Protectionism/Competitive devaluation
Highlights Undue pessimism about global growth is giving way to unbridled optimism. Chinese growth has accelerated. However, there is a risk that the economy hits a speed bump later in 2017, as fiscal policy becomes less accommodative, monetary policy is tightened in an effort to curb capital outflows, and recent steps by the authorities to crack down on rampant speculation in the property sector begin to bite. The threat of a trade war will also loom large. U.S. fiscal policy will remain stimulative, but may fail to live up to expectations: There is little appetite among Republicans for increasing infrastructure spending; the multiplier effects from the proposed tax changes are likely to be small; and many GOP leaders are already chomping at the bit to take an ax to government spending. Fortunately, the U.S. economy has enough momentum to continue growing solidly above trend, even if fiscal policy disappoints. This will allow the Fed to raise rates three times this year, one more hike than the market is currently pricing in. Developed market equities are overbought and vulnerable to a correction, but will be higher 12 months from now. Favor Europe and Japan over the U.S. in local-currency terms. Stay underweight EM. Feature Global Growth Is Accelerating, But Headwinds Persist The global economy is on the mend. Measures of current activity are rebounding, as are a variety of leading economic indicators (Charts 1 and 2). Chart 1Global Economy ##br##Springing Back To Life Chart 2Global Leading Economic ##br##Indicators Are Improving Investors have taken notice: Market-based inflation expectations have risen, as have growth-sensitive commodity prices. Earnings growth expectations have surged, rising in the U.S. to nearly the highest level in a decade. Cyclical stocks have also bounced back, after having lagged the overall market for five years (Chart 3). We agree with the market's positive re-rating of global growth prospects, but worry that undue pessimism is starting to give way to excessive optimism. Two potential developments in particular could end up giving investors pause: A slowing of China's economy later this year. The possibility that U.S. fiscal policy will end up being less stimulative than expected. China: Living On Borrowed Time? Chinese growth has been surprising to the upside of late (Chart 4). Timely indicators such as excavator sales and railway freight traffic, which are well correlated with industrial activity, have been rising at a fast clip. Manufacturing inventory levels have come down, corporate profitability has improved, and producer price inflation has turned positive. The labor market has also picked up steam, as evidenced by the expansion in the employment subcomponents of the PMI indices. Chart 3Market's Positive Re-Rating Of Growth Prospects Chart 4Chinese Growth Has Been Surprising To The Upside Looking out, however, there are reasons to worry that the economy will weaken anew. Growth in government spending slowed from a high of 25% in November 2015 to nearly zero in December (Chart 5). Recent efforts by policymakers to clamp down on rampant property speculation could also cause the economy to cool. Meanwhile, capital continues to flee the country (Chart 6). This has put the government in a no-win situation: Raising domestic interest rates could entice more people to keep their money at home, but such a step could increase debt-servicing costs and undermine the country's creaky financial system. Chart 5China: Fiscal Stimulus Is Running Off Chart 6China: Ongoing Capital Outflows A Problem Of Inadequate Demand There is no shortage of commentary discussing the problems that ail China. Much of the analysis, however, has focused on the country's inefficient allocation of resources and other supply-side considerations. While these are obviously important issues, they overlook what has actually been the most significant binding constraint to growth: a persistent lack of aggregate demand. It has been this deficiency of demand - the flipside of a chronic excess of savings - that has kept the economy teetering on the edge of deflation. If a country suffers from excess savings, there are only three things that it can do. First, it can try to reduce savings by increasing consumption. The Chinese government has been striving to do that by strengthening the social safety net in the hopes that this will discourage precautionary savings. However, this is a slow process which will take many years to complete. Second, it can export those excess savings abroad by running a current account surplus. This would allow the country to save more than it invests domestically through the famous S-I=CA identity. The problem here is that no one wants to have a large current account deficit with China. Certainly not Donald Trump. Third, it can channel those excess savings into domestic investment. This is what China has done by pressing its banks to extend credit to state-owned companies and local governments. Remember that debt is the conduit through which savings is transformed into investment. From this perspective, China's high debt stock is just the mirror image of its high savings rate. The problem is that China already invests too much. Chart 7 shows that capacity utilization has been trending lower over the past six years and is back down to where it was during the Great Recession. The good news is that as long as there is plenty of savings around, Chinese banks will have enough liquid deposits on hand to extend fresh credit. The bad news is that there is no guarantee that borrowers taking on this debt will be able to repay it. This has made the Chinese economy increasingly sensitive to changes in financial conditions. And that sensitivity has, in turn, made global financial markets more fragile. Chart 8 shows that global equities have sold off whenever China stresses have flared up. The risk of another such incident remains high. Chart 7China: Capacity Utilization Back ##br##To Pre-Recession Levels Chart 8When China Has a Cold, ##br##Global Equities Sneeze China Trade War: The U.S. Holds The Trump Card Chart 9China Would Suffer More ##br##From A Trade War With The U.S. Adding to the pressure on China is the prospect of a trade war with the United States. Donald Trump has flip-flopped on almost every issue over the years, but he's been perfectly consistent on one: trade. Trump has always been a mercantilist at heart, and nothing that has happened since the election suggests otherwise. It is sometimes argued that the damage to the U.S. economy from a trade war with China would be so grave that Trump would not dare initiate one. This is wishful thinking. Chinese exports to the U.S. account for 3.5% of Chinese GDP, while U.S. exports to China account for only 0.6% of U.S. GDP (Chart 9). And much of America's exports to China are intermediate goods that are processed in China and then re-exported elsewhere. Blocking these exports would only hurt Chinese companies. Yes, China could threaten to dump its huge holdings of U.S. Treasurys. However, this is a hollow threat. The yield on Treasurys is largely determined by the expected path of short-term interest rates, which is controlled by the Federal Reserve. To be sure, the dollar would weaken if China started selling Treasurys. But why exactly is that a problem for the U.S.? Donald Trump wants a weaker dollar! In short, the U.S. would not lose much by provoking a trade war with China. Where does this leave us? The most likely outcome is that China blinks first and takes more concerted steps to open up its market to U.S. goods. This would hand Donald Trump a major political victory. However, the path from here to there is likely to be a very rocky one, which means that the reflation trade could suffer a temporary setback. A Trumptastic Fiscal Policy? Getting tough with China was one of Trump's key campaign promises; increasing infrastructure spending and cutting taxes was another. Unfortunately, investors may end up being disappointed both by how much fiscal stimulus is delivered and by the bang for the buck that it generates. For starters, much of Trump's proposed infrastructure program may never see the light of day. The $1 trillion ten-year program that he touted during the campaign was scaled back to $550 billion on his transition website. And even that may be too optimistic. Most Republicans in Congress have little interest in expanding public infrastructure spending. They opposed a big public works bill in 2009 when millions of construction workers were out of a job, and they will oppose one now. The public-private partnership structure that Trump's plan envisions will also limit the universe of projects that can be considered. Most of America's infrastructure needs consist of basic maintenance, rather than the sort of marquee projects that the private sector would be keen to invest in. Granted, the definition for what counts as public infrastructure could be expanded to include such things as hotels and casinos, to cite two completely random examples. But even if one ignores the obvious governance problems that this would raise, such a step could simply crowd out private investment that would otherwise have taken place. The reason that governments invest in infrastructure to begin with is because there are certain categories of public goods that do not lend themselves well to private ownership. To purposely exclude such goods from consideration, while devoting public funds to projects that the private sector is already perfectly capable of doing, is the height of folly. Trump And Taxes House Republicans are pursuing a sweeping tax reform agenda. There is much to like about their proposal. In particular, the shift to a cash flow destination-based tax system could encourage new investment over time, while making it more difficult for firms to carry out a variety of tax-dodging strategies. However, as with many major policy initiatives, the Republican tax proposal could generate significant near-term economic dislocations. Most notably, as we discussed in detail last week, the inclusion of a border adjustment tax could lead to a sharp appreciation in the dollar.1 This would benefit foreign holders of U.S. assets, but hurt debtors with dollar-denominated loans. Such an outcome could put stress on emerging markets, potentially undermining the global reflation trade. Trump's proposed cuts to personal income taxes may not boost spending by as much as some might hope. The Tax Policy Center estimates that the top one percent of income earners will see their after-tax incomes increase by 13.5%, while those in the middle quintile of the distribution will receive an increase of only 1.8% (Table 1). Since the very rich tend to save much of their income (Chart 10), measures which boost their disposable income may not translate into a substantial increase in spending. In fact, cutting the estate tax, as Trump has proposed, could actually depress spending by reducing the incentive for older households to blow through their wealth before the Grim Reaper (and The Taxman) arrive. Table 1Trump's Proposed Tax Cuts Would Largely Favor The Rich Chart 10Savings Heavily Skewed Towards Top Earners Spending Cuts On The Horizon? Then there is the question of whether Congressional Republicans will try to take an ax to government spending. The Hill reported last week that several senior members of Trump's transition team have proposed a plan to cut federal spending by $10.5 trillion over the next 10 years.2 The plan contains many of the same elements as the Republican Study Committee's Blueprint for a Balanced Budget, which called for $8.6 trillion in cuts over the next decade. Separately, Representative Sam Johnson of Texas, the chairman of the House Ways and Means subcommittee on Social Security, has introduced legislation seeking large cuts to pension benefits. Under his plan, workers in their mid-thirties earning $50,000 per year would see a one-third reduction in lifetime Social Security payments.3 Paul Ryan and other Congressional Republicans have also begun to argue that the goal of health care reform should be to guarantee "universal access" to high-quality medical care, rather than "universal coverage." This is a bit like arguing that the goal of transportation policy should be to ensure that everyone has access to a Bentley, provided that they can pony up $200,000 to buy one. It remains to be seen whether President Trump will acquiesce to these changes. He has repeatedly insisted that no one will lose medical coverage under his administration. However, one of his first actions in office was to loosen the mandate that requires healthy individuals to purchase insurance under the Affordable Care Act. Such a measure, however well intentioned, could greatly undermine the Act. If healthy people can wait until they are sick to sign up for insurance, only sick people will sign up. In order to cover their costs, insurance providers would have to raise premiums, ensuring that even fewer healthy people sign up. Such a vicious "adverse selection cycle," as economists call it, could lead to the collapse of health insurance exchanges, which currently provide coverage for 12.7 million Americans. Our guess is that Trump will ultimately put the kibosh on any plan to radically cut government spending or curtail Medicare and Social Security benefits. Say what you will of Trump, he has proven to be a skilled political operator for someone who has never been elected to public office. He knows that people were chanting "build the wall" at his rallies, not "cut my Medicare." Indeed, it is possible that Trumpcare will ultimately look a lot like Obamacare but with more generous subsidies for health care providers. Nevertheless, the path to this more benign investment outcome will be a bumpy one, suggesting that market volatility could rise in the months ahead. Investment Conclusions Chart 11DM Stocks Are Overbought Markets tend to swing from one extreme to another. This time last year, investors were fixated on secular stagnation. Now they are convinced that we are on the edge of a new global economic boom. Neither position is justified. Global growth has picked up, and this should provide a tailwind to risk assets over the next 12 months. However, as this week's discussion makes clear, there are still plenty of headwinds around. This suggests that the recovery will be a halting affair, with plenty of setbacks along the way. The surge in developed market equities since the U.S. presidential election has pushed stocks deep into overbought territory (Chart 11). A correction is likely over the next few weeks. We expect global equities to fall by 5%-to-10%, paving the way for higher returns over the remainder of the year. Once that recovery begins, European and Japanese stocks will outperform their U.S. counterparts in local-currency terms. We continue to expect EM equities to lag DM. In contrast to stocks, bond yields have already moved off their highs. As we discussed in our Strategy Outlook in early January, the transition from deflation to inflation will be a protracted one.4 Nevertheless, the path of least resistance for yields is to the upside. The Fed is likely to raise rates three times this year, one more hike than the market is currently pricing in. This should be enough to keep the dollar bull market intact. We expect the trade-weighted dollar to rise another 5% by year-end, with the risk tilted to the upside if Congress ends up approving a border adjustment tax. Peter Berezin, Senior Vice President Global Investment Strategy peterb@bcaresearch.com 1 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. 2 Please see Alexander Bolton, "Trump Team Prepares Dramatic Cuts," The Hill, dated January 19, 2017. 3 Please see Stephen C. Goss memorandum to Sam Johnson, "Estimates Of The Financial Effects On Social Security Of H.R. 6489, The 'Social Security Reform Act Of 2016,' Introduced On December 8, 2016 By Representative Sam Johnson," Social Security Administration, Office Of The Chief Actuary (December 8, 2016). 4 Please see Global Investment Strategy, "Strategy Outlook First Quarter 2017: From Reflation To Stagflation," dated January 6, 2017, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. Strategy & Market Trends Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights The evolution of U.S. tax policy - chiefly the border-adjustment tax (BAT) proposed by House Republicans - will preoccupy commodity markets for the balance of the year. Our House view gives 50-50 odds to the passage of a BAT, which, even though these are coin-toss odds, still are significantly higher than the consensus view of 20ish percent. While oil and apparel likely will be exempted from the BAT, steel, bulks, base metals, and ags probably won't be. The BAT's effect on the USD and EM commodity demand could be deflationary longer term. Energy: Overweight. The likelihood of crude oil and refined products being exempted from the BAT exceeds 50%, in our view, which means oil-market fundamentals likely will continue to be dominated by the supply-side adjustments. Base Metals: Neutral. Chinese reflationary policies will dominate pricing short term. Longer term, markets will have to price in the effects of the U.S. BAT. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold could trade higher in the near term (i.e., until Congress is done with the BAT), as the Fed holds off on any adjustments to policy rates until the Trump administration's fiscal policies come more clearly into view. Passage of a BAT will complicate monetary policy by lifting the broad trade-weighted USD and tightening monetary conditions in the U.S. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Heavy rains in Argentina could support soybeans. We remain underweight. Longer term, the BAT will be an important driver of prices. Feature We give 50-50 odds of BAT legislation passing in the U.S. Congress and being signed into law by President Trump this year. The BAT would tax imports into the U.S. and subsidize U.S. exports. This scheme would replace existing corporate income taxes.1 While apparel and energy products likely would be exempt, we think other commodities - chiefly base metals and ags - would be taxed, and would thus alter global trade flows in these commodities over the short run. Longer term, depending on how onerous the BAT legislation is, we would expect retaliatory taxes ex U.S., which could negate the initial benefits to U.S. commodity exporters. In addition, we would expect a stronger USD following passage of a BAT, which would be bearish for commodities generally. At this point it is impossible to know the tax rate that will be imposed on imports, as U.S. Congressional negotiations have yet to begin. President Trump, however, did tell business leaders he met with earlier this week to prepare for a "very major" border tax and significant deregulation, according to the Financial Times.2 The price effects for commodities subject to it are fairly straightforward: domestic prices will increase by the inverse of (1 - Tax Rate). A 20% tax would increase domestic prices by 25%, which would benefit domestic commodity producers, and disadvantage commodity importers. The BAT would incentivize U.S. exports and narrow the U.S. trade deficit, as a result. This would, in theory, rally the USD as well. If the BAT were set at 20%, the USD would, in theory, appreciate by 25%.3 It is early days on the BAT. Based on our in-house assessment, we think the BAT scheme could rally the USD by as much as 15%. This 15% includes the 5% increase in the USD's trade-weighted value we expect this year, absent any BAT effects. A stronger USD would raise the price of commodities subject to the U.S. BAT outside the U.S. in local-currency terms, thus crimping international demand, but encouraging output ex U.S. to increase as local-currency production costs fall. Both effects are decidedly bearish longer term for commodities subject to the BAT. Servicing of USD-denominated debt would become more expensive for EM borrowers, as the USD appreciated, which also would negatively affect income growth. Oil Markets Handle The BAT While we believe oil and apparel will be exempt from a BAT, if such a tax did gain traction in Congress, West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil futures, the U.S. benchmark, likely would trade at a premium to the global Brent benchmark, reversing years-long discount pricing. Indeed, markets already started pricing this potential outcome toward year-end 2016 (Chart of the Week), taking WTI delivering in Dec/17 from a roughly $2.00/bbl discount to parity with Brent, before retreating a bit in recent sessions. Clearly, markets have been attempting to discount the BAT, as the WTI - Brent differential shows, and this will continue as the debate and negotiations on the measure pick up in the near future. A BAT that included oil would super-charge U.S. exports, which already are growing, and domestic production (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekDeferred WTI Trades Flat To Brent Chart 2A BAT Applied To Oil ##br##Would Super-Charge U.S. Exports Bottom Line: We would fade any rally in the WTI - Brent spread toward the end 2017, or in the 2018 and '19 deliveries - selling the spread if it rallies significantly above flat (i.e., $0.00/bbl in the differential), given our expectation oil will be exempt from the BAT scheme. A BAT's USD Impact Will Matter For Commodities Generally Odds favor a USD rally - even if apparel and oil are excluded - given the BAT scheme would shrink the U.S. trade deficit. Our House view is the USD was on course to appreciate 5% this year anyway, on the back of the economy's relative performance and a continuation of the Fed's effort to normalize monetary policy. Even with a BAT becoming law in a somewhat watered down form, as our colleagues at BCA's Global Investment Strategy service anticipate, the USD could rally another 10%, based on our assessment of the impact of the tax scheme. This would encourage higher production ex U.S., where local-currency drilling costs once again would fall (think Russia). And it would seriously dent EM commodity demand, particularly oil and base metals demand, as a stronger USD makes commodities more expensive in local-currency terms ex U.S. (Chart 3). The combination of higher output due to lower costs ex U.S., and lower EM consumption brought about by a stronger USD could unravel the production-cutting accord KSA and Russia agreed last year, as prices weaken once again and producers scramble to make up for lost revenue with higher volumes. Given these effects, there's a good chance the U.S. would see deflationary blowback from this, if oil and base metals prices resume their downtrend (Chart 4). Chart 3A Stronger USD Once Again ##br##Will Weaken Global Oil Prices Chart 4Lower Oil Prices Could Drag ##br##Inflation Expectations Lower BAT Effects On EM Commodity Demand Oil and base-metals demand are closely aligned with EM income growth. Indeed, the evolution of EM income maps closely to EM oil and base metals demand. This is important for the evolution of the Fed's preferred U.S. inflation gauge, the core PCEPI. Indeed, the co-movement between the core personal consumption expenditures index and EM demand for industrial commodities is extremely high. In earlier research, when we modeled EM oil demand as a function of U.S. financial variables, we found a 1% increase (decrease) in the USD broad trade-weighted index (TWI) is consistent with a 23bp decrease (increase) in consumption. For global base metals, we found a 1% increase (decrease) in the USD TWI corresponds with a 27bp drop (increase) in demand. From this, our general rule of thumb is each 1% increase (decrease) in the USD TWI is roughly corresponds to a 25bp drop (increase) in EM demand for oil and base metals. We also found a 1% decrease in EM oil demand corresponds to nearly a 50bp decrease in the core PCEPI, the Fed's preferred inflation gauge.4 If the USD appreciates by 15% this year following the imposition of a BAT consistent with our in-house view, the effect on commodity demand and EM economic growth prospects would be unambiguously negative. If this was fully passed through to the core PCEPI, the gauge's yoy rate of change could drop more than 1.5%, pushing the yoy change in the Fed's preferred inflation index to just above zero, from its current level of ~ 1.65% yoy growth. We will be exploring the implications for this on the Fed's monetary policy in next week's publication, when we cover gold markets. However, it is worthwhile noting here that the BAT's effect on commodity prices and EM income could significantly restrain the Fed in its desire to normalize monetary policy. BAT Would Raise Volatility Following passage of a BAT consistent with our aforementioned expectations, higher commodity-price volatility would ensue: A sharply higher USD would crush EM oil and base metals demand. The import tax side of the scheme would incentivize additional supply (and exports) to come on line in the U.S. - domestic prices would rise faster than costs under the BAT - while, ex U.S., local-currency production costs would fall, leading to increased supplies. The import tax side of the BAT will create an umbrella for domestic oil and metals producers to lift prices to U.S. customers, since their only other choice for charging stocks and ore supplies are imports, which would be taxed under the scheme. In and of itself, this would be inflationary for the domestic U.S. economy. The only party that unambiguously wins in the short run in this scenario would be U.S. shale producers and domestic base-metals producers. In the case of the latter, copper, nickel and aluminum producers already supply more than 60% of domestic requirements, suggesting they have room to expand production at the margin, as tax-induced price hikes outpace cost increases (Charts 5 and 6). Chart 5U.S. Base Metal Production Could Expand Under A BAT Scheme Unstable Equilibrium At the end of the day, the BAT-induced changes in trade flows represent an unstable equilibrium. Second-round effects following the passage of the BAT - i.e., after the initial lift to domestic U.S. prices arising from the imposition of the BAT - are bearish. Chart 6U.S. Nickel And Copper Exports ##br##Could Expand Initially Under A BAT Scheme Recall that in the first round of price adjustment to the BAT, prices theoretically increase by the inverse of (1 - Tax Rate), which most likely will be faster than the increase in domestic production costs. In the second round of price adjustment, production costs catch up to prices, narrowing profit margins and reducing the free cash flow that supports higher production. Domestic demand in the U.S. for refined products - oil and metals - will fall, as prices to consumers rise (e.g., gasoline prices will increase at the margin in line with the BAT tax rate). Meanwhile, ex U.S., as the local-currency costs of production fall, supply is increasing at the margin. And, the stronger USD will raise the local-currency cost of commodities ex U.S., thus reducing demand. The supply- and demand-side effects combine to lower prices, all else equal. In the case of oil, producers ex U.S. - most likely KSA and the Gulf Arab states, and Russia - would once again find themselves in a fight for market share as U.S. production and exports increased. Markets would, once again, have to contend with rising storage levels and lower prices, as supplies increase at the margin and demand falls. This likely happens in 2018, and would return oil prices to our lower trading range of $40 to $65/bbl. In addition, our central tendency for WTI prices would return to $50/bbl from $55/bbl now. Depending on how OPEC and non-OPEC producers respond to rising U.S. production and falling global demand, the downside volatility we saw in 2016 could easily be repeated in 2018 - 2020. In the case of base metals, China still accounts for ~ 50% of total demand. If the USD strengthens significantly, China's demand - along with other EM demand - will fall as local-currency prices rise. Potentially higher U.S. base metal exports on the back of higher domestic prices supporting expanded U.S. supplies will be competing for market share against, e.g., copper volumes from Chile and Peru displaced from the U.S. market. Bottom Line: The BAT scheme could incentivize higher U.S. production and exports, and rally the USD. Together, these effects would pressure commodity prices lower - particularly oil and base metals - as supply increased and demand decreased. This would lower inflation and inflation expectations, complicating the Fed's policymaking later this year. We will develop these themes in subsequent research. Next week, we take up gold markets and how they are likely to respond to the evolution of BAT legislation. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Our colleague Peter Berezin last week published a Special Report entitled "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017" in BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy, which examined the BAT in depth, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see "Investors seek clarity from Trump on tax changes and trade restrictions" in the January 24, 2017, issue of the FT. 3 Please see p. 3 of the BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Special Report entitled "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue for 2017" cited above, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see pp. 3 and 4 issue of BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Commodities Could Be Hit Hard By Fed Rate Hikes" in the September 1, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017
Highlights President Trump is as protectionist as Candidate Trump; USD shortage to tighten global financial conditions; Go Long MXN/RMB as a tactical play on U.S.-China trade war; Brexit risks are now overstated; EU will not twist the knife. EUR/GBP is overbought; go short. Feature "We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this moment on, it's going to be America First." U.S. President Donald Trump, January 20, 2017, Inaugural Address What are the investment implications of an "America First" world? First, it may be useful to visualize the "America Second" world that President Trump is looking to leave in the rear-view mirror. Chart 1 shows the cost of hegemony. Since the Nixon shock in 1971, the U.S. has seen its trade balance deepen and its military commitments soar, in absolute terms. For President Donald Trump, the return on American investment has been low. Wasteful wars, crumbling infrastructure, decaying factories, stagnant wages, this is what the U.S. has to show for two decades of hegemony. Chart 1United States: The Cost Of Hegemony On the other hand, the U.S. has enjoyed the exorbitant privilege of its hegemonic position. In at least one major sense, America's allies (and China) are already paying for American hegemony: through their investments in U.S. dollar assets. Chart 2 illustrates this so-called "exorbitant privilege." Despite a deeply negative net international investment position, the U.S. has a positive net investment income.1 Chart 2The "Exorbitant Privilege" Being the global hegemon effectively lowers U.S. borrowing costs and domestic interest rates, giving U.S. policymakers and consumers an "interest rate they do not deserve." That successive administrations decided to waste this privilege on redrawing the map of the Middle East and giving the wealthiest Americans massive tax cuts, instead of rebuilding Middle America, is hardly the fault of the rest of the world! Foreigners hold U.S. assets because of the size of the economy, the sustainability and deep liquidity of the market, and the perceived stability of its political system. More importantly, they hold U.S. assets because the U.S. acts as both a global defender and a consumer of last resort. If Washington were to raise barriers to its markets and become a doubtful provider of security, states may gradually see less of a payoff in holding U.S. assets and decide to diversify more rapidly. Investors can interpret Trump's "America First" agenda broadly as an effort to dramatically reduce the U.S. current account deficit. Certainly we see his statements on renegotiating NAFTA, facing off against China on trade, and encouraging U.S. exports with tax legislation as parts of a broad effort aimed at improving the U.S. trade balance. If the U.S. were to pursue these protectionist policies aggressively, the end result would be a massive shortage of U.S. dollars globally, a form of global financial tightening. The rest of the world is not blind to the dangers of an America focused on reducing its current account deficit. According to the reporting of Der Spiegel magazine, Chancellor Angela Merkel sent several delegations to meet with the Trump team starting in 2015! No doubt Berlin was nervous hearing candidate Trump's protectionist talk, given that Germany runs one of the largest trade surpluses with the U.S. (Chart 3). In the last such meeting, taking place after the election was decided, Trump's son-in-law and White House advisor, Jared Kushner, asked the Germans a point-blank question, "What can you do for us?"2 In the 1980s, the U.S. asked West Germany and Japan the same question. The result was the 1985 Plaza Accord that engineered the greenback's depreciation versus the deutschmark and the yen (Chart 4). Recent comments from Donald Trump suggest that he would like to follow a similar script, where dollar depreciation does the heavy lifting in adjusting the country's current account deficit.3 Chart 3Trump's Black List Chart 4The Impact Of The Plaza Accord The Trump administration may have dusted off the Reagan playbook from the 1980s, but the world is playing a different game in 2017. First, the Soviet Union no longer exists and certainly no longer has more than 70,000 tanks ready to burst through the "Fulda Gap" towards Frankfurt. President Trump will find China, Germany, and Japan less willing to help the U.S. close its current account deficit, particularly if Trump continues his rhetorical assault on everything from European unity to Japanese security to the One China policy. Second, China, not U.S. allies Germany and Japan, has the largest trade surplus with the U.S. It is very difficult to see Beijing agreeing to a coordinated currency appreciation of the RMB, particularly when it is being threatened with a showdown over Taiwan and the South China Sea. Third, even if China wanted to kowtow to the Trump administration, it is not clear that RMB appreciation can be engineered. The country's capital outflows have swelled to a record level of $205 billion (Chart 5) and the PBoC has continued to inject RMB into the banking system via outright lending to banks and open-market operations (Chart 6). Unlike Japan in 1985, China is at the peak of its leveraging cycle and thus unwilling to see its currency - and domestic interest rates - appreciate. At best, Beijing can continue to fight capital outflows and close its capital account. But even this creates a paradox, since the U.S. administration can accuse it of currency manipulation even if such manipulation is preventing, not enabling, currency depreciation!4 Chart 5China: Unrecorded Capital Outflows Chart 6PBoC Injects Massive Liquidity To conclude, the world is (re)entering a mercantilist era and sits at the Apex of Globalization.5 The new White House is almost singularly focused on bringing the U.S. current account deficit down. It intends to do this by means of three primary tools: Protectionism: The Republicans in the House of Representatives have proposed a "destination-based border adjustment tax," which would effectively subsidize exports and tax imports. (It would levy the corporate tax on the difference between domestic revenues and domestic costs, thus giving a rebate to exporters who make revenues abroad while incurring costs domestically.)6 While the proponents of the new tax system argue it is equivalent to the VAT systems in G7 economies, the change would nonetheless undermine America's role as "the global consumer of last resort." In our view, it would be the opening salvo of a global trade war. Dirigisme: President Trump has not shied away from directly intervening to keep corporate production inside the U.S. He has also insisted on a vague proposal to impose a 35% "border tax" on U.S. corporates that manufacture abroad for domestic consumption. (Details are scant: His Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has denied an across-the-board tax of this nature, but has confirmed that one would apply to specific companies.) Structural Demands: Trump's approach suggests that he wishes to force structural changes on trade surplus economies in order to correct structural imbalances in the American economy - and in this process he is not adverse to lobbing strategic threats. While he holds out the possibility of charging China with currency manipulation, in fact he can draw from a whole sheet of American trade grievances not limited to the currency to demand major changes to their trade relationship. The fundamental problem for the global economy is that in order to reduce the U.S. current account deficit, the world must experience severe global tightening. Dollars held by U.S. multinationals abroad, which finance global credit markets, will come back to the U.S. and tighten liquidity abroad. And emerging market corporate borrowers who have overextended themselves borrowing in U.S. dollars will struggle to repay debts in appreciating dollars. These structural trends are set to exacerbate an already ongoing cyclical process. As BCA's Emerging Markets Strategy has recently pointed out, global demand for U.S. dollars is rising faster than the supply of U.S. dollars.7 Our EM team's first measure of U.S. dollar liquidity is "the sum of the U.S. monetary base and U.S. Treasury securities held in custody for official and international accounts." The second measure "is the sum of the U.S. monetary base and U.S. Treasury securities held by all foreign residents." As Chart 7 and Chart 8 illustrate, both calculations indicate that dollar liquidity is in a precipitous decline already. Meanwhile, foreign official holdings of U.S. Treasury securities is contracting, while the amount of U.S. Treasury securities held by all foreigners has stalled (Chart 9). Chart 7Dollar Liquidity Declining... Chart 8... Any Way You Look At It Chart 9Components Of U.S. Dollar Liquidity Chart 10It Hurts To Borrow In USD Concurrently, U.S. dollar borrowing costs continue to rise (Chart 10). Our EM team expects EM debtors with U.S. dollar liabilities to either repay U.S. dollar debt or hedge it. This will ultimately increase the demand for U.S. dollars in the months ahead. Near-term U.S. dollar appreciation will only reinforce and accelerate the mercantilist push in the White House and Congress. President Trump and the GOP in the House will find common ground on the border-adjustment tax, which Trump recently admitted he did not understand or look favorably upon. The passage of the law, or some such equivalent, has a much greater chance than investors expect. So does a U.S.-China trade war, as we argued last week.8 How should investors position themselves for the confluence of geopolitical, political, and financial factors we have described above? The world is facing both the cyclical liquidity crunch that BCA's Emerging Markets Team has elucidated and the potential for a secular tightening as the Trump administration focuses its efforts on closing the U.S. current account deficit. Five investment implications are top of our mind: Chart 11Market Response To Trump Win On High End Chart 12Market Is Priced For 'Magnificent' Events Buy VIX. The S&P 500 has continued to power on since the election, buoyed by positive economic surprises, strong global earnings, and the hope of a pro-business shift in the White House. The equity market performance puts the Trump presidency in the upper range of post-election market outcomes (Chart 11). However, with 10-year Treasuries back above fair value, the VIX near 12, and EM equities near their pre-November high, the market is pricing none of the political and geopolitical risks of an impending trade war between the U.S. and China, nor is it pricing the general mercantilist shift in Washington D.C. (Chart 12). As a result, we recommend that clients put on a "mercantilist hedge," like deep out-of-the-money S&P 500 puts, or VIX calls. For instance, a long VIX 20/25 call spread for March expiry. Long DM / Short EM. Mercantilism and the U.S. dollar bull market are the worst combination possible for EM risk assets. We therefore reiterate our long-held strategic recommendation of being long developed markets / short emerging markets. Overweight Euro Area Equities. Investors should overweight euro area equities relative to the U.S. As we have discussed in the 2017 Strategic Outlook, political risks in Europe this year are a red herring.9 We will expand on the upcoming French elections in next week's report. Meanwhile, investors appear complacent about protectionism and what it may mean for the S&P 500, which sources 44% of its earnings abroad. European companies, on the other hand, could stand to profit from a China-U.S. trade war. Chart 13Peso Is A Buy Versus Trump's Enemy #1 Chart 14Peso As Cheap As During Tequila Crisis Long MXN/RMB. As a tactical play on the U.S.-China trade war, we recommend clients go long MXN/RMB (Chart 13). The peso is now as cheap as it was in early 1995, at the heights of the Tequila Crisis, as per the BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy model (Chart 14). While Mexico remains squarely in Trump's crosshairs on immigration and security, the damage to the currency appears to be done and has ironically made the country's exports more competitive. In addition, Trump's pick for Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, has informed his NAFTA counterparts that "rules of origin" will be central to NAFTA re-negotiation. This can be interpreted as the U.S. using every tool at its disposal to impose punitive measures on China, including forcing NAFTA partners to close off the "rules of origin" loophole.10 But the reality is that the U.S. trade deficit with its NAFTA partners is far less daunting than that with China (Chart 15). Meanwhile, we remain negative on the RMB for fundamental reasons that we have stressed in our research. Small Is Beautiful. We continue to recommend that clients find protection from rising protectionism in small caps. Small caps are traditionally domestically geared irrespective of their domicile. Anastasios Avgeriou, Chief Strategist of BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy, also points out that small caps in the U.S. will benefit as the new administration follows through with promised corporate tax cuts, which will benefit small caps disproportionally to large caps given that the effective tax rate of multinationals is already low. Moreover, small companies will benefit most from any cuts in regulations, most of which have been written by multinationals in order to create barriers to entry (Chart 16). Of course, we could just be paranoid! After all, much of Trump's proposed policies - massive tax cuts, infrastructure spending, major rearmament, the border wall - would increase domestic spending and thus widen the current account deficit, not shrink it. And all the protectionism and de-globalization could just be posturing by the Trump administration, both to get a better deal from China and Europe and to give voters in the Midwest some political red meat. Chart 15China, Not NAFTA, In Trump's Crosshairs Chart 16Small Is Beautiful But Geopolitical Strategy analysts get paid to be paranoid! And we worry that much of Trump's promises that would widen U.S. deficits are being watered down or pushed to the background. Yes, we have held a high conviction view that infrastructure spending would come through, but now it appears that it will be complemented with significant spending cuts. The next 100 days will tell us which prerogatives the Trump Administration favors: rebuilding America directly, or doing so indirectly via protectionism. If the former, then the current market rally is justified. If the intention is to reduce the current account deficit, look out. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President marko@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kuri, Research Analyst jesse.kuri@bcaresearch.com Brexit: A Brave New World Miranda: O brave new world! Prospero: 'Tis new to thee. — Shakespeare, The Tempest The U.K. Supreme Court ruled on January 24 that parliament must have a say in triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which enables the U.K. to "exit" the European Union. This decision, as well as Theresa May's January 17 "Brexit means exit" speech, caught us in London while visiting clients. Reactions were mixed. The pound continues to rally. January 16 remains the low point in the GBP/USD cross since the vote to leave on June 23 last year (Chart 17). Chart 17Has Brexit Uncertainty Bottomed? Should investors expect more downside to the pound or do the recent events mark a bottom in political uncertainty? The market consensus suggests that further volatility in the pound is warranted for three reasons: Europeans will seek to punish the U.K. for Brexit, to set an example to their own Euroskeptics; Prime Minister May's assertion that the U.K. would seek to exit the common market is negative for the country's economy; Legal uncertainties about Brexit remain. We disagree with this assessment, at least in the short and medium term. Therefore, the pound rally on the day of May's speech was warranted, although we agree that exiting the EU Common Market will ultimately be suboptimal for the country's economy. First, by setting out a clean break from the EU, including the common market, Prime Minister May has removed a considerable amount of political uncertainty. As we pointed out in our original net assessment of Brexit, leaving the EU while remaining in its common market is illogical.11 Paradoxically, the U.K. stood to lose rather than regain sovereignty if it left the EU yet remained in the common market (Diagram 1). Diagram 1The Quite Un-British Lack Of Common Sense Behind Soft Brexit Why? Because membership in the common market entails a financial burden, full adoption of the acquis communautaire (the EU body of law), and acceptance of the "Four Freedoms," including the freedom of movement of workers. Given that the Brexit vote was largely motivated by concerns of sovereignty and immigration (Chart 18), it did not make sense to vote to leave the EU and then seek to retain membership in the common market. Apparently May and her cabinet agree. Chart 18It's Sovereignty, Stupid! Second, now that the U.K. has chosen to depart from the common market, the EU no longer needs to take as hostile of a negotiating position as before. The EU member states were not going to let the U.K. dictate its own terms of membership. That would have set a precedent for future Euroskeptic governments looking for an alternative relationship with the bloc, i.e. the so-called "Europe, à la carte" that European policymakers dread. But now that the U.K. is asking for a clean exit, with a free trade agreement to be negotiated in lieu of common market membership, the EU has less reason to punish London. An FTA arrangement will be beneficial to EU exporters, who want access to the U.K. market, and it will send a message to Euroskeptics on the continent that there is no alternative to full membership. Leaving the EU means leaving the market and falling back - at best - to an FTA-level relationship that the EU shares with Mexico and (most recently) Canada. Third, leaving the EU and the common market are political, not legal, decisions, and the lingering legal battles are neither avoidable nor likely to be substantive. Theresa May had already stolen thunder when she said that the final deal with the EU would be put to a vote in parliament. The Supreme Court ruling - as well as other legal hangups - could conceivably give rise to complications that bind the government's hands, but most likely parliament will pass a simple bill or motion granting permission for the government to invoke Article 50. That is because the referendum, and public opinion since then, speak loud and clear (Chart 19). The Conservative Party remains in a comfortable lead over the Labour Party (Chart 20), which itself is not opposing the referendum outcome. In addition, the House of Commons has already approved the government's Brexit timetable by a margin of 372 seats in a 650-seat body - with 461 ayes. That is a stark contrast with a few months ago when around 494 MPs were said to be against Brexit. Chart 19No 'Bremorse' Or 'Bregret' Chart 20Tories Still Triumphant The bigger question comes down to the parliamentary vote on the deal that is to be negotiated over the next two years. Could the Parliament vote down the final agreement with the EU? Absolutely. However, it is unlikely. The economic calamity predicted by many commentators has not happened, as we discuss below. Bottom Line: The combination of the Supreme Court decision and Prime Minister May's speech has reduced political uncertainty regarding Brexit. The EU will negotiate hard with the U.K., but the main cause of consternation - the U.K. asking for special treatment with respect to the common market - is now off the table. Yes, the EU does hold all the cards when it comes to negotiating an FTA agreement, and the process could entail some alarming twists and turns (given the last-minute crisis in the EU-Canada FTA). But we do not expect EU-U.K. negotiations to imperil the pound dramatically beyond what we've already seen. Will Leaving The Common Market Hurt Britain? Does this mean that Brexit is "much ado about nothing?" In the short and medium term, we think the answer is yes. In the long-term, leaving the EU Common Market is a suboptimal outcome for three reasons: Trade - Net exports rarely contribute positively to U.K. growth (Chart 21) and the trade deficit with the EU is particularly deep. As such, proponents of Brexit claim that putting up modest trade barriers against the EU could be beneficial. However, the U.K. has a services trade surplus with the EU (Chart 22). While it is not as large as the trade deficit, there was hope that the eventual implementation of the 2006 EU's Services Directive would have opened up new markets for U.K.'s highly competitive services industry and thus reduced the trade deficit over time. As the bottom panel of Chart 22 shows, the U.K.'s service exports to the rest of the world have outpaced those to the EU, suggesting that there is much room for improvement. This hope is now dashed and the EU may go back to putting up non-tariff barriers to services that reverse Britain's modest surplus with the bloc. Free Trade Agreements rarely adequately cover services, which means that the U.K.'s hope of expanding service exports to a new high is probably gone. Chart 21U.K. Is Consumer-Driven Chart 22Service Exports At Risk After Brexit Foreign Investment - FDI is declining, whether for cyclical reasons or because foreign companies fear losing access to Europe via the U.K. It remains to be seen how FDI will respond to the U.K.'s renunciation of the common market, but it is unlikely to be positive (Chart 23). The U.K.'s financial sector will also be negatively impacted since leaving the common market will mean that London will no longer have recourse to the EU judiciary in order to stymie European protectionism.12 This is unlikely to destroy London's status as the global financial center, but it will impact FDI on the margin. Labor Growth - The loss of labor inflow will be the biggest cost of Brexit. A decrease of immigration from the EU could reduce the U.K.'s labor force growth by a maximum of two-thirds, translating to a 25% loss in the potential GDP growth rate (Chart 24). While the U.K. is not, in fact, closing off all immigration, labor-force growth will decline, and potential GDP with it. Chart 23FDI To Suffer From Brexit? Chart 24Labor Growth Suffers Most From Brexit In addition, the EU Common Market forces companies to compete for market share in the developed world's largest consumer market. This competition is supposed to accelerate creative destruction and thus productivity, while giving the winners of the competition the spoils, i.e. a better ability to establish "economies of scale." In a 2011 report, the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) published an econometric study that compared four scenarios: the U.K. remains in the common market as the EU fully liberalizes trade; the U.K. remains in the EU's single market, but does not fully liberalize trade with the rest of the EU; the U.K. leaves the common market; the U.K. enters NAFTA.13 Of the four scenarios, only the first leads to an increase in wealth for the U.K., with 7.1% additional GDP over ten years. U.K. exports would increase by 47%, against 38.1% for its imports. Wages of both skilled and unskilled workers would increase as well. Meanwhile, the report finds that closer integration with NAFTA would not compensate for looser U.K. ties with the EU. In fact, the U.K. national income would be 7.4% smaller if the U.K. tied up with NAFTA instead of taking part in further trade liberalization on the continent. Why rely on a 2011 report for the assessment of benefits of the common market? Because it was written by a competent, relatively unbiased international body and predates the highly politicized environment surrounding Brexit that has since infected almost all think-tank research. And yet the more recent research echoes the 2011 report in terms of the negative consequences of leaving the common market.14 In addition, the BIS study actually attempts to forecast the benefit of further removing trade barriers in the single market, which is at least the intention of the EU Commission. That said, our concerns regarding the U.K. economy are long-term. It may take years before the full economic impact of leaving the common market can be assessed. In addition, much of our analysis hinges on the Europeans fully liberalizing the common market and removing the last remaining non-tariff barriers to trade, particularly of services. At the present-day level of liberalization, the U.K. may benefit by leaving. In addition, we do not expect a balance-of-payments crisis in the U.K. any time soon. The U.K. current account is deeply negative, unsurprisingly so given the deep trade imbalance with the EU and world. However, our colleague Mathieu Savary, Vice-President of BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy, has pointed out that the elasticity of imports to the pound is in fact negative, a very surprising result. This reflects an extremely elevated import content of British exports. A lower pound is therefore unlikely to be the most crucial means of improving the current-account position. Certainly leaving the common market will not improve the competitiveness of British exports in the EU. Chart 25The U.K.'s Basic Balance Is Healthy But this raises a bigger question: why does the U.K. have to improve its current account deficit? As our FX team points out in Chart 25, despite having a current-account deficit of nearly 6% of GDP, the U.K. runs a basic balance-of-payments surplus of 12%, even after the recent fall in FDI inflows. The reason for the massive balance-of-payments surplus is the financial account surplus of 6.17% of GDP, a feature of the U.K. being a destination for foreign capital, which flows from its status as a global financial center and prime real estate destination. In other words, leaving the common market will not change the fundamentals of the U.K. balance of payments much. The country will remain a global financial center and will still run a capital account surplus, which will suppress the country's interest rates, buoy the GBP, and give tailwinds to imports of foreign goods. Meanwhile, exports will not benefit as they will face marginally higher tariffs as the country exits the EU Common Market. At best, new tariffs will be offset by a cheaper GBP. As such, leaving the common market is not going to be a disaster for the U.K. Nor will it be a panacea for the country's deep current account deficit. And that is okay. The U.K. will not face a crisis in funding its current account deficit. What is clear is that for the time being, the U.K. economy is holding up. Our forex strategists recently argued that U.K.'s growth has surprised to the upside and that the improvement is sustainable: Monetary and fiscal policy are both accommodative (Chart 26); Inflation is limited; Tight labor market drives up wages and puts cash in consumers' pockets (Chart 27); Credit growth remains robust (Chart 28). Chart 26Easy Money Smooths The Way To Brexit Chart 27British Labor Market Tightening Chart 28U.K. Credit Growth Looking Good This means that the political trajectory is set for the time being. "Bremorse" and "Bregret" will remain phantoms for the time being. Bottom Line: Leaving the common market is a suboptimal but not apocalyptic outcome for the U.K. The combination of decent economic performance and lowered political uncertainty in the near term will support the pound. Given the pound's 20% correction since the June referendum, we believe that the market has already priced in the new, marginally negative, post-Brexit paradigm. The Big Picture It is impossible to say whether the long-term negative economic effects of Brexit will affect voters drastically enough and quickly enough for Scotland, or parliament, to act in 2018 or 2019 and modify the government's decision to pursue a "Hard Brexit." It seems conceivable if something changes in the fundamental dynamics outlined above, but we wouldn't bet on it. At the moment even a new Scottish referendum appears unlikely (Chart 29). Scottish voters have soured on independence, perhaps due to a combination of continued political uncertainty in the EU (Scotland's political alternative to the U.K.) and a collapse in oil prices (arguably Scotland's economic alternative to the U.K.). The issue is not resolved but on ice for the time being. Chart 29Brexit Not Driving Scots To Independence (Yet) More likely, the government will get its way on Brexit and the 2020 elections will mark a significant popular test of the Conservative leadership and the final deal with the EU. Then the aftermath will be an entirely new ballgame for the U.K. and all four of its constituent nations. If Britain's new beginning is founded on protectionism and dirigisme - as the government suggests - then the public is likely to be disappointed. The "brave new world" of Brexit may prove to be rather mundane, disappointing, and eerily reminiscent of the ghastly 1970s.15 Hence the Shakespeare quote at the top of this report. The political circumstances of Brexit resemble the U.K. landscape before it joined the European Economic Community in 1973: greater government role in the economy, trade protectionism, tight labor market, higher wages, and inflation. Yet this was a period when the U.K. economy underperformed Europe's. The U.K.'s eventual era of outperformance was contingent on the structural reforms of the Thatcher era and expanded access to the European market (Chart 30). It remains to be seen what happens when the U.K. leaves the market and rolls back Thatcherite reforms. The weak pound and proactive fiscal policy will fail to create a manufacturing revolution. That is because most manufacturing has hollowed out because of automation, not foreign workers stealing Britons' jobs. Moreover, as for the pound, it is important to remember that currency effects are temporary and any boost to exports that the weak pound is generating will be short-lived, as with the case of China in the 1990s and the EU in the past two years (Chart 31). Chart 30U.K. Growth To Lag Europe's Once Again? Chart 31Export Boost From Devaluation Is Fleeting In addition, we would argue that, in an environment of de-globalization - in which tariffs are rising, albeit slowly for the time being (Chart 32) - the EU Common Market provides Europe with a mechanism by which to protect its vast consumer market. The U.K. may have chosen the precisely wrong time in which to abandon the protection of continental European protectionism. It could suffer by finding itself on the outside of the common market as global tariffs begin to rise significantly. Chart 32Protectionism On The March What about the restoration of the "Special Relationship" between the U.K. and the U.S.? Could moving to the "front of the queue" on negotiating an FTA with the world's largest economy make a difference for the U.K.? Perhaps, but as the BIS study above indicates, an FTA with North America or the U.S. alone is unlikely to replace the benefits of the common market. In addition, it is difficult to imagine how a protectionist U.S. administration that is looking to massively decrease its current account deficit will help the U.K. expand trade with the U.S. By contrast, Trump's election in the United States poses massive risks to globalization, both through his protectionism and the strong USD implications of his core policies. This will reverberate negatively across the commodities and EM space. In such an environment, the U.K. may not be able to make much headway in its "Global Britain" initiatives to conclude fast trade deals with EM economies that stand to lose the most in the de-globalization era. Bottom Line: As a trading nation, the U.K. is likely to lose out in a prolonged period of de-globalization. Membership in the EU could have served as a bulwark against this global trend. Investment Implications We diverge from our colleagues in the Foreign Exchange Strategy and European Investment Strategy when it comes to the assessment of political risk looming over Brexit.16 The decision to leave the common market will alleviate the pressure on Europeans to seek vindictive punishment. Earlier, the U.K. was forcing them to choose between making an exception to the rules and demonstrating the negative consequences of leaving the bloc. Now the U.K. is self-evidently taking on its own punishment - the economic burden of leaving the common market - and the EU will probably deem that sufficient. Will the EU play tough? Yes, especially since the EU retains considerable economic leverage over Britain (Chart 33). But the stakes are far smaller now. Furthermore, investors should remember that core European states - especially France and Germany - remain major military allies of the U.K. and will continue to be deeply intertwined economically. As such, we believe that the pound has already priced in the new economic paradigm and that the expectations of political uncertainty ahead of the U.K.-EU negotiations may be overdone. We therefore recommend that investors short EUR/GBP outright. Our aforementioned forex strategist Mathieu Savary argues that, on an intermediate-term basis, the outlook for this cross is driven by interest rate differentials and policy considerations. Due to the balance-sheet operations conducted by the BoE and ECB, interest rates in the U.K. and the euro area do not fully reflect domestic policy stances. Instead, Mathieu uses the shadow rates. Currently, shadow rates unequivocally point toward a lower EUR/GBP (Chart 34). In fact, balance-sheet dynamics point toward shorting EUR/GBP. Chart 33EU Holds The Cards In FTA Negotiation Chart 34Shadow Rates Point To Stronger GBP For full disclosure, Mathieu cautions clients to wait on executing a short EUR/GBP until after Article 50 is enacted. By contrast, we think that political uncertainty regarding Brexit likely peaked on January 16. Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President marko@bcaresearch.com 1 While the U.S. runs a massively negative net international investment position, its net international income remains positive. In other words, foreigners receive a much lower return on U.S. assets while the U.S. benefits from risk premia in foreign markets. 2 Please see Spiegel Online, "Donald Trump and the New World Order," dated January 20, 2017, available at Spiegel.de. 3 In a widely-quoted interview with The Wall Street Journal, Donald Trump said that the U.S. dollar is "too strong." He continued that, "Our companies can't compete with [China] now because our currency is too strong. And it's killing us." Please see The Wall Street Journal, "Donald Trump Warns on House Republican Tax Plan," dated January 16, 2017, available at wsj.com. 4 We would note that the Trump administration and its Treasury Department have considerable leeway over how they choose to interpret China's foreign exchange practices. In 1992, when the U.S. government last accused China of currency manipulation, it issued a warning in its spring report before leveling the accusation in the winter report. The RMB did not depreciate in the meantime but remained stable, and Treasury noted this approvingly; however, Treasury chose 1989 as the base level for its assessment, and found manipulation. The Trump administration could use much more aggressive interpretive methods than this to achieve its ends. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Mercantilism Is Back," dated February 10, 2016, and Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 14, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 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. 7 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "The U.S. Dollar's Uptrend And China's Options," dated January 11, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Strategic Outlook, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 Critics, including Trump supporters, claim that NAFTA sets too low of a threshold for the domestic content of a good deemed to have originated within the NAFTA countries. Goods that are nearly 40% foreign-made can thus be treated as NAFTA-made. This is one of many contentious points in the trade deal. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 In 2015, the U.K. took the ECB to court over its decision to require financial transactions denominated in euros to be conducted in the euro area, i.e. out of the City, and won. This avenue of legal redress will no longer be available for the U.K., allowing EU member states to slowly introduce rules and regulations that corral the financial industry - or at least to the parts focused on transactions in euros - out of London. 13 Please see Bank of International Settlements, "The economic consequences for the U.K. and the EU of completing the Single Market," BIS Economics Paper No. 11, dated February 2011, available at www.gov.uk. 14 Please see Her Majesty's Government, "H.M. Treasury Analysis: The Long-Term Economic Impact Of EU Membership And The Alternatives," Cmnd. 9250, April 2016, available at www.gov.uk. and Jagjit S. Chadha, "The Referendum Blues: Shocking The System," National Institute Economic Review 237 (August 2016), available at www.niesr.ac.uk. 15 We were going to use "grey" to describe Britain in the 1970s. However, our colleague Martin Barnes, BCA's Chief Economist, insisted that "grey" did not do the "ghastly" 1970s justice. When it comes to the U.K. in the 1970s, we are going to defer to Martin. 16 Please see BCA Research European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, “May’s Brexit Speech: No Substance,” dated January 19, 2017, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Geopolitical Calendar
Highlights Mexico and China are not the only countries that could suffer from U.S. trade protectionism. Malaysia, Korea, Taiwan and Thailand are also at risk. The global inflationary versus deflationary impact of U.S. trade protectionism will depend on the magnitude of exchange rate adjustments. Currencies will adjust to redistribute the inflationary and deflationary impact of U.S. tariffs and Border Adjustment Taxes between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Go long three-month volatility in the KRW, the MYR and the THB. The Turkish lira has approached our target of TRY/USD 3.9. Investors should book profits for now and reinstate short if the lira rebounds to 3.5 Feature Chart I-1Are Share Prices Discounting ##br##U.S. Trade Protectionism? The odds of a considerable rise in U.S. trade protectionism have ratcheted up since President Donald Trump's victory in early November, yet global share prices have been sanguine about it. Equities have instead focused on the positives of Trump's agenda such as fiscal stimulus and deregulation. Does this mean that the marketplace is overly complacent? One can argue that potential trade wars are a well-known risk, and as such are already discounted in share prices. It is also possible to argue that the equity markets did not fall at all ahead of and following Trump's victory to discount potential negatives from trade protectionism. The only market that has reacted to discount looming trade restrictions is Mexico, specifically the peso and its fixed-income markets. However, the ramifications of U.S. trade protectionism will reverberate well beyond Mexico. Global ex-U.S. share prices have not corrected at all to discount the potential negatives (Chart I-1). Unless the U.S. dollar surges, U.S. manufacturers will likely benefit from protectionist measures. However, U.S inflation and interest rates will rise in this scenario, weighing on equity valuation multiples. Overall, the majority of America's trade partners are at risk. In this week's report, we assess the vulnerability of various EM countries to the U.S. trade assault. U.S. trade restrictions will take the form of either import tariffs, a Border Adjustment Tax (BAT),1 or a mix of both. We conclude that buying volatility of select EM currencies is one way to profit from budding U.S. protectionism. Vulnerability To A U.S. Trade Assault Below we analyze which EM economies are most at risk from U.S. import tariffs and BAT. Given it is impossible to know whether the U.S. will adopt import tariffs, a BAT, or some combination of the two, we evaluate the impact on developing countries from both measures. Import tariffs: To assess each country's exposure to potential import tariffs, we examine the size of export shipments to America relative to that country's GDP. Table I-1 shows that Mexico, Canada, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand have the largest exports to the U.S. as a share of their economy. For Mexico, Canada and Malaysia, we exclude oil shipments to the U.S., as it is not clear whether oil will be subject to import tariffs. BAT: The principal variable gauging a country's vulnerability to a BAT is its trade balance with the U.S. This is because a BAT is both a penalty on imports into the U.S. as well as a subsidy on American exports. Hence, this analysis has to take into consideration not only a country's shipments to the U.S. but also American producers' exports to that country. Table I-2 shows the size of each country's trade balance with the U.S. as a share of its GDP. Table I-1Vulnerability To U.S. Import Tariffs Table I-2Vulnerability To BATs Again, for Mexico, Canada and Malaysia, we exclude the oil trade balance with the U.S. from the calculation. 3. Combined vulnerability ranking. Lack of clarity on trade policy specifics the U.S. is going to adopt means that we may need to synthesize the above analysis, combining the vulnerability ranking on both measures into one. Chart I-2 plots trade balances on the X axis and exports to the U.S. on the Y axis. It appears Malaysia, Mexico, Taiwan and Thailand are the most vulnerable, based on both criteria. Chart I-2Vulnerability To U.S. Import Tariffs And Border Adjustment Taxes Another way to generate a vulnerability ranking is to calculate an aggregate score based on Tables I-1 and I-2 because either import tariffs, a BAT or some combination of the two will be adopted by the U.S. The aggregate vulnerability score is presented in Chart I-3. Chart I-3U.S. Trade Protectionism Vulnerability Ranking According to the overall vulnerability score, Mexico, Malaysia, Taiwan, Thailand and Korea are the most exposed to potential U.S. trade protectionism measures. By contrast, Turkey, Brazil and Chile are the least exposed. Bottom Line: Mexico and China are not the only countries that could suffer from U.S. trade protectionism. Malaysia, Korea, Taiwan and Thailand are also at risk. On the flip side, Turkey and Brazil are the least exposed to a U.S. trade assault. We remain short many EM exchange rates versus the U.S. dollar including the Malaysian, Korean and Colombian currencies, and reiterate these positions today. Traders who are not positioned this way or have been stopped out should consider reinstating these trades (the full list of our currency recommendations). As for the Mexican peso, it has undershot relative to other EM currencies. We have not been bullish on the MXN versus the USD, though in recent months have recommended going long the MXN versus the BRL and ZAR. These trades have so far produced large losses, but we expect the MXN to recover some of those losses on its crosses. Are Trade Barriers Inflationary Or Deflationary? We consider three scenarios: Chart I-4U.S.: Rising Unit Labor Costs ##br##Warrant Higher Core Inflation 1. Without an exchange rate adjustment (U.S. dollar appreciation), import tariffs and BATs will be inflationary for the U.S. and deflationary for the rest of the world. In this scenario, the prices of imported goods will rise in U.S. dollars and U.S. consumers will end up paying for the tariff/border taxes or exporters will see their U.S. dollar revenues plummet or some combination of the two. U.S. manufacturers will become competitive with higher prices of imported goods, and U.S. employment and resource utilization will mount, heightening domestic inflationary pressures. Even though non-energy imports make up only 11% of U.S. GDP, the inflationary impact of trade protectionism will be pervasive. The reason being that it will tighten the resource utilization in the American economy in general, and the labor market in particular. Currently, the U.S. labor market is tight, wages are accelerating and unit labor costs are rising (Chart I-4). Further strength in demand due to potential fiscal stimulus, import substitution, and a further revival of confidence, will lead to even higher wage inflation and an acceleration in unit labor costs. This, along with rising prices for imported goods, will produce higher inflation. That said, it is likely that American consumers cannot handle a drastic price hike in imported goods, so higher selling prices will entail less demand. For the rest of the world, the same scenario will be very deflationary. Countries with large exports to the U.S. will experience a plunge in their shipments to America, income/profit growth will tank, and domestic demand will dwindle. In aggregate, this scenario will be inflationary for the U.S. and deflationary for the rest of the world - there will be meaningful losses in global output. 2. With "full" exchange rate adjustments, the import tariffs and BATs will be neutral for the U.S. and the rest of the world. But for this to occur, the U.S. dollar has to overshoot. Chart I-5Exchange Rates Have##br## Made A Difference In this scenario, imported goods prices in U.S. dollars will remain the same, given tariffs/BATs are entirely offset by a strong dollar. For exporters, their U.S. dollar revenues will plunge but their currency depreciation will restore the value of shipments to the U.S. in local currency terms (Chart I-5). In brief, the "full" currency depreciation will reflate exporter economies in local currency terms. Given that the rate of tariffs or BATs will likely exceed 15-20%, potential U.S. dollar appreciation will need to be dramatic to produce this scenario. In turn, the considerable dollar appreciation will cap inflationary pressures in the U.S. There will be little, if any, impact on global output. 3. With "partial" exchange rate adjustment (moderate dollar appreciation), the impact of tariffs or BATs will be split between U.S. consumers facing somewhat higher prices for imports and exporters who will suffer declines in revenues in local currency terms, though not as much as in the case of no currency deprecation. Consequently, this scenario will be mildly inflationary for the U.S. and modestly deflationary for the rest of the world. Yet, there will also be a small loss of global output - i.e., global GDP growth will be negatively impacted. Odds favor scenarios two and three - i.e., the greenback is set to appreciate, but it is not clear whether it will rise enough to entirely offset the impact of import tariffs or BATs and preclude decline in global growth. Bottom Line: The inflationary versus deflationary impact of U.S. trade protectionism will depend on exchange rate adjustments and their magnitude - i.e., currencies will move to redistribute the inflationary and deflationary impact of U.S. tariffs and BATs. Overall, the U.S. dollar is set to appreciate meaningfully and probably overshoot before topping out. Go Long EM FX Volatility Given central banks outside the U.S. - both in DM ex-U.S. and EM - are attempting to keep interest rates low, odds favor considerable appreciation in the U.S. dollar, or at least a material rise in exchange rate implied volatility. When monetary authorities control interest rates, the entire burden of adjustment falls on exchange rates. In brief, exchange rates have to move a lot - the U.S. dollar would have to overshoot - to prevent a hit to global output. Investors should consider betting on higher exchange rate volatility. In spite of rising odds of U.S. trade protectionism, EM and DM currency volatility has so far remained surprisingly tame (Chart I-6). We feel there is a trade opportunity here, and today we recommend investors go long select EM exchange rate volatilities. Chart I-7 plots the U.S. trade vulnerability score on the X axis, and exchange rate volatility - more specifically, the standardized 3-month implied currency volatility - on the Y axis. According to Chart I-7, it appears that by historical standards, the current level of volatility of MYR, THB and KRW are low when considering these countries' vulnerability to U.S. trade protectionism. Therefore, investors should go long 3-month implied volatility for the KRW, the MYR and the THB. Chart I-6Exchange Rate Volatility In ##br##Historical Perspective Chart I-7Go Long Currency VOLs in Korea, ##br##Malaysia, And Thailand In addition, the volatility in these Asian currencies will rise and the RMB depreciate further. Bottom Line: To capitalize on a potential rise in global currency volatility, traders should go long three-month volatility in the KRW, the MYR and the THB. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Taking Profits On Turkish Shorts For Now In our December 7, 2016 Special Report 2 we argued that the odds of the lira being vigorously defended by the authorities or some sort of capital controls being implemented in Turkey would increase as the exchange rate approached USD/TRY 3.9. Given the exchange rate has come close to that level, we recommend that traders book profits on our Turkish short positions. The idea is to protect profits and capital in the case of capital controls. It is impossible to know whether the Turkish authorities will opt for capital controls, as it is a political decision. Yet, the risk is non-trivial. Furthermore, the rhetoric from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan suggests3 he views foreign investors as the main culprits for the nation's current financial debacle. President Erdogan will not shy away from hurting foreign investors via the introduction of capital controls and create the perception of financial stability. The central bank has been very active in recent weeks. Apart from hiking the overnight lending rate this week, it has recently curtailed liquidity injections into the banking system: Chart II-1Turkey: A Decline in Liquidity Provision On January 10, the Central Bank of Turkey (CBT) announced that it will place borrowing limits of TRY $22 billion in the Interbank Money Market, effectively limiting the volume of liquidity the central bank provides to commercial banks. Given the lira continued to slide, three days later, the CBT decided to move the interbank money market borrowing limit even lower at TRY $11 billion, effective January 16. That said, since January 10, the CBT has injected TRY $9.5 billion, on average per day, via the overnight window, and TRY $27 billion via the late liquidity window, albeit at higher interest rates than at the overnight window. Hence, the CBT has still injected a meaningful amount of liquidity into the banking system, but it has done so at higher interest rates. All in all, the CBT has curtailed liquidity injections in order to avoid further lira depreciation (Chart II-1, top panel). As a result, interest rates have risen sharply (Chart II-1, bottom panel). Yet, it is not certain that the central bank has tightened liquidity enough. Going forward, there are two main risks: either the CBT's liquidity tightening will be too little, and therefore the lira will continue to plunge, or, there will be considerable liquidity tightening, which will stabilize the exchange rate, but cascade the economy into major recession. Both scenarios are bearish for foreign investors holding Turkish stocks and credit. As we have discussed at length in previous reports, monetary authorities can control either the exchange rate or interest rates, but not both simultaneously. The CBT has been trying unsuccessfully to exercise control over both. To stabilize the exchange rate, the CBT has to drastically curtail its injections of local currency liquidity into the system. In such a case, however, interest rates will surge. Continued attempts to cap interest rates entail a further collapse in the lira's value. The only other option is to introduce capital control (i.e. close the capital account) in order to get control over both interest rates and the currency. Higher interest rates are not politically acceptable, as they will push the economy into deep recession. The reason being that domestic credit growth has been enormous in recent years, and higher interest rates will suffocate the economy. Yet not hiking the policy rate, or allowing interbank interest rates to rise, will all but ensure a deeper crash in the exchange rate. With the industrial sector already showing signs of weakness and the consumer sector flat, a decrease in loan growth will send the already weak economy into recession (Chart II-2). Yet, mushrooming money and credit growth, along with very high inflation in Turkey, justify higher interest rates: Local currency money and credit growth is too strong (Chart II-3). Unless these slow down, the lira will continue to decline. Chart II-2Turkey: Economy Is Heading##br## Into Recession Chart II-3Money/Credit Creation ##br##Has Been Too Rampant Genuine inflationary pressures are too ubiquitous: manufacturing and service sector wages have grown by about 20% over the past 12 months (Chart II-4). In brief, such genuinely high inflation, coupled with still low rates, are bearish for the currency. Robust credit and income/wage growth are supporting import demand, and the current account deficit is wide. This is another bearish factor for the exchange rate. In short, the lira has further room to fall. Remarkably, according to the real effective exchange rates based on unit labor costs as well as consumer prices, the lira is still not very cheap, making it vulnerable to further depreciation (Chart II-5) Chart II-4Turkey: 20% Wage Inflation Chart II-5The Turkish Lira Can Get Cheaper Even more surprising, despite a more than 20% depreciation against the U.S. dollar last year, foreign investors' holdings of Turkish equities and government bonds has not dropped significantly (Chart II-6). Finally, bank share prices in local currency terms have risen despite the spike in interest rates (Chart II-7). This entails that this bourse, which is dominated by bank stocks, is not pricing in risks from higher interest rates. Chart II-6Will Foreigners Capitulate On Turkish Assets? Chart II-7Bank Share Prices Have Held Up So Far Investment Recommendations: Currency and fixed income traders should take profits on our short TRY / long USD trade, as well as our short 2-year Turkish bond trade. These have returned a 24% and a 20%, respectively, since January 17, 2011 and June 1, 2016. That said, investors should consider shorting the lira versus the U.S. dollar again if the exchange rate rebounds to TRY/USD 3.5. We recommend equity traders book profits on our short Turkish banks position, which has registered a return of 60% since June 4, 2013. Dedicated EM equity and fixed income investors (both credit and local-currency bonds) should continue to underweight Turkey. Absolute-return and non-dedicated EM investors should minimize their exposure to Turkish financial markets. Stephan Gabillard, Research Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Global Investment Strategy Special Report, titled "U.S. Border Adjustment Tax: A Potential Monster Issue For 2017", dated January 20, 2017, available at www.gis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Turkey: Military Adventurism And Capital Controls", dated December 7, 2016 available at ems.bcaresearch.com 3 President Erdogan, speaking at the 34th meeting with village chiefs at the Presidential Palace in Ankara, said "Everyone already sees and knows the attacks that Turkey has been subjected to also have an economic aspect. There is no difference between a terrorist who has a weapon or bomb in his hand and a terrorist who has dollars, euros and interest in terms of aim. The aim is to bring Turkey to its knees, to take over Turkey and to distance Turkey from its goals. They are using the foreign exchange rate as a weapon". Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations
Highlights Trump's protectionism supercharges our theme of Sino-American tensions. China is at a stark disadvantage to the U.S. in a trade war. China cannot give concessions easily; it may batten down the hatches. Remain short RMB; but go long "One China," i.e. mainland stocks versus Taiwan/Hong Kong. Feature "Life's short span forbids us to enter on far reaching hopes." - Horace, Odes "Of course, you know, this means war." - Bugs Bunny, Looney Tunes President-elect Trump has said he will not designate China a "currency manipulator" on the first day of his presidency, contrary to what he promised during the campaign. Is this a sign that Trump is "normalizing" after the wild threats of his campaign? What are the real risks of a U.S.-China "trade war"? How should investors prepare? Trade War Is More Likely Than You Think BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has long cautioned investors that geopolitical tensions in East Asia were severely underestimated by the market.1 In 2013, we argued that a Sino-American military conflict was more likely than most of our clients dared to think.2 And over the past several years, in one-on-one conversations and in presentations at numerous conferences, we have stressed that tensions in East Asia could imperil the largest trade relationship. Why so alarmist? We have always based our analysis on three key pillars: Multipolarity: With the U.S. in a relative decline, containing China's rise has become a national security issue. The U.S. "Grand Strategy" operates under the imperative that no regional power is allowed to become a regional hegemon, as that would be a stepping stone to global competition. "Pivot" To Asia: The U.S. geopolitical deleveraging from the Middle East was from the start designed to free up more U.S. resources for Asia. While the Obama Administration pursued the pivot cautiously, it was putting the infrastructure in place for a confrontation with China. Regional dynamics: China is surrounded by neighbors that are cautious about Beijing's intentions for geographic, historical, and strategic reasons. They have therefore sought to balance their increasing economic addiction to China with deeper military and political links to the U.S. Chart 1China, Not NAFTA, In Trump's Crosshairs Trump's victory has made markets considerably less oblivious to the risks we have stressed to clients for the past five years. The idea that a trade war might erupt is now widely discussed. And Trump's repeated statements about Taiwan, North Korea, and the South China Sea have awoken some investors to the reality that a trade conflict could spill over into strategic areas, and vice versa. Nevertheless, judging by the ebullient market reaction relative to previous U.S. presidential transitions, most investors think that cool heads will inevitably prevail. They may be right, but from where we sit it is premature - and imprudent - to bet on it. Make no mistake, China, not NAFTA, will suffer the brunt of Trump's efforts to fulfill his protectionist campaign promises (Chart 1). We see 70% odds that a "crisis event" will affect U.S.-China trade patterns in a significant way over the next four years. How Did We Get Here? The Global Financial Crisis caused a sharp break in Sino-American relations: It interrupted the economic symbiosis between China and American households refused to keep re-leveraging, forcing China to become more internally driven economy (Chart 2). With final demand in the U.S. declining, China decided to re-leverage with credit, injecting its existing overproduction and overcapacity with steroids. But this only accelerated China's capture of global export market share, while supercharging the deflationary global effects (Chart 3). On top of its credit policies, China has struggled to internationalize the RMB. So now, it is not only still washing the world with its industrial overcapacity but also inadvertently - or not so innocently - reducing the prices of its goods with the weakening of its currency (Chart 4). Chart 2U.S.-China Symbiosis Has Died Chart 3China's Historic Export Grab Chart 4China Still Exporting Deflation U.S.-China trade disputes have a long history. China's WTO entrance was agreed only with the stipulation that China be treated as a "non-market economy" for 15 years. Punitive trade bills almost passed through Congress in 2005 and 2010-11, for instance, but were held back at the last minute.3 Since 2009, in particular, protectionist policies have emerged. President Obama began his term with an unprecedented use of the authority under Section 421 of the 1974 Trade Act to punish China for "market distorting" exports of car tires, and with protectionist "Buy America" provisions in his economic stimulus package. After that, a sequence of tit-for-tat punitive measures took place affecting a range of goods on both sides, attempted Chinese investments in the U.S., and American companies operating in China. China's meteoric rise, surging trade surpluses with the U.S., and the rapid loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs was the main cause of tension (Chart 5). Americans benefited from China's rise, namely from cheaper goods and lower interest rates, but it caused significant economic dislocations.4 Meanwhile Chinese protectionism discouraged American elites that had endorsed China's rise on the hopes of gradually unfolding market access. Amid the heightened political risks of the global recession and its aftermath, China intensified intellectual property theft, non-tariff barriers, indigenous innovation policies, and cyber-attacks.5 The saving grace, for markets, was that the aforementioned tensions always remained within bounds. The WTO was a mutually recognized adjudicator. Also, the rival American and Chinese commercial authorities played a slow, step-by-step, predictable game, with the punitive measures being mostly proportional. When pressures flared in the U.S., the executive branch stayed Congress's hand; meanwhile China's government could steamroll any internal opposition to its trade policies. No more. Hillary Clinton might have helped contain trade tensions, but the outlook has darkened irrespective of Trump. Notably, American multinational corporations have increasingly decried Chinese protectionism and lobbied for the U.S. government to help persuade China to give them greater market access and a better legal-regulatory climate (Chart 6). As the Obama administration exited the stage in December 2016, the U.S., Japan and others refused to accept China's "market economy" status despite the fifteen-year deadline coming due. This means the U.S. and its allies explicitly wanted to reserve the power to impose anti-dumping duties more easily on China, which is what "Non-Market Economy" status entails (Chart 7).6 China considers this delay an outright violation of U.S. commitments under WTO. Chart 5A Tale Of Two Manufacturers Chart 6American Business Under Pressure In China Chart 7China's Non-Market Status A Liability Further, Clinton had promised to create a special prosecutor for trade disputes and to triple the number of enforcement officers. More broadly, she wanted to continue Obama's "Pivot to Asia" policy that had roiled U.S.-China strategic relations. Bottom Line: U.S.-China trade relations had already turned sour as a result of the divergence of interests following the Global Financial Crisis. China has emerged as a trade juggernaut and the U.S. corporate and political establishments have become far more anxious about it recently. Now Trump has supercharged the situation. Will Trump "Normalize" In Office? With Trump, the U.S. is likely to undergo a "regime change" in terms of how trade policy is conducted - the only question is how long-lasting it will be. U.S. presidents have very few constraints on trade and foreign policy (Table 1). Ignore Trump's statements and look at his team: Incoming Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, National Trade Council chief Peter Navarro, and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer.7 This group, especially Navarro, is stridently hawkish on China and appears ready to bring the full weight of the United States' economic and strategic advantages to the table in order to negotiate a new framework of relations. Table 1Trump Is Not Constrained On Trade Policy The model is the renegotiation of trade relations with an ascendant Japan in the 1980s. And China looks ripe for a crackdown by this yardstick. The penetration of Chinese exports meet or exceed Japan's position at its peak in the 1980s (Chart 8). Meanwhile the RMB has not appreciated nearly as much as the yen had done by this time (Chart 9). Ultimately the two resolved their differences because Japan acceded to major U.S. demands, strengthening its currency after the 1985 Plaza Accord and accelerating financial liberalization. It helped that the two were staunch allies without genuine security tensions (unlike the U.S. and China today). Chart 8China Has Gotten Away ##br##With More Than Japan Did Chart 9Reagan Forced Faster ##br##Appreciation On Japanese Yen From the Trump administration's point of view, the standard trade remedies have failed given that U.S. trade deficits have deteriorated all along. True, China has made considerable structural adjustments in recent years (Chart 10). But relative to the U.S., China has not really changed its ways. In fact, the current account surplus, which has collapsed from 10% to around 2% since 2008, is now roughly equal to the trade surplus with the United States (Chart 11). Chart 10China's Economic Rebalancing Under Way Chart 11China's Trade Surplus With U.S. Indispensable Therefore we do not put much stock in Trump's claim that he will not call China a currency manipulator on day one - this does not signal a "normalization" or softening of Trump's protectionist line. There was always a technical issue with this pledge that made the timing awkward.8 The manipulator charge will remain a Sword of Damocles hanging over China this year and next, but it is also only one tool in Trump's toolkit - and not the most intimidating one either (Diagram 1). Diagram 1Calling China A Currency Manipulator: The Process At a minimum, Trump could easily do what Obama did in February 2009 on tires - simply approve recommendations from his own Treasury Department for tariffs on specific goods. At a more aggressive level, he has the example of Richard Nixon before him. Nixon imposed a 10% surcharge on all dutiable goods in 1971. We would not put it beyond Trump to take arbitrary actions within the four-year term if international economic conflicts heat up dramatically. (We will be especially leery in the lead-up to the 2018 or 2020 elections if Trump's touted deal-making is not going his way.) Congress is not likely to prove a major constraint, at least not at first. Trump's election is a strong signal that the U.S. populace wants more protectionist policies. Congressional Republicans are limited, given the laws empowering the president on trade, and they will face the reality that his electoral strategy succeeded in great part because of voter demand for protectionism in key Midwestern states. Democrats, in these and other competitive states, have to perform verbal gymnastics to oppose Trump's positions on trade that substantially echo their own. And as mentioned, U.S. multinationals are not likely to "domesticate" Trump - rather, they will lobby for relative moderation or tactfulness within his general framework. Bottom Line: Trump is relatively unconstrained on trade policy. We expect his administration to begin with a "shot across the bow" in the first 100 days - a mostly but not entirely symbolic punitive measure against China - and then to seek high-level negotiations toward a framework for the administration's relations with China over the next four years. We expect the initial shot to rattle markets, then for a calming period to ensue, which will give a false sense of security. But given the lack of constraints on Trump, we are not optimistic. What Are China's Options? In a trade war with the U.S., China is outgunned on every front. Its economy is far more vulnerable to a disruption of exports to the U.S. than vice versa (Chart 12). It does not have ready alternatives to the U.S., given that U.S. imports of Chinese goods are roughly equal to Japanese, South Korean, German, Vietnamese and British imports combined. And China is most competitive in goods that the U.S. can easily source elsewhere (Chart 13). Chart 12The Numbers Favor The U.S. In A Trade War Chart 13The U.S. Can Find Substitutes For China Yes, China can disrupt the supply chain for the iPhone, but no, the Trump administration is not going to confuse Apple's interests with what it views as the "National Interest." Certainly China will favor non-American companies - Airbus over Boeing, etc - but the U.S. growth model is not reliant on exports, so it is not clear that the Trump administration will heed Boeing's cries about long-term competitiveness. The states most exposed to Chinese retaliation - Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Louisiana, and South Carolina - will not harm his electoral base. His Midwestern Rust Belt states could suffer, according to some research, but voters there may approve of his protectionist measures and Trump's other economic policies may blunt the short-term impact of Chinese retaliation.9 Looking at major Chinese export categories to the U.S., like textiles, electrical machinery, and equipment, suggests that 30 million Chinese jobs could be affected - perhaps ten times as many as the comparable U.S. jobs at risk from Chinese retaliation (far more than proportional given population). There is one factor that stands in China's favor. The history of trade wars says something different than the raw balance of trade. Like all wars, trade wars seek political ends, and a government's internal unity and resilience can be critical to its ability to bear out the worst.10 Politically, it is not clear that the U.S. has a better stomach for a full trade war than China: The U.S. remains divided - Polarization will worsen under Trump given his low approval ratings, low favorability, narrow popular victory margin, and controversial policy inclinations. Though China-bashing and economic patriotism can win some support, and we do not expect Congress or the corporate lobby to prevent Trump from launching a trade crusade if he wishes, nevertheless we see a fair chance that Trump would lose credibility and be forced to moderate his stance once negative trade consequences began to be felt at home. China is relatively unified - Xi has set himself up to be the "core" of power in the Communist Party in anticipation of worsening domestic conditions.11 It is worth remembering that the original use of the "core leader" moniker emerged in the wake of the Tiananmen Square crackdown when the Western world imposed sanctions on a newly liberalized China and it was forced to retreat into its shell from 1989-1992 (Chart 14). China's leadership wants to make the country less dependent on the U.S., and more autarkic, but is having difficulty imposing austere changes on itself. Trump may hasten the reforms while giving Chinese leaders a convenient "foreign devil" to distract the populace from the pain of restructuring. Chart 14China Rode Out Western Pressure In 1989 The above should not suggest that China wants a trade war, however. Trump is threatening to kick the export leg out from under its growth model at a time when the other leg - investment - stands at risk from domestic credit excesses.12 But the recent case study of Russia and economic sanctions is instructive. President Vladimir Putin used sanctions to blame all of the economic ills that befell Russia on the West, even though the Kremlin was often at fault. That policy largely worked. Bottom Line: China stands to suffer the most economically in a trade war with the United States. Chinese policymakers may therefore choose to ride out the economic costs of a trade war while blaming the U.S. for the pain. But closing its economy today would derail global growth and cause a dramatic spike in geopolitical risk, unlike in 1989. Strategic Spillover Trump's approach is likely to increase geopolitical risk because he wants to use the strategic disagreements plaguing Sino-American relations as leverage to get concessions on trade. The three hot spots are: Taiwan - Tensions with Taiwan spiked when Trump revealed that his administration considers the "One China" policy to be up for negotiation. China has engaged in serious saber-rattling in response, both around Taiwan and in the South China Sea. By linking trade disputes with Taiwan, Trump likely made it harder for Xi to compromise on the former without looking weak on the latter. Trump's negotiating style may work in business, but will not work with China on Taiwan, which is a matter of sovereignty and a clear red line. North Korea - Trump has said North Korea will not manage to test an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM), which it is preparing to do. He is threatening to hold China to account for not curbing the North's violations of UN resolutions on nuclear proliferation and missile development. This would likely mean an expansion of the practice adopted under Obama of sanctioning Chinese entities for dealing with North Korean partners. This situation would likely shake up markets that have normally been able to ignore North Korea. South China Sea - Trump has repeatedly signaled that China has militarized the South China Sea, and his incoming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson suggested that China be deprived of access, a policy that would trigger a shooting war if operationalized. Persistent tensions here are unlikely to go away anytime soon and could spark a diplomatic crisis or naval conflict (if not with the U.S. then with regional players like Vietnam). Thus Trump's administration is likely to make serious demands on China regarding its strategic situation and national security even while demanding an overhaul of trade policies that will force difficult economic reforms on China. Bottom Line: China's political strengths at home make it unlikely to compromise on Trump's major strategic demands. Contrary to adding leverage in trade negotiations - where the U.S. already has the upper hand - using these issues as negotiating tools is likely to cause China to fear for its security and thus become more defiant. Risks To The View The risk to this view would be that the U.S. and China manage to negotiate a new framework and actually improve relations, with the U.S. giving more respect to China's legitimate rights and regional initiatives in exchange for Chinese concessions. But is China capable of conceding significantly on Trump's major demands? RMB appreciation? No. Many commentators have pointed out that Trump's view of the RMB is outdated - the PBoC is now propping it up, not suppressing it. The driver of RMB weakness is China's excessive monetary and credit expansion, weakening productivity growth, domestic investors' desires to move capital out, corporate deleveraging, the need for stimulus, tightening Fed policy, and rising geopolitical risks. While it is possible that the PBoC will defend the RMB to the hilt, the near-term path of least resistance is down, and that sets China on a collision course with the Trump administration. Market access and dumping? Yes. Trump complains that China taxes U.S. imports unfairly and dumps goods into the American market, killing jobs. To appease the U.S., China could take concrete steps to remove non-tariff barriers and open wider investment avenues for U.S. businesses - it has recently suggested it might do so.13 Less likely, it could accelerate overcapacity cuts and reduce subsidies to state-owned enterprises. These moves would fit with its avowed reform goals and strengthen Chinese self-sufficiency in the long run, and Xi's administration likely has the power to do them. China could also improve intellectual property protections and declare a ceasefire on cyber-attacks on companies. All of this is possible, but clearly extremely difficult to achieve. Strategic concerns? Maybe. It is conceivable but unlikely that China could de-escalate matters in the South China Sea and agree to a "freedom of navigation" guarantee for the United States, which is not a party to the territorial disputes. A significant compromise on North Korea would be even less likely, since China is unwilling to move beyond the usual, ineffective management and impose real hardship on the regime for its violations of UN resolutions and improving nuclear and missile capabilities. One impetus for China to concede on these points is that it is fearful of creating instability in a politically sensitive year in which it will oversee a major five-year leadership rotation at its National Party Congress. Trump may deliberately threaten to disrupt the transition in order to extract concessions. Bottom Line: We operate on a constraint-based methodology: Trump has very few constraints on trade policy, China has major constraints on making these concessions, so there is no basis for assuming that the two countries will skip conflict and go directly to a new level of cooperation. Investment Recommendations We remain short the RMB. The currency has fallen by 5.62% since we initiated this trade. The trade itself has suffered a bit since the end of last year as a result of the PBoC's efforts to fight speculation. But monetary expansion sans productivity improvements continues apace in China, and we expect USD strength to persist, so we think there is room for the RMB to fall further. In the near term, however, the USD could experience further pullback as investors start pricing the negatives of the Trump administration. Therefore we are closing our long USD/EUR trade for a 4.55% gain. We remain somewhat positive on China relative to EM - because of the relative unity and centralization of its government and financial resources at its disposal - but we would not recommend investing in Chinese assets in the absolute due to the heightened internal and external risks outlined above. Hence we propose going long the "One China" policy, i.e. long Chinese mainland stocks versus Taiwan and Hong Kong (Chart 15). This enables us to play the fact that mainland valuations are depressed while the global trend of de-globalization and the conflicts within Greater China and with the U.S. are likely to increase uncertainties about Hong Kong and Taiwan. These two are particularly vulnerable to tighter regulations or sanctions from Beijing. Yan Wang, Senior Vice-President at BCA's China Investment Strategy, argues that while there is no case for a clear directional move in Chinese stocks - especially given the ongoing tightening of policies on the property sector - nevertheless they should be favored relative to global equities, given that growth is improving, fiscal policy will remain accommodative, and valuations are depressed (Chart 16).14 Meanwhile our negative outlook on China in absolute terms supports a globally negative outlook on cyclical equities relative to defensives. Cyclicals move with EM in general and China in particular. Anastasios Avgeriou, Vice President in charge of U.S. Equity Strategy, notes that EM performance does not warrant the sharp rise in U.S. cyclicals versus defensives, nor that in globally oriented versus domestically oriented stocks (Chart 17).15 This creates the opportunity for a tactical short. Chart 15Chinese Stocks Are Cheap Chart 16China Trades With Cyclicals Chart 17Go Long The 'One China Policy' Finally, we caution investors about investing in companies with major exposure to China (Table 2). We would recommend that clients short a "China, Inc" Index of the top 20 S&P 500 stocks exposed to trade with China relative to the rest of S&P 500. The "China, Inc" stocks have been outperforming the market for a while (Chart 18). We fear that China may retaliate against some of these firms as the trade war with the U.S. heats up. Table 2'China, Inc.' May Suffer From Trade War Chart 18Short 'China, Inc.' Relative To Market Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President, marko@bcaresearch.com Jesse Anak Kurri, Research Analyst 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Power And Politics In East Asia: Cold War 2.0?" dated September 25, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think," dated October 4, 2013, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see Imad Moosa, The U.S.-China Trade Dispute: Facts, Figures And Myths (Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2012). 4 For prominent research on this topic, please see David H. Autor, David Dorn, and Gordon H. Hanson, "The China Shock: Learning From Labor-Market Adjustment To Large Changes In Trade," Annual Review of Economics 8 (2016), pp. 205-40, available at www.annualreviews.org; Autor et al., "Foreign Competition And Domestic Innovation: Evidence From U.S. Patents," NBER Working Paper No. 22879, December 2016, available at www.nber.org. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Reports, "Reflections On China's Reforms," dated December 11, 2013, and "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Scholars have shown that countries granting China market economy status have subsequently initiated fewer antidumping cases against it. Please see Francisco Urdinez and Gilmar Masiero, "China And The WTO: Will The Market Economy Status Make Any Difference After 2016?" The Chinese Economy 48:2 (2015), pp. 155-172. Technically speaking, the difference in duty rates can be substantial between market and non-market economies; please see the U.S. Government Accountability Office, "U.S.-China Trade: Eliminating Nonmarket Economy Methodology Would Lower Antidumping Duties For Some Chinese Companies," GAO-06-231, January 2006, available at www.gao.gov. 7 Ross has criticized China more heavily since joining Trump; Navarro is the author of Death By China: Confronting The Dragon, A Global Call To Action (Pearson, 2011); together they criticized China in a paper for Trump's campaign, "Scoring The Trump Economic Plan: Trade, Regulatory, & Energy Policy Impacts," dated September 29, 2016, available at assets.donaldjtrump.com. Lighthizer worked on Ronald Reagan's Treasury Department's team that engaged in the tough trade negotiations with Japan in the mid-1980s. 8 The existing statutory procedure, now enshrined in Title VII of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, involves the Treasury Department making semi-annual assessments and potentially initiating bilateral or multilateral negotiations. According to the more or less standard time frame since 1988, any charges of currency manipulation would occur in the April report at earliest, and more likely in the October report or thereafter. For Trump to have designated China a manipulator on day one, he would either have had to issue a simple statement of intent or an executive directive that bypassed the formal foreign exchange review process. 9 Please see Andy Kiersz, "Here's Every State's Biggest International Trading Partner," Business Insider, October 20, 2016, available at www.businessinsider.com. See also Marcus Noland et al, "Assessing Trade Agendas In The US Presidential Campaign," Peterson Institute for International Economics, PIIE Briefing 16-6, dated September 2016, available at piie.com. 10 Serbia "defeated" the much larger Austria-Habsburg in their "Pig War" in the early 1900s, while Ireland won most of its key demands from England despite losing the "Economic War" of the 1930s. Russia's attempts over the past decade to bully Ukraine into submission have not succeeded in achieving Russia's political aims. In each of these cases, a far greater economic disparity existed than currently exists between the U.S. and China, and yet even then the weaker country's popular support, and the willingness of neighbors to exploit the new trade opportunities that opened up, enabled the weaker country to win the political clash of wills. 11 Please see "China: Xi Is A "Core" Leader... So What?" in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "De-Globalization," dated November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see "China unveils new plan to further open economy to foreign investment," Reuters, January 17, 2017, available at www.reuters.com. 14 Please see BCA China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "China: The 2017 Outlook, And The Trump Wildcard," dated January 12, 2017, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "2017 High-Conviction Calls," dated January 9, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com.