrial) beat expectations across the board; Annual GDP growth outperformed at 1.8%; Unemployment came at better than expected at 9.6%; Most importantly, inflation was recorded at 1.8% - more or less in line with the ECB target. Nevertheless, core inflation remains at 0.9%, which is corroborated by the mixed performance of the major euro states - Germany, in particular, performed relatively poorly. The European Commission upgraded their forecasts for GDP, unemployment and inflation, however, highlighted that risks can emanate from emerging markets and the U.S, affecting financial markets and global trade. Report Links: GBP: Dismal Expectations - January 13, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data continues to show indications of a recovery in the Japanese economy: The jobs/applicants ratio beat expectations, and now stands at 1.43 The contraction in spending seems to be receding, with overall household spending falling by 0.3% vs a 1.5% contraction in November. December industrial production also outperformed expectations, growing by 0.5%. In their latest monetary policy report the BoJ took into account the good economic data that we have been highlighting as they have raised their forecast in GDP growth going forward. This should not be taken as a sign that the BoJ is starting to back off from its radical policies, as they project that inflation will reach 2% in 2018 (the target, as we have mentioned before lies above this level). Thus, the cyclical outlook for the yen remains bearish. Report Links: Dollar Corrections, EM Outlook, Global Liquidity, And Protectionism - January 27, 2017 Update On A Tumultuous Year - January 6, 2017 Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 In their monetary policy meeting yesterday, the BoE decided to keep their policy rate unchanged. While it is true that they raised their inflation forecast for the short term, they also decreased their forecast for inflation for the long term compared to their last meeting. More importantly they adjusted their equilibrium unemployment rate to 4.5% from 5%, a development which makes the BoE more dovish than otherwise. Markets have taken notice of this, as the pound has depreciated against all major currencies. Despite this development we continue to have a bullish bias towards the pound, as we still believe that both the BoE and the market are overestimating the negative effects that Brexit can have on the British economy. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Just as the dollar began to correct, AUD displayed an upbeat performance, appreciating 6.75% since then. The weak dollar has helped commodity prices rally, iron and copper prices have appreciated in anticipation of U.S. infrastructure spending, Chinese Manufacturing PMI beat expectations, and the trade balance also outperformed expectations. While it is possible that a weak dollar can help alleviate much of the pressure off AUD, we remain obstinate on the fundamental weakness of the AUD. The Australian economy is still haunted by the mining industry slump, with the labor market feeling much of the pain. As mentioned before, a longer-term bull market in the dollar, and Trump's expected policies, can have very adverse effects on EM, global growth, global trade, and thus commodity currencies. AUD is also approaching overbought RSI-levels, as well as an important resistance level, and is likely to see some downside soon. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 On Tuesday unemployment came in at 5.2%, significantly above the market expectation of 4.8%. This caused the NZD to fall off, particularly against its crosses. However we believe that the bullish story for the NZD is still intact. Immigration continues to increase, with visitor arrivals increasing by 11% YoY. This should continue to add fuel to the stellar kiwi economy. On the commodity side, in spite of a slowdown, dairy prices continue to grow at an astonishing 47% YoY pace. Moreover the relative robustness of dairy prices to EM liquidity conditions should help the NZD outperform the AUD, as base metals are more likely to bear the brunt of a shortage in EM liquidity triggered by a rising dollar. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 On Tuesday, USD/CAD fell below 1.30 for the first time since September, breaking through an important trend line, displaying newfound strength on the back of a weak greenback. As the USD continues its corrective phase, the strong CAD could hurt Canadian exports in the near future. Canada's exports represent 25% of its GDP, and 77% of its exports are to the U.S. An implementation of the Border-Adjustment Tax could have adverse consequences for this export-oriented economy. Although this tax will likely be bullish for the greenback, Trump has emphasized his view on the excessively strong dollar. The recent GDP monthly figure of 0.4% beat consensus due to the improving domestic economy. However, the aforementioned points can be a very real threat to this improvement, and should be monitored closely. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It - November 4, 2016 Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 After falling to an 18-month low, below 1.065, EUR/CHF has once again rallied and is now close to reaching 1.07. This is the third time that our recommendation of buying this cross whenever it falls below the crucial 1.07 level proves successful. We continue to reiterate that whenever EUR/CHF approaches this level, the SBN will not be shy to intervene, as a strong franc would accentuate the deflationary pressures that plague the Swiss economy. Recent data has been disappointing, and one should expect that the SNB will be more overzealous in its management of the franc: The KOF leading indicator stood at 101.7, falling from the previous month and underperforming expectations. SVME Manufacturing PMI also fell short of expectations and fell relative to November. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 This week, the Norwegian Krone built on its stellar 2017 rally. Indeed, USD/NOK has fallen by almost 5% since the start of the year. This rally in the krone has been particularly surprising, as it has happened in an environment where oil prices have stayed relatively flat. Thus, If OPEC cuts start to cause significant inventory drawdowns, the NOK could rally much further. Additionally it is worth reminding that Norwegian inflation is a unique case in the G10, as it is the only country which has an inflation level above their central bank target. A breaking point will eventually come, where the Norges Bank will have to choose between backing off their dovish bias and letting inflation run amok. Thus, we will continue to monitor inflation in Norway closely. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits - December 16, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Sweden's economy continues to show strength. Producer prices increased at a 6.5% yearly pace, and a 2.1% monthly pace; Consumer confidence increased to 104.6 from last month's 103.2; Manufacturing PMI increased to 62; The monthly trade balance is positive for the first time since August. The data paints a positive picture of the economy: improving inflation, high consumer confidence, and a healthy industrial and export sector. Sweden's future for its exports seems hopeful on the back of an increasing manufacturing PMI and the lagged effects of a weak SEK. Additionally, Sweden is unlikely to be majorly affected by U.S. protectionism. Exports to the U.S. only account for 2% of GDP, and 7.7% of overall exports, whereas exports to the euro area account for 11% of GDP and 40.6% of exports. The risk of a strong SEK will be limited as the Riksbank monitors its pace of strength, and the USD will eventually resume its appreciation. Report Links: Outlook: 2017's Greatest Hits -December 16, 2016 One Trade To Rule Them All - November 18, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights France is on the verge of pro-market structural reforms; Marine Le Pen will not win the presidency. Her odds are 15%; The French economic upswing will continue to surprise; Overweight French stocks relative to German; Buy the euro on any election-related dip. Feature Le courage consiste à savoir choisir le moindre mal, si affreux soit-il encore. - Stendhal La France ne peut être la France sans la grandeur. - Charles de Gaulle Every decade, a country defies stereotypes and surprises investors with ambitious, pro-market and pro-business, structural reforms (Chart 1). Margaret Thatcher's laissez-faire reforms pulled Britain out of the ghastly 1970s and into the wild 1980s. Sweden surprised the world in the 1990s when voters turned against the generous social welfare system under the stewardship of the center-right Moderate Party. At the turn of the century, Germany's Social Democratic Party (SPD) defied its own label and moved the country to the right of the economic spectrum. Finally, this decade's reform surprise is Spain, which undertook painful labor and pension reforms that have underpinned its impressive recovery. What do all of these episodes have in common? Investors - and the public at large - didn't see them coming. Our favorite example is the Hartz IV labor reforms in Germany. The SPD government of Gerhardt Schröder completely re-wired Germany's labor market, leading to the export boom that has lasted to this day (Chart 2). And yet The Economist welcomed the Schroeder government with a scathing critique that is a textbook example of how the media often confuses stereotyping for data-driven analysis.1 Chart 1Each Decade Has A Reform Surprise Chart 2The German Miracle We think that this decade will belong to France. Yes, France. While the dominant narrative today is whether Marine Le Pen will win the presidential elections on April 23 (with a possible runoff on May 7), we think the real story is that the two other serious candidates are pro-growth, pro-reform, pro-market candidates. François Fillon and Emmanuel Macron are both running platforms of structural reforms. They are not hiding the fact that the reforms would be painful. On the contrary, their campaigns revel in the self-flagellation narrative. Most of our clients either politely roll their eyes when we present this view or counter that the French are ______ (insert favorite stereotype). We welcome the pessimism! It shows that the market is not yet pricing in a pro-market revolution that guillotines a long list of French inefficiencies. In this analysis, we present what is wrong with France, whether the presidential candidates running in the election plan to fix the problems, and our view of who is likely to win. Forecasting elections is a Bayesian process, which means that the probabilities must be constantly updated with new information. As such, we intend to keep a very close eye on the developments in the country over the next four months. What Is Wrong With France? France has a growth problem. While this is partly a cyclical issue, the reality is that its real per-capita GDP growth has been closer to Greek levels than German over the last two decades (Chart 3). In addition, France has lost competitiveness in the global marketplace, judging by its falling share of global exports relative to peers (Chart 4). Chart 3France's Lost Millennium Chart 4Export Performance Is A Disaster Three issues underpin the French malaise of the past two decades: The state is too large; The cost of financing the large state falls on the corporate sector; The labor market is inflexible. First, the French state relative to GDP is the largest in the developed world. In 2016, public spending was estimated to be 56% of GDP, compared with 44% of GDP in Germany and just 36% in the U.S. (Chart 5)! What is most concerning is that the state has actually grown in the past two decades from already unsustainable levels (Chart 6). Government employment as share of total employment is naturally very high (Chart 7). Chart 5The French State Is Large... Chart 6... And Continues To Be In Charge Chart 7French Talent Is Wasted In The Public Sector Such a large public sector requires very high levels of taxation. Government tax revenues are also second-largest in the developed world at 45% of GDP (Chart 8) and, like the size of the overall public sector, continue to grow (Chart 9). Chart 8French Tax Burden Is Large... Chart 9...And Growing Part of the problem is the labyrinth of administrative layers beneath the central government. France has 13 regional governments, 96 departments, 343 arrondissements, 4,058 cantons, and 35,699 municipalities.2 What do they all do? We have no idea. Reforms in 2015 have sought to reduce the number of sub-federal layers, but the process ought to go much further and faster. The French social welfare state is also inefficient. To be fair, it has kept income inequality in check, which has not been the case in more laissez-faire countries (Chart 10). This is an important part of our political analysis. French "socialism" is what keeps populism at bay, which was the intention of the expensive welfare state in the first place.3 However, there is a lot of room to trim the fat. The French welfare state is essentially an "insurance program" for the middle class, with more transfers going to the households in the top 30% income bracket than in the bottom 30% (Chart 11)! France could cut its massive social spending by means-testing the benefits that accrue to the upper middle class.4 Somebody ultimately must pay for the enormous public sector. In France, a large burden falls on employers. The French "tax wedge" - the difference between the cost of labor for the employer and the take-home pay of the employee as a percent of total remuneration - is one of the largest in the OECD (Chart 12). The heavy tax burden on employers, combined with a relatively high minimum wage, means that business owners are wary of hiring new workers. The tax wedge is ultimately passed on to the consumer by businesses, which hurts competitiveness and contributes to the poor performance of French exports.5 Chart 10A Positive: ##br##No Income Inequality Chart 11French Welfare State##br## Protects...The Rich! Chart 12Employees Are Too Expensive ##br##For Employers The French labor market remains inflexible and overprotected (Chart 13), which not only hurts competitiveness but also discourages youth employment (Chart 14). According to the OECD Employment Protection Index, both regular and temporary contracts have some of the highest levels of protection in the developed world. Germany actually has a higher level of protection in regular contracts, but not in temporary employment, thanks to ambitious reforms. Chart 13French Labor Market##br## Is Too Rigid Chart 14French Youth Underperforms ##br##OECD Peers Chart 15Starting A Business In France? ##br##Bonne Chance! Finally, France suffers from too much red-tape (Chart 15), too much regulation (Chart 16), high wealth taxes that force capital out of the country, and too many barriers to entry for medium-sized enterprises, the lifeblood of innovation and productivity gains (Chart 17). Part of the reason that France suffers from a lack of German-styled Mittelstand (small and medium-sized enterprises) is that the effective tax rate of the medium-sized businesses is greater than that of large enterprises (Chart 18). This is a problem given the already high levels of corporate tax rates in the country (Chart 19).6 Chart 16Too Much Regulation Chart 17France Needs A Mittelstand François Hollande's government tried to address many problems facing France. However, Hollande largely spent his term treating the symptoms and not trying to cure the disease. France can reduce regulatory barriers and tinker with labor flexibility. It can even shift the tax burden from employers to consumers. But the fundamental problem is the large state, which forces the government to raise lots of taxes one way or another. Chart 18French SMEs Are Punished ##br##With High Taxes Chart 19French Corporate Taxes ##br## Are High By European Standards Bottom Line: The French state is too big. Up to this point, reforms have largely focused on tinkering with how the government raises funds for the welfare state. But what France needs is to alleviate the tax burden in the first place. The state, therefore, must be cut. Why Will France Reform? Our clients and colleagues challenge our view on France by rightly pointing out that painful structural reforms are easiest following a "market riot" or deep recession. Neither has befallen France. It actually did remarkably well in weathering the 2008 Great Recession, compared to OECD peers, and it has not faced the extraordinary housing or unemployment busts of neighboring Spain. Yet crises are not necessarily a must for successful reforms. Australia, starting in the mid-1980s and throughout the 1990s, pursued broad-based reforms due to a prolonged period of mediocre growth.7 So did Germany in the 2000s. We think that it is precisely this underperformance that is today motivating France. In particular we see three broad motivations: Competition with Germany: France did not lead the creation of European institutions in the twentieth century in order to cede leadership to Germany. As Charles de Gaulle said, "France is not France without greatness." The economic underperformance versus Germany is not geopolitically sustainable (Chart 20). If France continues to lose economic ground to Germany, it will continue to play second-fiddle to Berlin in the governing of the EU. At some point, but not likely in 2017, this will reinforce the populist logic that France should go it alone, sans the European institutions. Change impetus: It is difficult to imagine how François Fillon and Emmanuel Macron can run on an anti-establishment, "change" platform. Fillon proudly calls himself a Thatcherite (in 2017!) and Macron is a former Rothschild investment banker. And yet they are doing so. This is especially astonishing after the successes of Donald Trump and the Brexit campaign, which specifically targeted elitist policymakers like Fillon and Macron. But in France, the status quo is a large state, dirigiste economy, and a generous welfare system. In other words, the French are turning against their status quo. Laissez-faire is change in France. Social welfare fatigue: Our colleague Peter Berezin argued in a recent Special Report that Europeans will turn against the welfare state due to the breakdown in social cohesion. Significant populations of immigrant descent - as well as recent arrivals - fail to properly integrate in countries where the welfare state is large.8 Resentment against immigrants, and citizens of immigrant descent, could therefore be fueling resentment against the expensive welfare state. Chart 20France Is Not France Without Greatness Chart 21"Silent Majority" Wants Reform Polls suggest that we are on to something. Chart 21 illustrates that there may be a Nixonian "silent majority" in France favoring supply side reforms. Per January 2017 polling, "blue collar" and "left leaning" employees oppose reforms. But surprisingly by extremely narrow margins (Chart 21, bottom panel)! Thus, there is demand for structural reforms, but is there supply? According to a review of the platforms of Macron and Fillon, we think the answer is a resounding yes (Table 1). Generally speaking, François Fillon's proposed reforms are the deepest, but Macron would also pursue reforms aimed at reducing the size of the state. Marine Le Pen, too, promises to reduce the size of the public sector, suggesting that the narrative of reform is now universal. However, it is not clear how she would do so. Her views on the EU and the euro are also not positive for growth or the markets, as they would precipitate a recession and an immediate redenomination crisis. As we discuss below, it is likely that her opposition to European integration is precisely what is preventing her from being a much more competitive opponent against Fillon and Macron in the second round. Table 1French Presidential Election: Policy Positions Of Chief Contenders What of implementation? In France, several reform efforts - the 1995 Juppé Plan, 2006 labor reforms and 2010 Sarkozy pension reforms in particular - prompted significant social unrest. However, unrest is having diminishing returns for unions and left-wing activists. While unrest forced the government to fully reverse both the 1995 Juppé Plan and the 2006 labor reforms, it did not manage to hold back retirement reforms in 2010. The Sarkozy government made some concessions, but the core of the reforms remained in place despite severe unrest that brought the country to a standstill. Most recently, in spring 2016, the El Khomri law - proposing modest changes to the French labor code - was rammed through by Prime Minister Manuel Valls using Article 49.3 of the French constitution. Despite significant unrest, the law passed and became law in August. Protests remained peaceful - unlike the 2010 unrest - and eventually fizzled out. Investors should not be afraid of unrest. Unrest is a sign that reforms are being enacted. We would be far more concerned if the election of Fillon or Macron did not lead to strikes and protests! That would be a sign that their reform efforts are not ambitious. But our review of the unrest and strikes in France since 1995 suggests that the last two events - in 2010 and 2016 - ultimately did lead to reforms. In addition, most significant international reform efforts lead to protests. The U.K. miners' strike (1984-85) led to over 10,000 arrests and significant violence. German labor reforms in the 2000s led to a spike in strikes. And the 2011 Spanish reforms under PM Rajoy led to the rise of Indignados, student protesters occupying public spaces, who ultimately gave the world Occupy Wall Street. When it comes to reforms, the adage "no pain, no gain" rings true. Most effective reforms, however, will come right after the election. The incoming president will have about 12 months to convince investors that he is serious about reforms, as this is when the new government has the most political capital and legitimacy for reforms. In addition, much will depend on whether Fillon and Macron have parliamentary majorities with which to work to enact reforms. France's parliamentary election will follow the presidential (two rounds, June 10 and 17). Every president has managed to gain the majority in parliament since the two elections were brought to the same year (2002). Macron's new third party - En Marche! - will likely struggle to gain a foothold in the parliament, even if he wins. However, we suspect that both Les Républicains and centrist members of the Socialist Party will support his reforms. Macron's reforms are more modest than Fillon, at least according to Table 1 and his rhetoric, but they would still be a net positive. Ultimately, investors will have plenty of opportunity to reassess the reform efforts as the new government proposes them. In this analysis, we have sought to simplify what we think is wrong with France. If the government does not address our three core issues - how big is the state, how the state is funded, and the flexibility of the labor market - then we will know that our optimism was misplaced. Bottom Line: We believe that the support for reform exists. A review of electoral platforms reveals that all three major candidates are promising reforms that reduce the size of the French state. This can only mean that French politicians recognize that the "median voter" wants it to be reduced.9 Can Le Pen Win? Although Marine Le Pen, leader of National Front (FN), wants to reduce the size of the state as much as her counterparts, her broader approach poses an obvious risk to the stability of France, Europe, and potentially the world. Her position on the EU and the euro is extreme. She seeks to replace the EU with a strategic alliance with Russia, that she thinks would then include Germany. In the process, the euro would be abandoned. The extreme nature of Le Pen's proposals may ironically increase the likelihood of pro-market reforms in France. François Fillon's problem - aside from the ongoing corruption scandal involving his wife - is that 62% of the French public believes that "his program is worrisome."10 He may therefore win purely because Le Pen's proposal of dissolving the EU and the euro is even more worrisome. What are Le Pen's chances of overcoming the population's fear of abandoning the euro and EU institutions? We think they are very slim. Fillon's corruption scandal could grow, but we think that it is too little too early. With three months ahead of the first round, the spotlight on Fillon may have come too soon. Meanwhile, Le Pen's FN is not without skeletons in her closet. The party's main financial backer has been a Russian bank whose license was revoked by Russia's central bank in June. Le Pen refuses to disclose the details of her campaign funding, unlike Fillon and Macron.11 So what are the chances of a Le Pen presidency? Following the U.S. election, many of our clients wonder where populism will triumph next. In meetings and at conference panels, clients ask whether Marine Le Pen can replicate the success of Donald Trump and the anti-establishment Brexit campaign. Our view has not changed since our Client Note on the topic last November: Le Pen has a very low probability of winning.12 Our subjective figure is 15%. This view is not necessarily based on the strength of her opponents. In other words, if François Fillon stumbles in the first round, we believe that Emmanuel Macron will win in the second round. Our view is focused more on the structural constraints that Le Pen faces. There are three reasons for this view: The Euro The French support the euro at a high level. Marine Le Pen wants to take France out of the euro. Thus, her popularity is inversely correlated with the support for the euro (Chart 22). Euro support bottomed in France in 2013 at 62%, the same year when Le Pen's popularity peaked at 36%. The populist and nationalist Le Pen has not regained her 2013 levels of support despite a massive immigration crisis in Europe and numerous terrorist attacks against French citizens. This is surprising and important. Chart 22The Euro Is Le Pen's Foil The only way we can explain her lackluster performance in the face of crises that should have helped her popularity is her ideological and rhetorical consistency on the euro. For several different reasons,13 the French public supports the common currency as well as the EU - like most Europeans. Le Pen's insistence on "Frexit" is a major hurdle to her chances of winning. The Polls Before we dive into the French presidential polls we should remind our readers of our view that polls did not get Brexit and Trump wrong. Pundits, the media, and data-journalists did. Polls were actually showing the Brexit camp ahead throughout the first two weeks of June. It was only once MP Jo Cox was tragically murdered on June 16 that polls favored the "Stay" vote for the final days of the campaign. Yet on the day of the vote, the "Stay" camp was ahead by only 4%. That should not have given investors the level of confidence they had in the pro-EU vote. The probability of Brexit, in other words, should have been a lot higher than the 30% estimated by the markets (Chart 23). Chart 23ASmart Money Got Brexit Wrong... Chart 23B...Despite Close Polling Similarly, the national polls in the U.S. election were not wrong. Rather, the pundits and quantitative models overstated the probability of a Clinton victory. What the modelers missed was the unfavorable structural backdrop for Clinton: the challenges associated with one party holding the White House for three terms, lackluster economic growth, lukewarm approval ratings for Barack Obama and his policies, and general discontent, partly signaled by the non-negligible polling of third-party challengers. In addition, the modelers ignored that American polls have a track record of underestimating, or overestimating, performance by about 2-3% (Chart 24). And crucially, the 2016 election was different in that the number of undecided voters at the cusp of the vote was nearly triple the average of the previous three elections (Chart 25). Chart 24Election Polls Usually Miss By A Few Points Chart 25Undecided Voters Decided The Election The polls were much closer, in other words, than the dominant media narrative revealed. With four months until the election, Donald Trump actually took a slight lead against Hillary Clinton, following the July GOP convention. In aggregate polling, he never trailed Clinton by more than 7% from that point onwards (Chart 26). With four months until the second round of the French election in May, Marine Le Pen is trailing her two centrist opponents by 20-30% (Chart 27)! In other words, Trump at this point in the campaign was roughly three times more competitive than Le Pen! Chart 26Le Pen Is No Trump Chart 27Second Round Polls Are All That Matters We will therefore agree with the narrative that Le Pen could be the next Trump or Brexit when she starts performing in the polls as well as Trump and Brexit! Right now, she is nowhere close to that. Could Marine Le Pen close the gap in the next four months? It is unlikely. Le Pen is not a political "unknown" like Trump. She is not going to "surprise" voters into voting for her in 2017. She was her party's presidential candidate in the 2012 election. Her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, contested elections in 1988, 1995, 2002, and 2007. The National Front has contested elections in France since the 1970s. Voters know what they are getting with Le Pen. The best-case scenario for Le Pen is that Fillon gets into the second round, and then during the two-week interval between the first and second rounds (April 23, May 7) more corruption is revealed by Fillon and his popularity tanks. This is the "Clinton model" and it is certainly plausible. But it would have to be egregious corruption given that Le Pen's popularity ceiling appears to be the same percentage of French population not in favor of the euro. We suspect that this ceiling is hard. Which is why we have Le Pen's probability of winning the election at only 15%. In addition, there is no vast pool of the undecided in France. French turnouts for the presidential election are consistently 80%. Therefore, translating polling data to actual turnout data will be relatively straightforward. The polls are real. Le Pen may be able to outperform her polls by several points. But not by the 20-30% by which she trails Fillon and Macron in polling for the crucial second round. In fact, Le Pen could even struggle to get into the second round given that the winner of the Socialist Party primary - Benoit Hamon - could bleed left-wing voters away from Le Pen, leaving Fillon and Macron to enter the second round instead. At that point, the election becomes a coin toss between two reformers, but we would give the less "worrisome" Macron a slight edge. Precedent History is important because there is a precedent for solid Euroskpetic performances in France. In fact, Euroskeptic candidates - broadly defined - have won around 32% of the vote in the first round of the presidential election since 1995 (Chart 28). As such, Le Pen's current polling in the first round - 26% level of support - and second round - 37% of support - is within the historical average. It is on the high end, but still within the norm. Her father, for example, got 17% in the first round of the 2002 election and 18% in the second. Chart 28French Euroskepticism ##br##Is Not A Novel Concept We also have a very good recent case study - a natural experiment if you will - of the anti-establishment's electoral performance: the December 2015 regional elections. The two-round regional elections occurred only 23 days following the November 2015 terrorist attack in Paris and at the height of that year's migration crisis. They should have favored the Front National (FN). They also should have favored the FN for these technical and political reasons: Rules: The second round in the regional elections has a participation threshold of 10%, unlike the presidential and parliamentary elections which eliminate all but the top two candidates. This means that FN faced off against multiple candidates, reducing the probability that "strategic voting" drove centrist voters to choose the one remaining establishment candidate over the anti-establishment candidate, as will be the case in the upcoming presidential election. Protest vote: The regions of France have no authority to negotiate international treaties. As such, voters could freely vote for the anti-establishment FN as a sign of protest, without fear that the FN councilors would then take the country out of the euro and the EU. Voters faced no clear downside risk of sending a harsh message to the establishment. Context: Both the ruling Socialists and the opposition Union for a Popular Movement (now renamed Les Républicains) were in disarray ahead of the regional elections for a number of reasons, including the aforementioned terrorist attacks, unpopularity of President Hollande, leadership struggle within UMP, and EU mismanagement of the migration crisis. The National Front ended the first round with a slight lead in total votes, but captured the lead in six out of the 13 regions. The financial press went wild, calling it an extraordinary win for the anti-establishment in France. Yet despite the near optimal circumstances and a strong showing in the first round, FN was obliterated in the second round, a mere one week later. The populists won none of the regions that they captured in the first round! Why? Participation increased in the second round from 49% to 59%, signaling that many French voters were motivated to vote in less-relevant regional elections purely to keep FN out of power. The National Front share of the total vote remained stable at 27%, despite the increase in the turnout. This means that almost none of the "new" voters cast their support for FN, an incredible development. Socialist Party candidates withdrew from the contest in several regions where FN candidates were high profile politicians (Nord Pas de Calais led by Marine Le Pen herself and Province Alpes Cote d'Azur led by Le Pen's niece Marion Marechal Le Pen). Most importantly, Socialist voters did not swing to the economically left-leaning FN in these contest, but rather either stayed home or swung to the center-right rival, the UMP. If French voters decided to cast a strategic vote against FN in an election where the downside risk to a protest vote was non-existent, why would they do any different in a vote that clearly and presently matters? Furthermore, the fact that the higher turnout hurt FN should concern Le Pen. As we mentioned above, presidential election turnouts in France are around 80%. The 2015 election also should teach us an important lesson about France: polls work. Based on IFOP polling conducted two weeks before the election, the average polling error in the December 2015 regional election was 2.5%. Bottom Line: Marine Le Pen's support is precisely the inverse of the French support for the euro. Her anti-European stance is apparently a "deal breaker" for many voters who would otherwise support her candidacy. If she asked us for advice, we would say to flip-flop on the euro. It would make her far more competitive in 2017. Le Pen is trailing her centrist opponents by a massive margin in the second round. Polls can be wrong when they suggest that the contest is within the margin of error. But that is definitely not the case in the upcoming French election. Finally, the 2015 election teaches us that strategic voting continues in France, even when the establishment parties are in disarray and the geopolitical and political context favors populists. Cyclical View The French economy is currently experiencing an economic upswing. This upswing is not much of a mystery. It is explained by three factors: Easing monetary conditions in Europe, pent-up demand, and reflationary policies in China. Let's start with monetary conditions. The easing began in July 2012, with ECB president Mario Draghi's now famous pronouncement that he would do "Whatever it takes" to ensure the survival of the euro. Thanks to these soothing words, risk premia in the region collapsed, with a massive narrowing of government bond spreads between the periphery and Germany. France too benefited from that phenomenon, with its own spreads moving from a max of 190 basis points in late 2011, to 21 basis points seven months ago. Thanks to this normalization, lending rates to the private sector collapsed from 4.6% to 2% (Chart 29) This meant that the fall in the repo rate engineered by the ECB was finally passed on to the private sector. Additionally, the ECB stress tests of 2014 played a major role. In anticipation of that exercise, euro area banks curtailed credit in order to clean up their balance sheets. This resulted in a large contraction of the European credit impulse. However, once the tests were passed, euro area banks, with somewhat healthier balance sheets, normalized credit conditions, letting credit growth move closer in line with trend GDP growth. The result was a surge in the credit impulse that lifted growth in Europe (Chart 30). Chart 29Whatever It Takes Equals##br## Lower Private Sector Rates Chart 30Credit Impulse Dynamics##br## And Growth The euro also was an important factor. In mid-2014, investors started to speculate on a major easing by the ECB, maybe even QE. Through this discounting process, the euro collapsed from a high of 1.39 in May 2014 to a low of 1.05 in March 2015, when the ECB indeed began implementing asset purchases. This incredible 25% collapse in the currency boosted net exports, and helped GDP, while limiting existing deflationary pressures in Europe. The final reflationary impulse came from fiscal policy. In the wake of 2008, French fiscal deficits ballooned. As a result, from 2011 to 2013, the French fiscal thrust was negative and subtracted an average 1% from GDP growth. However, starting 2014, this drag vanished, arithmetically lifting growth in the country (Chart 31). Ultimately, with the accumulated pent-up demand resulting from the double-dip recession, France was able to capitalize on these developments. First, after having contracted by 14% between 2008 and 2009, and then by another 3% between 2011 and 2013, capex growth was able to resume in earnest in 2015 . This was necessary because, due to the subpar growth in capital stock, even the current tepid economic improvement was able to push capacity utilization above its 5-year moving average. When this happens, the economy ends up displaying the clearest sign of capacity constraint, i.e. higher prices, which we are seeing today. It also results in growing orders (Chart 32). Chart 31The Vanishing Of ##br##French Fiscal Drag Chart 32French Capacity Utilization Has Tightened ##br##And Orders Are Improving Second, we have witnessed a stabilization in employment and wages. The unemployment rate has fallen by 1% from 10.5% in 2015 to 9.5% today. Most importantly, our wage and employment models are pointing toward higher salaries and job growth in the coming quarters (Chart 33). This is crucial. The French economy remains fundamentally driven by domestic demand and household consumption in particular. In fact, these signs of coming higher household income suggest that the consumer can once again begin to support economic activity in France. First, we expect real retail sales to improve in the coming quarter. Second, because of the combined effect of rising labor income, consumer confidence, and housing prices, the recent upswing in housing activity should gather momentum (Chart 34), creating a further floor under economic activity. Chart 33Improving French Labor Market Conditions Chart 34Housing Will Contribute More To Growth Third, the improvement in credit growth corroborates these developments. In fact, being supported by easing credit standards, it even suggests that broad economic activity in France could accelerate further in the coming months. The key question mark at this point in time is China. France exports to China are only 3.7% of total exports, or 0.7% of GDP, below Belgium. However, the largest single export market for France is Germany, at 16.2% of total exports or 3.3% of GDP (Chart 35). Most interestingly, combined French exports to Germany and China are an important source of economic volatility for France. However, because French exports to Germany are a function of broader German income shocks and demand for German exports, the result is that French exports to Germany and China are a direct function of Chinese industrial activity, as illustrated with their tight correlation with the Keqiang index (Chart 36). As a result, French manufacturing conditions have displayed co-relationship with Chinese LEIs since 2002. Chart 35French Export ##br## Distribution Chart 36French Business Cycle And China: ##br##Germany Is The Key Link So going forward, what to expect? The recent surge in the ZEW expectation index is likely to be validated and French GDP growth is likely to improve from 1% today to nearly 2% in mid-2017, well above the current expectation of 1.3%. We are more confident about the robustness of domestic demand than international demand. The support created by higher wages and rising credit will have a lagged effect for a few more quarters. In fact, the up-tick to 0.5% from -0.2% in underlying inflation suggests that French real borrowing costs for the private sector should remain well contained despite the recent improvement in capacity utilization. This means the support to housing activity remains solid, especially as France has some of the strongest demographics of the whole euro zone, and thus demand for housing is solid. Chart 37France Too Would Be Affected##br## By A Chinese Deceleration Fillon's threat to cut public sector employment by 500,000 thousand could at face value derail the improvement in the labor market - if such measures were implemented today and in one shot, the unemployment rate would spike from 9.5% to 11.2%. However, Fillon's victory is not yet baked in the cake, and even if he wins, this risk is unlikely to materialize in 2017 as it will take time to get the required laws passed. Moreover, the progressive nature of the cut, along with the tax cuts and regulatory easing for the private sector, suggest that firms would likely create many jobs during the same time frame, mitigating the pain created by such drastic job cutting. Nonetheless, some downside to growth should be expected from Fillon's policies. China and EM represent a more palpable risk. The Chinese uptake of machinery has recently spiked and real estate activity and prices have surged (Chart 37). Beijing is currently uneasy with this development and the PBoC has already increased medium-term lending-facility rates in recent weeks despite low loan demand and disappointing fixed-asset investment numbers. Moreover, China has also massively curtailed the fiscal stimulus that has been a key component of its recent powerful rebound in industrial activity. Finally, the strength in the dollar along with rising real rates globally could put a lid on commodity price appreciation, which means that the rise in Chinese producer prices that has greatly contributed to lower Chinese real rates and thus easier Chinese monetary conditions could be waning. French exports to Germany and China might be seeing their heyday as we write. Bottom Line: The French economy is enjoying a healthy upswing powered by easier monetary conditions in Europe, slight fiscal thrust, pent-up demand and improving credit conditions. While these domestic factors will prove durable, the improvement in external demand faced by France in 2016 raises a slight question mark. Nonetheless, we expect French economic growth to move toward 2% in 2017, a sharp beat of currently depressed expectations. On the political front, robust growth should help centrist candidates and hurt the anti-establishment Le Pen. Investment Implications While reforms, tax cuts, strong domestic demand, and potentially falling political risk premia point to an outperformance of French small cap equities, the story is more complex. Indeed, French small caps are heavily weighted toward IT and biotech firms, and have been mimicking the performance of the Nasdaq, corrected for currency developments (Chart 38). Thus, they do not represent a play on the story above. Instead, we favor buying French industrial equities relative to Germany's. Both sectors are exposed to similar global risk factors as their sales are a function of commodity prices and EM developments. However, French unit labor costs should be contained relative to German ones going forward. French competitiveness has been hampered by decades of rigidities while German competitiveness benefited greatly following the implementation of the Hartz IV labor reforms. Not only should the potential for reform help France over Germany, but the fact that the French unemployment rate remains elevated while that of Germany is at generational lows points also toward rising German labor costs vis-à-vis France (Chart 39). Additionally, our secular theme of overweighting defense stocks plays in France's favor, given that France is the world's fourth largest global defense exporter.14 Finally, adding to the attractiveness of the trade, French industrial equities are trading near the low of their 12-year trading range against German ones (Chart 40). Chart 38French Small Cap Equals Nasdaq##br## (And The Euro, Of Course) Chart 39Reforms Could ##br##Close This Gap Chart 40Industrials: Buy France / ##br##Short Germany In a broader sense, the implementation of the Hartz IV reforms in Germany resulted in a general outperformance of German stocks over French stocks. Now that reforms have been fully implemented and priced in Germany, while investors remain highly skeptical of the outlook for French reforms (and indeed, fear an anti-establishment revolution), today may be the time to begin overweighting French equities at the expense of German ones in European portfolios on a structural basis. Finally, the spike in French yield differentials against German suggest that investors are imbedding a risk premium for the probability of a Le Pen win in the May election. A Le Pen victory would represent a death knell for the euro. As such, the euro countertrend bounce could find further support from a falling risk premium. Any selloff in the euro if Le Pen wins the first round of the election would represent a tactical buying opportunity in EUR/USD. Bottom Line: French industrials should be the key outperformers vis-a-vis Germany in the event of a Fillon or Macron electoral victory. However, French stocks in general should be able to outperform. Buy the euro on any election-related dip, particularly following the first round of the election on April 23. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see The Economist, "The sick man of the euro," dated June 3, 1999, available at economist.com. 2 The figures presented here are actually the reduced numbers from the 2013 Acte III de la decentralization. 3 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 A generous pension system is part of the problem. The effective retirement age is around 61 years, well below the legal age of 65. According to the OECD, the French spend 25 years in retirement, the longest in the developed world. 5 To address this problem, President François Hollande's Responsibility and Solidarity Pact has begun to shift the burden of financing the public purse away from payroll taxes and onto consumption (via higher VAT taxes). But a greater effort is needed. 6 Oddly, France does not do that badly in the World Bank Ease of Doing Business ranking - it is 29th out of 190, ahead of Switzerland and Japan and only one place behind the Netherlands. 7 Please see Gary Banks, OECD, "Structural reform Australian-style: lessons for others?" presentations to the IMF and World Bank, May 26-27, 2005, and OECD, May 31, 2005, available at oecd.org. 8 Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy, "Après Paris," dated November 20, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 IFOP poll from December 2016. 11 To be fair, French law does not require parties to publish their donations and spending. Please see Bloomberg, "Le Pen Struggling to Fund French Race as Russian Bank Fails," dated December 22, 2016, available at Bloomberg.com. 12 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Will Marine Le Pen Win?" dated November 16, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Research Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "After BREXIT, N-Exit?" dated July 13, 2016, and The Bank Credit Analyst, "Europe's Geopolitical Gambit: Relevance Through Integration," dated November 2011, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see Global Alpha Sector Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated January 11, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.