Valuations

Japanese stocks have experienced a long stretch of underperformance versus the U.S. since the early 90's. The deflationary macro backdrop and poor corporate profitability are the main underlying factors, although there are many others. More recently, some corporate fundamentals have shifted in favor of Japanese stocks relative to the U.S., but investors remain skeptical, sending Japanese valuations to near all time lows in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. In this Special Report, we take a top-down approach to determine whether Japanese stocks are cheap versus the U.S. after adjusting for persistent differences in underlying profit fundamentals. Our mechanical and fundamental valuation indicators provide an impressive historical track record of "buy" and "sell" signals when the metrics reach extreme levels. The story is corroborated at the sector level. The implication is that there is plenty of "kindling" to drive a reversal in Japanese stock relative performance, but it needs a spark. We believe the catalyst could be a major fiscal push that would be like a "helicopter drop" under the current monetary regime. Unfortunately, the timing is uncertain. A major fiscal package may not occur until the spring. Japanese equities have been a perennial underperformer versus the U.S. for almost three decades, in both local- and common-currency terms (Chart III-1). There was a ray of light in the early years of Abenomics, when the aggressive three-arrow approach appeared to be finally lifting the Japanese economy out of Secular Stagnation. Yen weakness contributed to a surge in earnings-per-share (EPS) in absolute terms and relative to both the U.S. and world. Equity multiples also rose between 2012 and 2015. Unfortunately, Abe's honeymoon with equity markets has since faded. Yen strength, collapsing inflation expectations and weakening business confidence have caused investors to question the upside potential for Japanese corporate top-line growth (Chart III-2). EPS have fallen by 11% percent this year in absolute local currency terms, and are down by 10.7% versus the U.S. In turn, Japanese equities have dropped from the mid-2015 peak (Chart III-3). The decline in Japanese multiples this year is in marked contrast to a rise in the U.S. Chart III-1Japanese Equities ##br##Have Underperformed Japanese Equities Have Underperformed Japanese Equities Have Underperformed Chart III-2A Challenging ##br##Macro Backdrop bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c2 bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c2 Chart III-3Japanese EPS Growth ##br##Has Been Strong Until 2016 bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c3 bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c3 Japanese equities currently appear very cheap to the U.S. market based on standard valuation measures (Chart III-4). However, these ratios are always lower in Japan, except for price-to-forward earnings. Japanese companies generally have a much higher interest coverage ratio compared to Corporate America. Nonetheless, they tend come up short in terms of profitability. Operating margins in the U.S. have typically been double that of Japan (Chart III-5A). Japan's return-on-equity (RoE) has been dismal because of low levels of corporate leverage and loads of low-yielding cash sitting on balance sheets (Chart III-6). Table III-1 shows that Japan has a much larger sector weighting in consumer discretionary and a much lower weighting in technology. Still, the story does not change much when we adjust financial ratios for differences in sector weights between the two markets (Chart III-5B). Chart III-4Japan Is Always Cheaper Japan Is Always Cheaper Japan Is Always Cheaper Chart III-5A...Adjusted For Common Sector Weights Japanese Vs. U.S. Fundamentals... Japanese Vs. U.S. Fundamentals... Chart III-5BJapanese Vs. U.S. Fundamentals... ...Adjusted For Common Sector Weights ...Adjusted For Common Sector Weights Chart III-6RoE Is Consistently Lower In Japan bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c6 bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c6 Table III-1Japanese Vs. U.S. Sector Weights December 2016 December 2016 The lower level of RoE by itself justifies a price discount on Japanese equities. But by how much? Are Japanese stocks still cheap once they are adjusted for structurally depressed profitability relative to the U.S.? This report assesses relative valuation, employing the same methodology used in our previous work on Eurozone equity valuation.1 While many cultural nuances make direct comparison of the Japanese market difficult, investment decisions are made within the scope of the available set of alternatives. With Japanese equity valuations at the lowest levels in recent history, the key question is whether this represents an opportunity to load up, or an example of a "value trap". We conclude that valuation justifies an overweight in Japanese equities (currency hedged), although the fiscal stimulus required to unlock the value may not arrive until February. Mechanical Approach We excluded the financial sector from our market valuation work since analysts use different fundamental statistics to judge profitability and value compared to non-financial companies. We also recalculated all of the Japanese aggregates using U.S. weights in order to avoid the problem that differing sector weights could bias measures of relative value for the overall market. The mechanical approach adjusts the valuation measures by subtracting the 5-year moving average (m.a.) from both markets. For example, the calculation for the price-to-sales ratio (P/S) is: VG = (US P/S - 5-year m.a.) - (EMU P/S - 5-year m.a.) Then we divided the Valuation Gap (VG) by the 5-year moving standard deviation of the VG. This provides a valuation indicator that is mean-reverting and fluctuates roughly between -2 and +2 standard deviations: Valuation Indicator = VG/(5-year moving standard deviation of VG) The same methodology is applied to the other valuation measures shown in Charts III-7A, 7B, 7C, 7D and III-8A, 8B, 8C. This approach suggests that the U.S. market is trading expensive to Japan in all seven cases except for the Shiller P/E. Japan is around 1-sigma cheap on most of the other valuation measures, with forward P/E the highest at almost 2 standard deviations. Chart III-7AMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c7a bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c7a Chart III-7BMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c7b bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c7b Chart III-7CMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c7c bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c7c Chart III-7DMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c7d bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c7d Chart III-8AMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c8a bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c8a Chart III-8BMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c8b bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c8b Chart III-8CMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c8c bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c8c The underlying logic is that using a longer-term moving average should remove the structurally lower bias in Japanese valuations. Standardizing relative valuations in such a way should provide extreme valuation signals that can be used to gauge major trading opportunities. One potential pitfall of using a 5-year moving average to discount the structurally lower valuation of Japanese equities versus U.S. is that it fails to capture an extended period of either over- or under-valuation. For example, the U.S. may enter a bubble phase that does not occur in Japan. The 5-year moving average would move higher over time, eventually giving the false signal that the U.S. is back to fair value if the bubble persists. This is a fair criticism, although the track record of these valuation metrics shows that extended bubbles have not been a large source of false signals. Valuation By Sector We applied the same methodology at the sector level. Due to space constraints, we cannot present the 70 charts covering the seven relative valuation metrics across the 10 sectors. However, we present the latest reading for the 70 indicators in Table III-2, which reveals whether the U.S. is expensive (e) or cheap (c) versus Europe. A blank entry means that relative valuation is in the range of fair value. Table III-2Story Holds At The Sector Level December 2016 December 2016 The sector valuation indicators corroborate the message from the aggregate valuation analysis; over 60% of valuation metrics suggest that the U.S. is at least modestly expensive versus Japanese stocks. The U.S. is cheap in only 13% of the cases, with 26% at fair value. Value measures that most consistently place U.S. sectors in expensive territory are P/CF, P/B and EV/EBITDA. The U.S. sectors that are most consistently identified as expensive are financials, consumer discretionary, industrials, utilities, tech and basic materials. U.S. healthcare received a fairly consistent "cheap" rating while U.S. telecoms were consistently "cheap" or "fair" across all valuation measures. Predictive Value? Having a standardized tool of relative valuation is well and good but multiple divergence between regions is only useful if it translates into excess returns. Valuation is generally a poor timing tool but proves to be useful in predicting returns over a longer investment horizon. Theoretically, forward relative returns between Japanese and U.S. equities should be positively correlated with the size of the gap in their relative valuation metrics. In order to test the efficacy of the mechanical valuation indicator we calculated forward relative returns at points of extreme valuation divergences (in local currency). The trading rule is set such that, when the mechanical indicator reaches positive one or two standard deviations, we short the more expensive U.S. market and go long Japanese equities. Conversely, the opposite investment stance is taken for value readings of negative one and two standard deviations. Forward returns are calculated on 3, 6, 12, and 24 month horizons. Overall, the indicators performed well when the valuation gap between U.S. and Japanese multiples reached (+/-) 1 and 2 standard deviations from the long-term mean. Valuation measures exhibiting the highest returns were P/CF and forward P/E. For brevity, we present only these two measures in Table III-3. At two standard deviation extremes, the mechanical indicator produced a two-year forward return of 84% and 44% for P/CF and forward P/E, respectively. Table III-3 also presents the indicator's batting average. That is, the number of positive excess returns generated by the trading rule as a percent of the total number of signals. For P/CF, the batting average is between 50-60% for a 1 standard deviation valuation reading and mostly 100% for 2 standard deviations. The batting average for the forward P/E ranges from 53-92% for 1 standard deviation, and 83-100% for 2 standard deviations. Table III-3Select Mechanical Indictor Returns And Batting Averages December 2016 December 2016 Presently, all of the indicators are at or above the zero line signaling that the U.S. market is overvalued versus Japan. The valuation metric sending the strongest signal of U.S. overvaluation has interestingly been one of the better predictors of positive excess returns; the forward P/E mechanical indicator has just recently touched the +2 standard deviation level. Given the information provided by our back tested results above, investors are poised to enjoy strong positive returns by overweighting Japanese equities versus their U.S. peers. Fundamental Approach Chart III-9Japan Has A Lower Cost Of Debt bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c9 bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c9 Japanese companies trade at a discount relative to their U.S. peers due to more volatile Japanese profit fundamentals and a structurally depressed RoE. To compensate for structural differences in fundamentals we regressed U.S./Japanese value gaps on spreads in underlying financial statistics such as earnings-per-share growth, the interest coverage ratio, free-cash-flow growth, operating margins, and forward earnings-per-share growth. A dummy variable was used to exclude the "tech bubble" years in the late 90's to early 00's since the surge in tech stocks had an outsized effect on overall relative valuations, distorting the true underlying trend. The fundamental approach used in our previous Special Report comparing the U.S. and Eurozone did not work as well as hoped and we had an inkling that an analysis of Japan versus the U.S. might yield similar results. Once again we were underwhelmed by the results, although some valuation measures did produce decent outcomes. These included P/S, P/B, and P/CF. Unfortunately, fundamental models for EV/EBITDA, P/E and forward P/E either had low explanatory power or had coefficients with the wrong sign. The financial variable that appears most frequently as being significant in our fundamental models is the interest coverage ratio. Japanese firms have experienced a massive reduction in net debt post-GFC, while those in the U.S. have been taking advantage of lower rates to issue debt and perform share buybacks. Weak aggregate demand has dissuaded Japanese corporations from performing any sort of intensive capital expenditure programs and they have therefore been using free cash flow to build up cash reserves on their balance sheet and pay down debt. Not to mention, the more dramatic decrease in borrowing rates for Japanese firms has reduced their interest burden vis-à-vis U.S. corporates (Chart III-9). Chart III-10 presents the modeled fair values along with the corresponding valuation indicator. The U.S. market is expensive compared to Japan for all three models, with the most extreme cases being P/S and P/CF. Chart III-10AFundamental Valuation Indicators Fundamental Valuation Indicators Fundamental Valuation Indicators Chart III-10BFundamental Valuation Indicators Fundamental Valuation Indicators Fundamental Valuation Indicators Chart III-10CFundamental Valuation Indicators Fundamental Valuation Indicators Fundamental Valuation Indicators While the fundamental approach gave results that are less than spectacular, they still corroborate the message given by the mechanical approach. Japanese equities are undervalued compared to their U.S. peers and are reaching extreme levels, even after adjusting for structural trends in the underlying financials. Chart III-11Combined Fundamental Indicator Returns December 2016 December 2016 The next step is to verify the predictive power of our fundamental models. We analyzed forward returns implementing the same methodology used for the mechanical indicators. A (+/-) 1 standard deviation threshold was used as an investment signal to either overweight Japanese equities versus the U.S., if positive, or take the opposite stance if negative. Chart III-11 shows the returns categorized by time horizon and the number of valuation measures flashing a positive investment signal. The results were mixed; strong positive returns occurred when only one or two measures displayed valuation extremes, but excess returns were less than spectacular during periods when all three metrics provided the same signal. This is counter-intuitive, but when analyzing Chart III-10 it becomes apparent that the periods where all three indicators simultaneously entered extreme territory are concentrated in the last two years of history when U.S. market returns have trounced Japan. For periods during which our indicator flashed one or two positive signals, mostly before the past two years, returns were in line with those achieved by the mechanical indicators. Table III-4 shows the probability of success for the combined fundamental approach. Overall it has a batting average lower than that of the mechanical approach, with 60-89% for one signal and 70-86% for two signals. The batting average was generally poor when there were three signals for the reason discussed above.2 Since the beginning of 2015, all three indicators have been signaling that Japanese stocks are extremely cheap versus the U.S. Indeed, relative valuation continues to stretch as U.S. equity prices rise versus Japan, bucking the recent relative shifts in balance sheet fundamentals that favor the Japanese market. Table III-4Combined Fundamental Indicator Batting Averages December 2016 December 2016 Conclusion We are pleased with the results of the mechanical approach. The majority of valuation measures show that investors will make positive returns by overweighting and underweighting Japanese equities versus the U.S. when relative valuation reaches extreme levels. The consistency of these excess returns highlights that the indicators add value to global equity investors. We had hoped that a fundamentals based approach to valuation would have worked better. Conceptually, it would be more intellectually gratifying for company financials to better explain excess returns compared to technical measures. In a liquidity-driven world, this may be too much to ask. Although our fundamental models did not pan out perfectly, they still provided support for our underlying thesis that Japanese equities offer excellent value relative to the U.S. market. These models highlight that Japanese balance sheet and income statement trends favor this equity market versus the U.S. at the moment. Investors have been ignoring the fundamentals, frowning on Japanese equities in absolute terms and, especially, relative to the U.S. The sour view on Japan likely reflects disappointment in Abenomics. This includes not only fears that Abenomics is failing to lift the economy out of the liquidity trap, but also fading hopes for changes in corporate governance that would force firms to make better use of their cash hoards to the benefit of shareholders. All the valuation metrics presented above say that it is a good time to overweight Japan versus the U.S. in local currency terms. Of course, so much depends on policy these days. Our valuation metrics highlight that there is plenty of "kindling" in place for a reversal in relative performance given the right spark. As discussed in the Overview section, the catalyst could be a major fiscal stimulus package. When combined with a yield curve that is fixed by the Bank of Japan, it would amount to a "helicopter drop". Such a policy would drive up inflation expectations, push down real borrowing rates and dampen the yen. This self-reinforcing virtuous circle would be quite positive for growth in real and nominal terms, lifting the outlook for corporate profit growth and sparking a substantial re-rating of Japanese stocks. The timing is admittedly uncertain. A smaller fiscal package could be implemented as part of a third supplementary budget before year-end. A major fiscal push is most likely to occur only in February, when the next full budget is announced. Still, rock-bottom valuations make Japan an attractive market for longer-term investors, although the currency risk must be hedged. Michael Commisso Research Analyst 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Are Eurozone Stocks Really Cheap?" July 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Except for the 24-month column, which shows a 100% batting average. However, this can be ignored. There was only a single episode of three positive signals that occurred more than 24 months ago, allowing a 24-month return calculation.

Highlights Investors are betting that Trump's expansionary agenda will not be torpedoed by his less market-friendly policies such as trade protectionism. We have some sympathy for this view, but believe that investors should remain cautious on risk assets until we receive more clarity on the sequencing of Trump's wish list and how aggressively he will pursue fiscal expansionism relative to trade and immigration reform. We doubt that Trump's fiscal and regulatory plan will place the U.S. economy on a permanently higher growth plane. Many of the growth headwinds that existed in the U.S. before the election remain in place. We expect that Trump will find most common ground with Congress on the fiscal side. It will be difficult, politically, for Republicans in the Senate and House to stand in Trump's way given that he has just been elected on a populist platform. We expect a meaningful fiscal stimulus package to be passed in the U.S. that will boost growth temporarily. We cannot rule out a trade war that more than offsets the fiscal impulse. Nonetheless, Trump's desire for growth means that he may tread carefully on protectionism. A window may open next year that will favor risk assets for a period of time. A temporary U.S. growth acceleration in late-2017/early 2018 would lift the equity and corporate bond boats. Our bias is to upgrade risk assets to overweight, but poor value means that the risk/reward tradeoff is underwhelming until we get more visibility on the new Administration's policy intentions. In the meantime, remain at benchmark in equities, overweight the dollar and below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios. The bond selloff is likely to pause until there is more concrete evidence that Congress will accept tax cuts and infrastructure spending, but global yields eventually have more upside potential. Value and relative monetary policies favor the Japanese and European stock markets versus the U.S., at least in local currencies. We are less bearish on high-yield bonds in relative terms, although we are still slightly below-benchmark. Feature Initial fears that a Trump victory would be apocalyptic for the economy and financial markets quickly morphed into an equity celebration on hopes that the Republican sweep would usher in policies that will shift American growth into high gear. Major U.S. stock indexes have broken above recent trading ranges, despite the surge in the dollar and the devastation in bond markets. Investors are betting that Trump's expansionary policies will not be torpedoed by his less market-friendly policies such as trade protectionism. We have some sympathy for this view, but believe that investors should remain cautious on risk assets until we receive more clarity on the sequencing of Trump's wish list and how aggressively he will pursue fiscal expansionism relative to trade and immigration reform. In the meantime, investors should remain long the dollar and short duration within bond portfolios, although a near-term correction of recent market action appears likely. Our geopolitical strategists argued through the entire campaign that Trump had a better chance of winning than the consensus believed because he was riding a voter preference wave that is moving left. Trump campaigned as an unorthodox Republican, appealing to white, blue collar voters by blaming globalization for their job losses and low wages, and by refusing to accept Republican (GOP) orthodoxy on fiscal austerity or entitlement spending. Chart I-1Big Government Is Only ##br##A Problem For The Opposition bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s1_c1 bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s1_c1 The polarization of U.S. voters and comparisons with the U.K. Brexit vote are well trodden themes that we won't rehash here. The important point is that the GOP now holds both the White House and Congress. The investment implications hinge critically on how friendly Congress is to Trump's policy prescriptions. Many pundits argue that House and Senate Republican's will block Trump's ambitious tax cut and infrastructure spending plan because it would blow out the budget deficit. The reality is more complex. It will be difficult politically for Republicans in the Senate and House to stand in Trump's way given that he has just been elected on a populist platform; it would be seen as thwarting the will of the people. Our post-election Special Report pointed out that, over the past 28 years, each new president has generally succeeded in passing their signature items.1 Moreover, the GOP is less fiscally conservative than is widely believed. Fiscal trends under the Bush and Reagan administrations highlighted that Republicans do not always keep spending in check (Chart I-1). The key pillars of Trump's campaign were renegotiating trade deals, immigration reform, increased infrastructure and defense spending, tax cuts, protecting entitlements, repealing Obamacare and reducing regulations. However, there is a big difference between election promises and what can actually be delivered. It is early going, but our first Special Report, beginning on page 19, presents a Q&A from our geopolitical team on what we know in terms of political constraints and possible outcomes in the coming year. Common Ground On Fiscal Policy We expect that Trump will find most common ground with Congress on the fiscal side. Infrastructure spending has bipartisan support, as highlighted by last year's highway funding bill. Democratic senators and House Republicans have promised to work with the new President on infrastructure spending. Trump is likely to offer tax reform in exchange for his infrastructure plan. Trump wants to cut the top marginal corporate tax rate (from 39.6% to 33%), repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax, and slash the corporate tax rate (from 35% to 15%). His plan also includes increased standard deduction limits and a full expensing of business capital spending. The Tax Policy Center estimates that Trump's tax plan alone would increase federal debt by $6.2 trillion over the next ten years (excluding additional interest).2 An extra $1 trillion in infrastructure outlays over the next decade, together with a growing defense budget, could add another $100-$200 billion to total federal spending per year. The problem, of course, is that few sources of new revenue have been suggested to cover the costs of these policy changes. The Tax Policy Center's scoring of the Trump plan implies a jump in the U.S. debt/GDP ratio from 77% today to 106% in 2026. Other studies claim that the budget damage will be far less than this because government revenues will boom along with the economy. We doubt that will be the case. The outlook for U.S. trade policy is even more nebulous. Trump has threatened to kill the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and potentially place tariffs of 35% and 45%, respectively, on imports from Mexico and China (among other protectionist measures). He has even threatened to take the U.S. out of the WTO.3 These threats are no more than posturing ahead of negotiations, but Trump needs to show his base of support that he is working to "make America great again". Protectionism will probably generate more pushback from Republicans in the House and Senate than Trump's fiscal measures. The Economic Implications Of Trumponomics Table I-1Ranges For U.S. Fiscal Multipliers December 2016 December 2016 In terms of the overall economic impact, there are many moving parts and it is unclear how much the Trump Administration will push fiscal stimulus versus trade protectionism. As discussed in the Special Report, it is possible that the tax cuts will be implemented as quickly as the second quarter of 2017, while infrastructure spending could begin ramping up in the second half of the year. However, we cannot rule out a lengthy bargaining process that would delay the economic stimulus into 2018. We doubt that Trump will get everything on his wish list. Moreover, the multiplier effects of tax cuts, which will benefit the upper-income classes the most, are smaller than for direct government spending (Table I-1). Nevertheless, even if he gets one quarter of what he is seeking, it could be enough to boost aggregate demand growth by up to 1% per year over a two year period. In terms of trade, Trump will undoubtedly kill the TPP immediately following his inauguration to show he means business. The President also has the power to implement tariffs without Congressional consent. It is unclear whether he can also cancel NAFTA unilaterally, but at a minimum he can impose higher tariffs and trade restrictions on Canada and Mexico. Nonetheless, comments from his advisors suggest that president-elect Trump wants stronger growth above all else. This means that he may tread carefully to avoid the negative growth effects of a trade war. Some high-profile studies of the impact of the Trump economic plan paint a grim picture. The Peterson Institute points out that "withdrawal from the WTO would lead to the unraveling of all tariff negotiations and the reversion of rates to the MFN level of a preexisting agreement, conceivably all the way back to the Smoot-Hawley rates that were in effect in 1934." Another Peterson study reported the results of a simulation of the impact of returning to the Smoot-Hawley tariff levels, using a large general equilibrium global model.4 They find that U.S. real GDP would contract by about 7½%, or roughly $1 trillion. Thus, a "doomsday trade scenario" is possible, but it seems inconceivable that Trump would withdraw from the WTO given his desire for growth. More likely, he will settle for higher tariffs placed on Mexico and China. Such tariffs would undermine U.S. growth on their own, but we believe that some recent studies discussed in the press overstate the negative impact of these tariffs. Back-of-the-envelope estimates suggest that the tariff increases would reduce U.S. real GDP by roughly 1.2%, including retaliation by Mexico and China in the form of higher tariffs on U.S. exports (see Box I-1 for more details). The negative shock would likely be stretched over a couple of years.5 Box 1 Importantly, not all of any tariff increase would be "passed-through" to U.S. businesses and households. Studies show that, historically, the pass-through of tariff increases into U.S. prices was actually quite low, at about 0.5. A large portion of previous tariff hikes have been absorbed by foreign producers as they endeavored to protect market share. This means that a 35% tariff on Mexican imports would result in a roughly 17½% rise in import prices from Mexico. A 45% tariff on Chinese goods would result in a 22½% rise in import prices from China. Moreover, the import price elasticity of U.S. demand, or the sensitivity of U.S. demand to a change in the price of imported goods, is estimated to be about 1. That is, a 22½% rise in import prices from China leads to a 22½% drop in import volumes from that country. Roughly one-half of the drop in imports is replaced by purchases from other countries and one-half from U.S. sources. This so-called "expenditure switching" effect actually boosts U.S. real GDP on its own. Of course, this lift is more than offset by the fact that households and businesses suffer a loss of purchasing power due to higher import prices. Chinese and Mexican imports represent 2.7% and 1.7%, respectively, of U.S. GDP. With these figures and the elasticities discussed above, we can calculate a back-of-the-envelope estimate of the impact of the Trump tariffs. The expenditure switching effect would boost U.S. real GDP by about 0.4%. This is offset by the purchasing power effect of -0.7% (including a multiplier of 1.5), leaving a net loss of only 0.3%. Of course, China and Mexico will retaliate by imposing higher tariffs on U.S. exports. This has a larger negative impact on the U.S. because American export volumes decline and there is no offsetting expenditure-switching effect. We estimate that retaliation with equal tariffs on U.S. exports would reduce U.S. GDP by about 1% using reasonable elasticities. Adding it all up, the proposed Trump tariffs on China and Mexico would result in a roughly 1.2% hit to U.S. real GDP. This could overstate the negative shock to the extent that the tariff revenues are spent by the U.S. government.6 Moreover, some studies of the Trump agenda assume that business spending would wither under a stronger dollar, waning business confidence and higher interest rates. We are not so pessimistic. The threat of punitive measures is likely to dissuade some U.S. companies from moving production abroad. Ford announced that it had abandoned plans to shift production of its luxury Lincoln SUV from Kentucky to Mexico. On the flipside, the fear of losing access to the U.S. market might persuade some foreign companies to relocate production to the United States. Such worries were a key reason why Japanese automobile companies began to invest in new U.S. production capacity starting in the 1980s. Moreover, U.S. corporate capital spending has been lackluster since the Great Recession due to "offshoring". Higher tariffs would promote "onshoring", helping to lift capital spending within the U.S. economy. We are not arguing that trade protectionism will be good for the U.S. economy. We are merely pointing out that there are positive offsets to the negative aspects of protectionism, and that many studies are overly pessimistic on the impact on growth. That said, all bets are off if Trump does the unthinkable and cancels NAFTA outright and/or takes the U.S. out of the WTO. The Fed's Reaction The economic and financial market dynamics over the next couple of years depend importantly on how the Fed responds to the Trump policy mix. We are not worried about central bank independence or Janet Yellen's future. Donald Trump has, at various times, both praised and attacked the Fed Chair and current monetary policy settings. A review of the Fed may happen at some point, but we assert that an investigation will not be a priority early in Trump's mandate. Some have raised concerns that Trump could stack the FOMC with hawks when he fills the openings next year. More likely, he will opt for doves because he will not want a hawkish Fed prematurely shutting down the expansion. The studies that warn of a major U.S. recession under Trump's policies assume that the Fed tightens aggressively as fiscal stimulus lifts the economy's growth rate. For example, the Moodys' report assumes that the fed funds rate rises to 6½% by 2018!7 No wonder Moodys' foresees a downturn that is longer than the Great Recession. No doubt, it would have been better if fiscal stimulus arrived years ago when there was a substantial amount of economic slack. With the economy close to full employment today, aggressive government pump-priming could set the U.S. up for a typical end to the business cycle; overheating followed by a Fed-induced recession. Indeed, many investors are wondering if the U.S. is overdue for a recession anyway. The current expansion phase is indeed looking long-in-the-tooth by historical standards. However, the old adage is apt: "expansions don't die of old age, they are murdered by the Fed". In Charts I-2A, Chart I-2B and Chart I-2C, we split the U.S. post-1950 economic cycles into three sets based on the length of the expansion phase: short (about 2 years), medium (4-6 years) and long (8-10 years). What distinguishes short from the medium and long expansions is the speed by which the most cyclical parts of the economy accelerate, and the time it takes for the unemployment rate to reach a full employment level. Long expansion phases were characterized by a drawn-out rise in the cyclical parts of the economy and a slow return to full employment in the labor market, similar to what has occurred since the Great Recession (Chart I-2C). Chart I-2ALong bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s1_c2a bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s1_c2a Chart I-2BMedium Expansions bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s1_c2b bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s1_c2b Chart I-2CA Short Expansion bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s1_c2c bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s1_c2c Of course, the Fed did not begin to tighten policy immediately upon reaching full employment in the past. The Fed began hiking rates an average of 13 months after reaching full employment in the short cycles, 30 months for medium cycles, and more than 60 months in the "slow burn" expansions (Table I-2). Even if we exclude the 1960s expansion, when the Fed delayed for too long and fell behind the inflation curve, the Fed has waited an average of 45 months before lifting rates in the other long expansions (beginning in 1982 and 1991). The longer delay compared to the shorter expansions reflected the slow pace at which inflationary pressures accumulated. During these periods, inflation-adjusted earnings-per-share (EPS) expanded by an average of 25% and the real value of the S&P 500 index increased by 28%. Table I-1U.S. Expansions Can Last Long After Full Employment Is Reached December 2016 December 2016 The lesson is that risk assets can still perform well for a long time after the economy reaches full employment. Admittedly, however, equity valuation is more stretched today than was the case at similar points in past long cycles. Before the U.S. election, the current expansion appeared to be heading for a similar long, drawn-out conclusion. Inflationary pressures are beginning to emerge, but only slowly, and from a low starting point. Moreover, evidence suggests that the Phillips curve8 is quite flat at low levels of inflation. This implies that the Fed has plenty of time to normalize interest rates because inflation is unlikely to surge. However, a sea change in trade and fiscal policy could change the calculus. To the extent that fiscal stimulus is front-loaded relative to trade protection, and that any trade restrictions add to inflation, Trump's policy agenda could force the Fed to normalize rates more quickly. The FOMC Will Wait And See Chart I-3Inflation Expectations Moving To Target Inflation Expectations Moving To Target Inflation Expectations Moving To Target Yellen's congressional testimony in November revealed that the Fed is not yet preparing for a more aggressive tightening cycle. There was nothing to suggest that the Fed is revising its economic forecasts following the election. Similarly, the Fed is not making any upward revisions to its estimate of the long-run neutral rate, which remains "quite low by historical standards." The implication is that the Fed will raise rates in December, but it will keep its "dot" forecast unchanged. The FOMC is prudently awaiting the details of the fiscal package before changing its economic and interest rate projections. We doubt that the Fed will be aggressive in offsetting the fiscal stimulus. We have argued in the past that the consensus on the FOMC would not follow the Bank of Japan and officially target a temporary overshoot of the 2% inflation target. Nonetheless, most Fed officials would not be upset if, with hindsight, they tighten too slowly and inflation overshoots modestly. The inflation target is supposed to be symmetric, which means that 2% is not meant to be a hard ceiling. Moreover, the Fed will be extremely cautious about tightening monetary policy until TIPS breakevens are more firmly anchored around pre-crisis levels. Market-based measures of inflation compensation have surged in the past few weeks, but remain below levels that are consistent with the Fed hitting its 2% PCE inflation target (Chart I-3).9 Investors should continue to hold inflation protection in the bond market. A window may open sometime in 2017 in which improving economic growth is met with a cautious Fed. In this environment, we would expect the Treasury curve to bear-steepen and risk assets to outperform. The window will likely close once inflation moves up and inflation expectations converge at a level consistent with the 2% target. Bond Strategy The implications of Trump's policy agenda are clearly bond bearish, although yields have shifted a long way in a short time. The gap between market rate expectations and the Fed's median expected path has narrowed considerably, both at the long-end and short-end of the curve (Chart I-4). The 5-year/5-year forward overnight index swap rate is now 2.1%, only 82 bps below the Fed's median estimate of the equilibrium fed funds rate. The U.S. 10-year yield has already converged with two measures of fair value, although yields remain well below fair value in the other major countries according to estimates of nominal potential output growth (Charts I-5 and I-6). The fact that the gap between the Fed's dots and market expectations has almost closed, means that a lot of bond-bearish news has been discounted in the U.S. We would not be surprised to see a partial retracement of the recent bond selloff. Investors will want to see concrete plans for substantial fiscal stimulus before the next leg of the bond bear market takes place. Speculators may wish to take profits on short bond plays, but investors with a 6-12 month horizon should remain short of duration benchmarks. Chart I-4Market Expectations Converging With Dots Market Expectations Converging With Dots Market Expectations Converging With Dots Chart I-5Bond Fair Value Method (I) Bond Fair Value Method (I) Bond Fair Value Method (I) Chart I-6Bond Fair Value Method (II) bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s1_c6 bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s1_c6 On a long-term horizon, the Trump agenda reinforces our view that the secular bull market in bonds is over. Larry Summers' Secular Stagnation thesis will be challenged and investors will come to question the need for ultra-low real interest rates in the U.S. well into the next decade. A blowout in the U.S. budget deficit will temper the excess global savings story to some extent. Tax cuts, infrastructure spending, full expensing of capital goods and reduced regulation may also boost the long-run potential growth rate in the U.S. All of this suggests that equilibrium interest rates and bond yields will shift higher. Nonetheless, poor demographic trends and other impediments to both the supply- and demand-sides of the U.S. and global economies have not disappeared. The ECB is likely to extend its bond purchase program beyond next March, while the Bank of Japan has capped the 10-year JGB yield at close to zero, both of which should limit the amount by which yields in the other developed markets can rise. We could even see global yields fall back to near previous lows if the Fed winds up tightening too aggressively and sparks the next recession. Is Trump Bullish For Stocks? Chart I-7Equity Market Breakouts Equity Market Breakouts Equity Market Breakouts Developed country stock markets cheered the U.S. election outcome, presumably betting that the positives will outweigh the negatives. The main indexes in the U.S. and Japan have broken out of their trading ranges (Chart I-7). Bourses in Europe have also moved higher, but have not yet broken out. On the plus side, deregulation and stronger growth are bullish for U.S. corporate profits. Trump's proposal for a major corporate tax cut is another positive for equities, although the effective corporate tax rate in the U.S. is already at multi-decade lows. Cutting the marginal rate will thus not affect the effective rate much for large corporations. Any lowering of the marginal rate will benefit small and medium enterprises, as well as domestically-oriented S&P 500 corporations. On the negative side, dollar strength will be a headwind given that about a third of S&P 500 earnings are sourced from abroad. This raises the question of which factor will dominate profit growth over the next year; better economic growth or dollar strength? Table I-3 presents a matrix of different scenarios for the dollar and economic growth applied to our U.S. EPS model. Our base-case assumptions, implemented before the election, generated 5-6% earnings growth in 2017. We assumed that real and nominal GDP growth would be on par with the conservative IMF forecast. The bullish case assumes that real GDP growth is about a percentage point stronger, with modestly higher inflation. The opposite is assumed in the bear case. These three cases are combined with various scenarios for the dollar. The key point of Table I-3 is that the growth assumptions dominate the dollar effects. If growth is significantly stronger than the base case, then it would require a massive dollar adjustment to offset the positive impact on earnings. For example, our EPS estimate rises from 5-6% in the base case to almost 13% in the strong growth scenario, even if the dollar appreciates by 5%.10 The elephant in the room is the prospect of a trade war. Anti-globalization polices are negative for equities generally, although the boost for domestically-oriented firms provides some offset. As we argued above, higher tariffs on Mexico and China alone would not fully counteract a major fiscal push next year, especially if the trade impediments are implemented with a lag. Nonetheless, a broader anti-trade initiative that draws retaliation from many of America's trading partners cannot be ruled out. This is the main reason why we remain tactically cautious on equities. Table I-3U.S. Earnings Scenarios December 2016 December 2016 Country Equity Allocation In common currency terms, the U.S. equity market has a lot going for it relative to Japan and Europe. There will be spillovers from stronger U.S. growth to other countries, but the U.S. will benefit the most from Trump's fiscal stimulus plan. Continuing policy divergence will prop up the dollar, boosting returns in common-currency terms. The dollar has appreciated by about 4% in trade-weighted terms since we first predicted a 10% rise, suggesting that there is another 6% to go. Chart I-8Eurozone Still Has Lots Of Slack bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s1_c8 bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s1_c8 However, it is a tougher call in local currency terms. Monetary policy will remain highly accommodative in both Japan and Europe. As we highlighted in last month's Overview, we still expect Japan to implement a major fiscal stimulus plan. In the context of the Bank of Japan's fixing of the 10-year yield, government spending will amount to a helicopter drop policy that could generate a substantial yen depreciation. The central bank will continue to hold the yield curve down even when growth picks up, to drive real yields lower via rising inflation expectations. In the Eurozone, the ECB is likely to extend its asset purchase program beyond next March because it cannot credibly argue that inflation is on track to meet the target on any reasonable timetable. While the Eurozone economy has been growing well above trend this year, the fact that wage growth is languishing highlights that significant labor market slack persists (Chart I-8). Easy-money policies in Europe and Japan will be bullish for stocks in both markets in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. Stocks are also cheaper in Japan and the Eurozone. Earlier this year, we presented a methodology for valuing Eurozone stocks relative to the U.S. from a top-down perspective. The methodology accounted for different sector weightings and the fact that European stocks generally trade at a discount to the U.S. This month's second Special Report, beginning on page 27, applies the same methodology to Japanese/U.S. relative valuation. Combining seven relative valuation measures into a single composite metric, we find that both the Eurozone and Japanese equity markets are about one standard deviation cheap relative to the U.S. (Chart I-9). History shows that investors would have made substantial (currency hedged) excess returns if they had favored Eurozone and Japanese stocks to the U.S. on a six-month or longer investment horizon whenever our composite valuation index reached one standard deviation on the cheap side. Our recommended (hedged) overweight in Europe and Japan has not worked out yet, as tepid global growth has instead flattered the lower-beta U.S. market. That tide should turn, however, if the rise in global bond yields reflects a credibly reflationary growth pulse in the U.S. A stronger dollar would redistribute some of that growth to other countries. Chart I-10 shows that higher beta markets like Europe and Japan can outperform the U.S. when bond yields rise. The financial sectors in both Europe and Japan, so punished relative to the broad market as a result of deleveraging and negative interest rates, would then be poised to outperform as well. Chart I-9Equity Valuation Equity Valuation Equity Valuation Chart I-10U.S. Equities ##br##Underperform When Yields Rise U.S. Equities Underperform When Yields Rise U.S. Equities Underperform When Yields Rise Investment Conclusions: Hopes are running high that fiscal stimulus and a more business-friendly regulatory framework will stir animal spirits, rekindle business investment and lift the U.S. economy out of its growth funk. The violent reaction in financial markets to the election has probably gone too far in discounting a transformative policy change. We doubt that Trump's fiscal and regulatory agenda will place the U.S. economy on a permanently higher growth plane. Many of the growth headwinds that existed in the U.S. before the election remain in place, such as: the end of the Debt Supercycle; deteriorating demographics; elevated corporate leverage; and nose-bleed levels of government debt. A lot of good (policy) news is already discounted in equity prices, implying that the market is vulnerable to policy or economic disappointments. That said, a window may open next year that would favor risk assets for a period of time. A temporary growth acceleration in late-2017/early 2018 would lift the equity and corporate bond boats. Markets will front-run the growth pulse (some of it is admittedly already discounted). Our bias is therefore to upgrade these asset classes, but poor value means that the risk/reward tradeoff is underwhelming until we get more visibility on the new administration's policy intentions. Until there is more clarity, remain at benchmark in equities, overweight the dollar and below-benchmark duration in fixed-income portfolios. EM assets appear to us like a lose-lose proposition. A trade war would obviously be disastrous for this asset class. But EM also loses if U.S. protectionism takes a back seat to growth initiatives to the extent that this results in a stronger dollar. EM risk assets have never escaped periods of dollar strength unscathed. The possibility of RMB depreciation versus the U.S. dollar adds to EM vulnerability. Our other investment recommendations include the following: avoid peripheral European government bonds within European bond portfolios due to Italian referendum risk; avoid U.S. municipal bonds, as tax cuts would devalue the tax advantage of muni debt; remain overweight inflation-linked bonds versus conventional issues within government bond portfolios, as inflation expectations have more upside potential; we are marginally less bearish on high-yield bonds since better growth will temper defaults. We also see less near-term risk of a Fed-driven volatility event. Nonetheless, concerns about corporate health still justify a slight underweight relative to Treasurys in the U.S. Overweight investment-grade corporates in Europe versus European governments due to ongoing ECB support; overweight European and Japanese equities versus the U.S. in currency-hedged terms. within the U.S. equity market, remain overweight small caps since Trump's corporate tax reform will benefit small firms disproportionately. Dollar strength also favors small versus large caps. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst November 24, 2016 Next Report: December 20, 2016 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "U.S. Election: Outcomes and Investment Implications," November 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see Jim Nunns, Len Burman, Ben Page, Jeff Rohaly, and Joe Rosenberg, "An Analysis Of Donald Trump's Revised Tax Plan," Tax Policy Center, October 18, 2016. 3 World Trade Organization. 4 Scott Bradford, Paul Grieco and Gary Clyde Hufbauer, "The Payoff to America from Global Integration," Peterson Institute for International Economics. 5 These calculations capture the demand-side effects of the tariffs. There will also be supply-side effects, in terms of reduced productivity, but this will be relatively small and affect the economy largely over the medium term. 6 The elasticities and methodology for these calculations are based on the report; "Trump's Tariffs: A Dissent," J.W. Mason, November 2016. 7 "The Macroeconomic Consequences of Mr.Trump's Economic Policies," Moody's Analytics, June 2016. 8 The short-term tradeoff between unemployment and inflation. 9 Inflation breakeven rates have historically exceeded 2% because of the presence of risk premia. 10 The impact of dollar appreciation on profits shown in Table 3 may seem too low to some readers given that S&P 500 companies derive a third of their earnings from abroad. However, some of these earnings are hedged, while dollar strength will benefit the earnings of domestically-oriented U.S. companies. II. A Q&A On Political Dynamics In Washington In this Special Report, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service answers some key questions posed by clients surrounding the incoming Trump administration. The situation could evolve quickly in the coming months, but these answers convey our preliminary thoughts. What support will President-elect Trump's infrastructure plans have from Republicans in Congress? The support for infrastructure spending can be gauged by popular opinion and the bipartisan highway funding bill passed by Congress late last year. The $305 billion bill to fund roads, bridges and rail lines received support from both parties (83-16 vote in the Senate and 359-65 vote in the House). The dissenting votes included fiscal conservatives and Tea Party/Freedom Caucus members. And yet many of their voters supported Trump, whose victory shows the political winds shifting against "austerity." Moreover, new presidents normally receive support from their party on major initiatives early in their term. Democratic Senators and House Representatives have suggested they may work with Trump on infrastructure spending, most notably Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Chuck Schumer and even Nancy Pelosi. This could mark an instance of bipartisanship in the context of still-growing polarization. The 2018 mid-term elections will be difficult for the Democrats, with 10 Democratic senators facing elections in states which Donald Trump won, including key "Rust Belt" swing states where the infrastructure argument is appealing (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio). Thus, there are political incentives for Democrats to cooperate with the White House on infrastructure. Trump owes his victory to swing voters who favor infrastructure. As we discuss below, he may give the GOP Congress some concessions (for instance, on tax reform) in exchange for cooperation on infrastructure spending. How many votes would he need to get an infrastructure bill passed in Congress? Trump will likely get the votes. He needs 218 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate, assuming his infrastructure plan is not so partisan (or so entwined with partisan measures like his tax cuts) as to draw a Senate filibuster. The GOP has 239 seats in the House and at least 51 in the Senate (Louisiana could make it 52). One way of overcoming any Democratic filibuster in the Senate is by "Reconciliation," a process for speeding up bills affecting revenues and expenditures. Under this process, which requires the prior passage of a budget resolution, a simple majority in the Senate is enough to allow a reconciliation bill to pass. The process can be used for passing tax cuts as well, after procedural changes in 2011 and 2015. If passed, what is the earliest we could expect more spending? Congress passed President Obama's $763 billion stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), in February 2009, the month after he was sworn in. About 20% of the investment outlays went out the door by the end of fiscal 2009 and 40% by the end of fiscal 2010.1 Today, infrastructure outlays are less urgent, as the country is not in the mouth of a financial crisis, but the roll-out could be expedited by the administration. Trump's plan calls for building infrastructure through public-private partnerships, which could involve longer negotiation periods but also faster completion once started. Trump's team claims they can accelerate the spending process by cutting red tape. What is a 'best guess' on the final amount of deficit-financed infrastructure spending? Trump is currently committed to $550 billion in new infrastructure investment, down from initial suggestions of $1 trillion over a decade. A detailed plan has not been released, however. Trump's campaign promised to induce infrastructure spending via public-private partnerships, with tax credits for private investors. The plan was said to be "deficit neutral" based on assumptions about revenue recuperated from taxing the labor that works on the projects and the profits of companies involved, taxed at Trump's proposed 15% corporate tax rate.2 The government tax credit would have amounted to 13.7% of the total investment. Earlier proposals can easily be revised or scrapped. Already, Trump has reversed his earlier opposition to Hillary Clinton's proposal of setting up an infrastructure bank, potentially financed by repatriated earnings of U.S. corporations. His potential Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, raised the possibility on November 16. Who are key players in this process and what are their backgrounds? The aforementioned leading Democrats could become key players, if they prove willing to work with Trump on infrastructure. Comments by Paul Ryan and the Congressional GOP should be monitored, as infrastructure spending was not a major part of their policy platform, called "A Better Way," released in June of this year.3 The only infrastructure that Ryan mentioned in the GOP policy paper was energy infrastructure. Not the "roads, bridges, railways, tunnels, sea ports, and airports" that President-elect Trump has promised repeatedly, in addition to energy. Asked during the Washington Ideas Forum in September whether he supports infrastructure spending, Ryan said it is not part of the GOP's proposal. Other notable personalities to watch: Wilbur Ross, an American investor and potential Commerce Secretary pick, was one of the authors of Trump's original, public-private infrastructure plan. Peter Navarro, UC-Irvine business professor and another economic advisor, co-authored that proposal. Also watch: Steven Mnuchin, Finance Chairman of the Trump campaign and former Goldman Sachs partner, and potential Treasury Secretary pick. Stephen Moore, a member of Trump's economic advisory team and the chief economist for the Heritage Foundation. John Paulson, President of Paulson & Co. Also watch fiscal hawks such as House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California, who has recently softened on infrastructure spending, saying it could be "a priority" and "a bipartisan issue." Representative David Brat of Virginia, another ultra-conservative Freedom Caucus member, who has softened on infrastructure. House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers, and Representative Bill Flores, Chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, could also send signals. Chairman of the House Committee on ways and Means, Kevin Brady, has already admitted that some tax receipts from repatriated corporate earnings may go to infrastructure. Would deficit spending on infrastructure revive problems with the debt ceiling? The debt ceiling legislation is technically separate from the budget process. It is the statuary threshold on the level of government debt. It currently stands at $20.1 trillion. Congress voted last fall to "suspend" the debt ceiling until March of 2017. This means it will come due right around the time that negotiations over the fiscal 2018 budget resolution take place. But debt ceiling negotiating tactics are unlikely to recur in Trump's first year with his own party in control of Congress. Trump and the GOP could vote to "suspend" the debt ceiling indefinitely. Or, the GOP could set the debt ceiling limit so high that it no longer matters in the near term. Where do the GOP and Trump disagree on tax reform? Tax reform is a major GOP demand in recent years; it was also a focus, albeit less central, in Trump's campaign. Both want to flatten the personal income tax structure from 7 brackets to 3 brackets, with 12%, 25%, and 33% tax rates. Trump revised his initial tax plan, which called for 10%, 20%, and 25% rates, late in his campaign to be more compatible with the GOP. In terms of corporate taxes, President-elect Trump proposes a 15% rate for all businesses, with partnerships eligible to pay the 15% rate instead of being taxed under a higher personal income tax rate. By contrast, the GOP has called for a 20% corporate tax rate and a 25% rate for partnerships. How difficult is it to simplify the tax code? It is certainly not easy, but it can be done in 2017 given that the GOP controls both the White House and Congress. GOP leaders claim that a proposal will go public early in the year and a vote will occur within 2017. GOP leaders want a comprehensive law, including income and corporate tax reform, but there are rumors of splitting the two. Income tax reform may take longer to pass because it is more complex. There has not been comprehensive tax reform in the U.S. since Ronald Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986. The Republicans obtained lower tax rates in exchange for a broadening of the base that the Democrats favored. It would be difficult to strike a similar deal next year, given that Republicans seek to slash taxes on corporations and top earners, and Democrats are staunchly opposed. There is likely to be some horse trading between Trump and the GOP. The GOP may use tax reform as the price of their support for Trump's infrastructure investment. Alternatively, Trump could hold out his Supreme Court appointments in exchange for GOP acquiescence on taxes and infrastructure. He could, for example, threaten to appoint centrist justices if the GOP does not play ball on other matters. What are the obstacles and timeline to a repatriation tax on overseas corporate earnings? An estimated $2.5-$3 trillion in corporate earnings are currently held "offshore," which means that taxes on this income is deferred until it is repatriated to the U.S. There is growing bipartisan support for a deemed repatriation tax. This means a one-off tax imposed on all overseas income not previously taxed. Obama, Hillary Clinton, Trump, and GOP representatives have all presented proposals to tap this source of tax revenue. For that reason there are various avenues through which it could be legislated. Trump put forth a plan to tax un-repatriated earnings at a 10% rate for cash (4% for non-cash earnings), with the liability payable over a 10-year period. As mentioned, this could be combined with his infrastructure plan as a way to finance an infrastructure bank or encourage the same corporations to invest in infrastructure development via tax breaks. According to the Tax Policy Center, Trump's repatriation plan would raise $147.8 billion in revenue over 2016-2026. Overall, this is a paltry sum of $14 billion per year. In a similar vein, President Obama's plan called for a 14% rate on repatriated earnings and was projected to raise $240 billion. The GOP offers a different plan from Trump. The party supports a repatriation tax at an 8.75% rate, payable over eight years. The GOP's plan would raise an estimated $138.3 billion during the same period. The GOP proposes to overhaul the entire U.S. corporate taxation system, while Trump does not. The GOP would change it from the worldwide system (i.e. the same corporate tax rate for U.S. corporations on profits everywhere), to a more typical destination-based system, in which U.S. corporations would be exempt from U.S. taxes on profits earned overseas. The latter would reduce the incentive for offshoring and tax inversions, that is, moving head offices outside of the U.S. to take advantage of lower tax rates. The 2004 tax holiday was a disappointment. Findings from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, NBER, Congressional Research Service, and others, indicate that the repatriated earnings did not significantly improve long-term fiscal deficits, boost employment, or increase domestic investment. Will Trump accuse China of "currency manipulation" on his first day in office as promised? It seems likely that Trump will follow through with his pledge of naming China a "currency manipulator." The question is whether he does so through the existing, formal Treasury Department review process or whether he would bypass that system and take independent action as the executive. Adhering to the formal process would show that Trump wants to keep tensions contained even as he draws a tougher line on economic relations with China. The "currency manipulation" charge is a mostly symbolic act that does not automatically initiate punitive measures. The move will not be unprecedented, as the U.S. labeled China a manipulator from 1992-1994. The label requires bilateral negotiations and could lead to Treasury recommending that Congress, or Trump, take punitive measures. The 2015 update to the law specifies what trade remedies Treasury might suggest, but the remedies are not particularly frightful. The options might prevent the U.S. government from supporting some private investment in China, cut China out of U.S. government procurement contracts, or cut China out of trade deals. The latter point, however, will be overshadowed by Trump's withdrawing the U.S. from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a net gain for China since that strategic trade initiative had excluded China from the beginning. The real risk - higher than ever before, but still low probability - is that Trump could act unilaterally to impose tariffs or import quotas under a host of existing trade laws (1917, 1962, 1974, 1977) which give him extensive leeway. Some of these would be temporary, but others allow him to do virtually whatever he wants, especially if he declares a state of emergency or invokes wartime necessity (his lawyers could use any existing overseas conflict for this purpose).4 Presidents have been unscrupulous about such rationalizations in the past. Congress and the courts would not be able to stop Trump for the first year or two if he proceeded independently by executive decree. WTO rulings would take 18 months. China would not wait to retaliate, leading to a trade conflict of some sort. Would Congressional Republicans support punitive measures against China? How would China respond? There are two possibilities. First, Trump is free to set his own executive timeline if his administration makes a special case and he acts through executive directives. Second, Trump could proceed under the Treasury Department's existing timeline. An investigation would be launched in the April Treasury report, leading to negotiations with China. If there is no satisfactory outcome of the negotiations, then the October Treasury Report could label China as a currency manipulator. Under the 2015 law, there would be a necessary one-year waiting period before punitive measures are implemented. But again, Trump could override that. China would cause a diplomatic uproar; it would level similar accusations at the U.S. of distortionary trade policies. China would likely respond unilaterally as well as go to the WTO to claim that the U.S. has abrogated the purpose of the agreement, giving it an additional path to retaliate within international law. China's unilateral sanctions could target U.S. high-quality imports, services, or production chains. Or China could sell U.S. government debt in an attempt to retaliate, though it is not clear what the net effect of that would be. However, China would suffer worse in an all-out trade war. Xi Jinping has been very pragmatic about maintaining stability, like previous Chinese presidents since Deng. He is tougher than usual, but as long as Trump proposes credible negotiations, rather than staging a full frontal assault, Xi would likely attempt to strike a deal, perhaps cutting pro-export policies while promising faster structural rebalancing, to avoid a full-blown confrontation. We have seen with Russia that authoritarian leaders can use external threats and economic sanctions as a way to rally the population "around the flag." Trump's campaign threats, combined with other macro-economic trends, pose the risk that over the next four years China could face intensified American economic pressure and internal economic instability simultaneously. That would be a volatile mix for U.S.-China relations and global stability. But, once in office, it remains to be seen how Trump will conduct relations with China. Most likely, the currency manipulation accusation will cause a period of harsh words and gestures that dies down relatively quickly. The two powers will proceed to negotiations over a "new" economic relationship, highlighting the time-tried ability of the U.S. and China to remain engaged and "manage" their differences. Nevertheless, any shot across the bow will point to Sino-American distrust that is already growing over the long run. That distrust is signaled by Trump's success in key swing states by pitching protectionism, specifically against China. Will Trump's border enforcement policies add to fiscal stimulus? Yes, it would add marginally to the fiscal thrust that we expect from other infrastructure and defense spending. How will Trump approach the deportation of illegal immigrants? Trump will probably maintain Obama's stance on illegal immigration and deportation. Obama has deported around 2.5 million illegals between 2009 and 2015, the most of any president. These are mostly deportable illegals and non-citizens with criminal convictions. Trump stated in an interview on 60 Minutes that he plans to deport 2 to 3 million undocumented immigrants. The execution of this order will be swift as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has already exhibited this capacity under Obama. It is difficult to gage the economic impact of deportation. A study done by the University of Southern California found that undocumented immigrants are paid 10% lower than natives with similar skills in California.5 About half of farm workers and a quarter of construction workers are undocumented immigrants. If this source of cheap labor is removed, the cost for business in these sectors will increase. Are there other policy areas where you see a significant divergence between Congressional Republicans and Trump? Trump and the GOP establishment obviously have an awkward relationship that is only beginning to heal. Both sides are making progress in bridging the gap, but on trade protectionism, infrastructure, immigration, entitlement spending, and foreign policy Trump will continue to sit uneasily with Republican orthodoxy. This will give rise to a range of disagreements, separate from those listed above, of which we note only two here that have caught our attention during the post-election transition. How to deal with Putin: Trump has received renewed criticism from Sen. John McCain over a possible thaw in relations with Russia. This could affect the sanctions on Russia imposed by the U.S. and EU after the intervention in Ukraine in 2014, as well as broader Russia-NATO relations. H1B Visa: Trump is in favor of expanding H1B1 visas and allowing the "best" immigrants to stay in the U.S. once they complete their university education. But his White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has vilified the GOP for doing this. Thus there could be disagreement between the GOP and Trump's team on the issue of highly skilled immigrants. The BCA Geopolitical Team 1 Please see the White House, "The Economic Impact Of The American Recovery And Reinvestment Act Five Years Later," in the "2014 Economic Report of the President," available at www.whitehouse.gov. 2 Please see "Trump Versus Clinton On Infrastructure," October 27, 2016, available at peternavarro.com. 3 Please see Paul Ryan, "A Better Way For Tax Reform," available at abetterway.speaker.gov. 4 Please see 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. 5 Please see Manuel Pastor et al, "The Economic Benefits Of Immigrant Authorization In California," Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, dated January 2010, available at dornsife.usc.edu. III. Japanese Equities: Good Value Or Value Trap? Japanese stocks have experienced a long stretch of underperformance versus the U.S. since the early 90's. The deflationary macro backdrop and poor corporate profitability are the main underlying factors, although there are many others. More recently, some corporate fundamentals have shifted in favor of Japanese stocks relative to the U.S., but investors remain skeptical, sending Japanese valuations to near all time lows in absolute terms and relative to the U.S. In this Special Report, we take a top-down approach to determine whether Japanese stocks are cheap versus the U.S. after adjusting for persistent differences in underlying profit fundamentals. Our mechanical and fundamental valuation indicators provide an impressive historical track record of "buy" and "sell" signals when the metrics reach extreme levels. The story is corroborated at the sector level. The implication is that there is plenty of "kindling" to drive a reversal in Japanese stock relative performance, but it needs a spark. We believe the catalyst could be a major fiscal push that would be like a "helicopter drop" under the current monetary regime. Unfortunately, the timing is uncertain. A major fiscal package may not occur until the spring. Japanese equities have been a perennial underperformer versus the U.S. for almost three decades, in both local- and common-currency terms (Chart III-1). There was a ray of light in the early years of Abenomics, when the aggressive three-arrow approach appeared to be finally lifting the Japanese economy out of Secular Stagnation. Yen weakness contributed to a surge in earnings-per-share (EPS) in absolute terms and relative to both the U.S. and world. Equity multiples also rose between 2012 and 2015. Unfortunately, Abe's honeymoon with equity markets has since faded. Yen strength, collapsing inflation expectations and weakening business confidence have caused investors to question the upside potential for Japanese corporate top-line growth (Chart III-2). EPS have fallen by 11% percent this year in absolute local currency terms, and are down by 10.7% versus the U.S. In turn, Japanese equities have dropped from the mid-2015 peak (Chart III-3). The decline in Japanese multiples this year is in marked contrast to a rise in the U.S. Chart III-1Japanese Equities ##br##Have Underperformed Japanese Equities Have Underperformed Japanese Equities Have Underperformed Chart III-2A Challenging ##br##Macro Backdrop bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c2 bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c2 Chart III-3Japanese EPS Growth ##br##Has Been Strong Until 2016 bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c3 bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c3 Japanese equities currently appear very cheap to the U.S. market based on standard valuation measures (Chart III-4). However, these ratios are always lower in Japan, except for price-to-forward earnings. Japanese companies generally have a much higher interest coverage ratio compared to Corporate America. Nonetheless, they tend come up short in terms of profitability. Operating margins in the U.S. have typically been double that of Japan (Chart III-5A). Japan's return-on-equity (RoE) has been dismal because of low levels of corporate leverage and loads of low-yielding cash sitting on balance sheets (Chart III-6). Table III-1 shows that Japan has a much larger sector weighting in consumer discretionary and a much lower weighting intechnology. Still, the story does not change much when we adjust financial ratios for differences in sector weights between the two markets (Chart III-5B). Chart III-4Japan Is Always Cheaper Japan Is Always Cheaper Japan Is Always Cheaper Chart III-5A...Adjusted For Common Sector Weights Japanese Vs. U.S. Fundamentals... Japanese Vs. U.S. Fundamentals... Chart III-5BJapanese Vs. U.S. Fundamentals... ...Adjusted For Common Sector Weights ...Adjusted For Common Sector Weights Chart III-6RoE Is Consistently Lower In Japan bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c6 bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c6 Table III-1Japanese Vs. U.S. Sector Weights December 2016 December 2016 The lower level of RoE by itself justifies a price discount on Japanese equities. But by how much? Are Japanese stocks still cheap once they are adjusted for structurally depressed profitability relative to the U.S.? This report assesses relative valuation, employing the same methodology used in our previous work on Eurozone equity valuation.1 While many cultural nuances make direct comparison of the Japanese market difficult, investment decisions are made within the scope of the available set of alternatives. With Japanese equity valuations at the lowest levels in recent history, the key question is whether this represents an opportunity to load up, or an example of a "value trap". We conclude that valuation justifies an overweight in Japanese equities (currency hedged), although the fiscal stimulus required to unlock the value may not arrive until February. Mechanical Approach We excluded the financial sector from our market valuation work since analysts use different fundamental statistics to judge profitability and value compared to non-financial companies. We also recalculated all of the Japanese aggregates using U.S. weights in order to avoid the problem that differing sector weights could bias measures of relative value for the overall market. The mechanical approach adjusts the valuation measures by subtracting the 5-year moving average (m.a.) from both markets. For example, the calculation for the price-to-sales ratio (P/S) is: VG = (US P/S - 5-year m.a.) - (EMU P/S - 5-year m.a.) Then we divided the Valuation Gap (VG) by the 5-year moving standard deviation of the VG. This provides a valuation indicator that is mean-reverting and fluctuates roughly between -2 and +2 standard deviations: Valuation Indicator = VG/(5-year moving standard deviation of VG) The same methodology is applied to the other valuation measures shown in Charts III-7A, 7B, 7C, 7D and III-8A, 8B, 8C. This approach suggests that the U.S. market is trading expensive to Japan in all seven cases except for the Shiller P/E. Japan is around 1-sigma cheap on most of the other valuation measures, with forward P/E the highest at almost 2 standard deviations. Chart III-7AMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c7a bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c7a Chart III-7BMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c7b bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c7b Chart III-7CMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c7c bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c7c Chart III-7DMechanical Valuation Indicators (I) bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c7d bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c7d Chart III-8AMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c8a bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c8a Chart III-8BMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c8b bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c8b Chart III-8CMechanical Valuation Indicators (II) bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c8c bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c8c The underlying logic is that using a longer-term moving average should remove the structurally lower bias in Japanese valuations. Standardizing relative valuations in such a way should provide extreme valuation signals that can be used to gauge major trading opportunities. One potential pitfall of using a 5-year moving average to discount the structurally lower valuation of Japanese equities versus U.S. is that it fails to capture an extended period of either over- or under-valuation. For example, the U.S. may enter a bubble phase that does not occur in Japan. The 5-year moving average would move higher over time, eventually giving the false signal that the U.S. is back to fair value if the bubble persists. This is a fair criticism, although the track record of these valuation metrics shows that extended bubbles have not been a large source of false signals. Valuation By Sector We applied the same methodology at the sector level. Due to space constraints, we cannot present the 70 charts covering the seven relative valuation metrics across the 10 sectors. However, we present the latest reading for the 70 indicators in Table III-2, which reveals whether the U.S. is expensive (e) or cheap (c) versus Europe. A blank entry means that relative valuation is in the range of fair value. Table III-2Story Holds At The Sector Level December 2016 December 2016 The sector valuation indicators corroborate the message from the aggregate valuation analysis; over 60% of valuation metrics suggest that the U.S. is at least modestly expensive versus Japanese stocks. The U.S. is cheap in only 13% of the cases, with 26% at fair value. Value measures that most consistently place U.S. sectors in expensive territory are P/CF, P/B and EV/EBITDA. The U.S. sectors that are most consistently identified as expensive are financials, consumer discretionary, industrials, utilities, tech and basic materials. U.S. healthcare received a fairly consistent "cheap" rating while U.S. telecoms were consistently "cheap" or "fair" across all valuation measures. Predictive Value? Having a standardized tool of relative valuation is well and good but multiple divergence between regions is only useful if it translates into excess returns. Valuation is generally a poor timing tool but proves to be useful in predicting returns over a longer investment horizon. Theoretically, forward relative returns between Japanese and U.S. equities should be positively correlated with the size of the gap in their relative valuation metrics. In order to test the efficacy of the mechanical valuation indicator we calculated forward relative returns at points of extreme valuation divergences (in local currency). The trading rule is set such that, when the mechanical indicator reaches positive one or two standard deviations, we short the more expensive U.S. market and go long Japanese equities. Conversely, the opposite investment stance is taken for value readings of negative one and two standard deviations. Forward returns are calculated on 3, 6, 12, and 24 month horizons. Overall, the indicators performed well when the valuation gap between U.S. and Japanese multiples reached (+/-) 1 and 2 standard deviations from the long-term mean. Valuation measures exhibiting the highest returns were P/CF and forward P/E. For brevity, we present only these two measures in Table III-3. At two standard deviation extremes, the mechanical indicator produced a two-year forward return of 84% and 44% for P/CF and forward P/E, respectively. Table III-3 also presents the indicator's batting average. That is, the number of positive excess returns generated by the trading rule as a percent of the total number of signals. For P/CF, the batting average is between 50-60% for a 1 standard deviation valuation reading and mostly 100% for 2 standard deviations. The batting average for the forward P/E ranges from 53-92% for 1 standard deviation, and 83-100% for 2 standard deviations. Table III-3Select Mechanical Indictor Returns And Batting Averages December 2016 December 2016 Presently, all of the indicators are at or above the zero line signaling that the U.S. market is overvalued versus Japan. The valuation metric sending the strongest signal of U.S. overvaluation has interestingly been one of the better predictors of positive excess returns; the forward P/E mechanical indicator has just recently touched the +2 standard deviation level. Given the information provided by our back tested results above, investors are poised to enjoy strong positive returns by overweighting Japanese equities versus their U.S. peers. Fundamental Approach Chart III-9Japan Has A Lower Cost Of Debt bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c9 bca.bca_mp_2016_12_01_s3_c9 Japanese companies trade at a discount relative to their U.S. peers due to more volatile Japanese profit fundamentals and a structurally depressed RoE. To compensate for structural differences in fundamentals we regressed U.S./Japanese value gaps on spreads in underlying financial statistics such as earnings-per-share growth, the interest coverage ratio, free-cash-flow growth, operating margins, and forward earnings-per-share growth. A dummy variable was used to exclude the "tech bubble" years in the late 90's to early 00's since the surge in tech stocks had an outsized effect on overall relative valuations, distorting the true underlying trend. The fundamental approach used in our previous Special Report comparing the U.S. and Eurozone did not work as well as hoped and we had an inkling that an analysis of Japan versus the U.S. might yield similar results. Once again we were underwhelmed by the results, although some valuation measures did produce decent outcomes. These included P/S, P/B, and P/CF. Unfortunately, fundamental models for EV/EBITDA, P/E and forward P/E either had low explanatory power or had coefficients with the wrong sign. The financial variable that appears most frequently as being significant in our fundamental models is the interest coverage ratio. Japanese firms have experienced a massive reduction in net debt post-GFC, while those in the U.S. have been taking advantage of lower rates to issue debt and perform share buybacks. Weak aggregate demand has dissuaded Japanese corporations from performing any sort of intensive capital expenditure programs and they have therefore been using free cash flow to build up cash reserves on their balance sheet and pay down debt. Not to mention, the more dramatic decrease in borrowing rates for Japanese firms has reduced their interest burden vis-à-vis U.S. corporates (Chart III-9). Chart III-10 presents the modeled fair values along with the corresponding valuation indicator. The U.S. market is expensive compared to Japan for all three models, with the most extreme cases being P/S and P/CF. Chart III-10AFundamental Valuation Indicators Fundamental Valuation Indicators Fundamental Valuation Indicators Chart III-10BFundamental Valuation Indicators Fundamental Valuation Indicators Fundamental Valuation Indicators Chart III-10CFundamental Valuation Indicators Fundamental Valuation Indicators Fundamental Valuation Indicators While the fundamental approach gave results that are less than spectacular, they still corroborate the message given by the mechanical approach. Japanese equities are undervalued compared to their U.S. peers and are reaching extreme levels, even after adjusting for structural trends in the underlying financials. Chart III-11Combined Fundamental Indicator Returns December 2016 December 2016 The next step is to verify the predictive power of our fundamental models. We analyzed forward returns implementing the same methodology used for the mechanical indicators. A (+/-) 1 standard deviation threshold was used as an investment signal to either overweight Japanese equities versus the U.S., if positive, or take the opposite stance if negative. Chart III-11 shows the returns categorized by time horizon and the number of valuation measures flashing a positive investment signal. The results were mixed; strong positive returns occurred when only one or two measures displayed valuation extremes, but excess returns were less than spectacular during periods when all three metrics provided the same signal. This is counter-intuitive, but when analyzing Chart III-10 it becomes apparent that the periods where all three indicators simultaneously entered extreme territory are concentrated in the last two years of history when U.S. market returns have trounced Japan. For periods during which our indicator flashed one or two positive signals, mostly before the past two years, returns were in line with those achieved by the mechanical indicators. Table III-4 shows the probability of success for the combined fundamental approach. Overall it has a batting average lower than that of the mechanical approach, with 60-89% for one signal and 70-86% for two signals. The batting average was generally poor when there were three signals for the reason discussed above.2 Since the beginning of 2015, all three indicators have been signaling that Japanese stocks are extremely cheap versus the U.S. Indeed, relative valuation continues to stretch as U.S. equity prices rise versus Japan, bucking the recent relative shifts in balance sheet fundamentals that favor the Japanese market. Table III-4Combined Fundamental Indicator Batting Averages December 2016 December 2016 Conclusion We are pleased with the results of the mechanical approach. The majority of valuation measures show that investors will make positive returns by overweighting and underweighting Japanese equities versus the U.S. when relative valuation reaches extreme levels. The consistency of these excess returns highlights that the indicators add value to global equity investors. We had hoped that a fundamentals based approach to valuation would have worked better. Conceptually, it would be more intellectually gratifying for company financials to better explain excess returns compared to technical measures. In a liquidity-driven world, this may be too much to ask. Although our fundamental models did not pan out perfectly, they still provided support for our underlying thesis that Japanese equities offer excellent value relative to the U.S. market. These models highlight that Japanese balance sheet and income statement trends favor this equity market versus the U.S. at the moment. Investors have been ignoring the fundamentals, frowning on Japanese equities in absolute terms and, especially, relative to the U.S. The sour view on Japan likely reflects disappointment in Abenomics. This includes not only fears that Abenomics is failing to lift the economy out of the liquidity trap, but also fading hopes for changes in corporate governance that would force firms to make better use of their cash hoards to the benefit of shareholders. All the valuation metrics presented above say that it is a good time to overweight Japan versus the U.S. in local currency terms. Of course, so much depends on policy these days. Our valuation metrics highlight that there is plenty of "kindling" in place for a reversal in relative performance given the right spark. As discussed in the Overview section, the catalyst could be a major fiscal stimulus package. When combined with a yield curve that is fixed by the Bank of Japan, it would amount to a "helicopter drop". Such a policy would drive up inflation expectations, push down real borrowing rates and dampen the yen. This self-reinforcing virtuous circle would be quite positive for growth in real and nominal terms, lifting the outlook for corporate profit growth and sparking a substantial re-rating of Japanese stocks. The timing is admittedly uncertain. A smaller fiscal package could be implemented as part of a third supplementary budget before year-end. A major fiscal push is most likely to occur only in February, when the next full budget is announced. Still, rock-bottom valuations make Japan an attractive market for longer-term investors, although the currency risk must be hedged. Michael Commisso Research Analyst 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Are Eurozone Stocks Really Cheap?" July 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Except for the 24-month column, which shows a 100% batting average. However, this can be ignored. There was only a single episode of three positive signals that occurred more than 24 months ago, allowing a 24-month return calculation.

Highlights A central bank cannot control/target the quantity and price of money simultaneously. For the past few years, China's central bank has silently moved away from controlling money growth toward targeting interest rates. As such, the reserve requirements imposed on banks have not and will not be a constraint on Chinese commercial banks' ability to lend and create money if the PBoC continues to supply banks with reserves "on demand." China's banks have created too many RMBs (broad money/deposits) and the PBoC has accommodated them. Such enormous supply of RMBs and mainland households' and companies' desire to get rid of their RMBs will lead to further yuan depreciation. Continue shorting the RMB and Asian currencies versus the U.S. dollar. Re-instate a short Colombian peso trade; this time against an equal-weighted basket of the U.S. dollar and the Russian ruble. Feature Following our October 26 Special Report titled, "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses",1 some clients have asked us how our analysis squares with fact that the People's Bank of China (PBoC) conducts its monetary policy using a reserve requirement ratio. The relevant question being, why would the PBoC's reserve requirements not limit commercial banks' ability to create money/credit? In that Special Report, we wrote: "A commercial bank is not constrained in loan origination by its reserves at the central bank if the latter supplies liquidity (reserves) to commercial banks "on demand." Given PBoC lending to banks has surged 5.5-fold over last three years (Chart I-1), we concluded that the reserve requirement ratio had, for all intents and purposes, lost its meaning in China. In this week's report we elaborate on this issue in detail. The main implication of our analysis today reinforces our conclusion from the previous report: namely, China's commercial banks have expanded credit enormously, and the PBoC has accommodated it. With respect to financial market implications, there are simply too many RMBs (broad money/deposits) in the system (Chart I-2). Chinese households and companies can instinctively sense this, and are opting to move their wealth into real assets, such as real estate, or foreign currencies. Hence, the oversupply of RMBs will continue to weigh on China's exchange rate, which will depreciate much further. We expect the US$/CNY to reach 7.8-8 over the next 12 months. Chart I-1The PBoC Has Provided Banks With Liquidity 'On Demand' bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s1_c1 bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s1_c1 Chart I-2There Are Too Many RMBs Floating Around bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s1_c2 bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s1_c2 Targeting Either The Quantity Or The Price Of Money Any central bank can target and control either the quantity of money or the price of money, but not both simultaneously. This holds true for any monopolist supplier of any good/service that does not have control over the demand curve. A demand curve for money is the function that ties the quantity demanded at various price points (the price being interest rates). Central banks - being monopolist suppliers of money, but unable to control money demand - must choose between controlling either the quantity of money or the price of money. The system of required reserves (RR) is a tool to control money supply (the quantity of money). When central banks reinforce the RR ratio, interbank interest rates typically swing enormously and often deviate considerably from the target policy rate (Chart 1). For example, when commercial banks expand loans too much and lack sufficient reserves at the central bank, they must borrow from the interbank market and thereby bid up interbank rates- i.e., short-term interest rates rise. This in turn restrains credit demand or the willingness to lend, and eventually reduces money growth. The opposite also holds true. When a central bank wants to target interest rates (the price of money), it cannot control money supply. To ensure that interbank/money market rates stay close to the policy rate - i.e., to reinforce its interest rate target - a central bank should provide the banking system with reserves "on demand." In other words, when interbank rates rise above the target policy rate, a central bank should inject sufficient liquidity into the system to bring interest rates down. Similarly, when interbank rates fall below the target policy rate, a central bank should withdraw enough liquidity from the banking system to assure interbank rates rise converging to its target policy rate. By supplying commercial banks with reserves (high powered money) "on demand" - i.e., providing as much reserves as they need - a central bank is de facto failing to enforce reserve requirements. As such, the central bank is giving up control over money creation. By and large, RRs lose their effectiveness if a central bank provides commercial banks with as much reserves as they request. In short, when a central bank opts for targeting interest rates, it cannot steer monetary aggregates - i.e., RRs and RR ratios lose their meaning. In the 1970s and 1980s, most central banks in advanced countries targeted money supply to achieve their policy goals such as inflation and sustainable economic growth. However, starting in the early 1990s, developed nations' central banks (the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the Bank of Canada, the Swiss National Bank and others) began to move away from controlling money supply (monetary aggregates) and toward targeting interest rates. Individual banks' limitations to borrow from the central bank often rests with the availability of collateral. So long as a commercial bank has eligible collateral (often government bonds), it can access central bank funding. This is true for Chinese commercial banks too. Bottom Line: Monetary authorities cannot control/target the quantity and price of money simultaneously. The Money Multiplier In An Interest Rate Targeting System When a central bank opts for targeting interest rates, commercial banks can originate an unlimited amount of loans and demand the central bank provide additional reserves, as long as they have eligible collateral. This corroborates our point from our previous report that a commercial bank's loan origination is not constrained by its reserves at the central bank if the latter supplies liquidity (reserves) "on demand." In a fractional reserve system, the ability of commercial banks to create loans/money is defined by a money multiplier. A potential ceiling for a money multiplier (MM) is calculated as: MM = (1 / RR ratio) For example, when the RR ratio is 10%: The money multiplier MM = (1 / 0.1) = 10 In effect, the banking system can create up to 10 times more money/loans/deposits per one dollar of reserves. Under the current system of interest rate targeting – which has prevailed among most developed countries since the early 1990s and more recently in China (more on China below) – we can think of the RR ratio as heading towards zero because central banks provide banks with almost unlimited liquidity (reserves). The RR ratio is not zero because there are still limitations on banks' ability to borrow from central banks due the availability (or lack thereof) of eligible collateral or compliance with Basel III requirements. Yet as the RR ratio gets smaller in size, its reciprocal (1 / RR ratio) becomes very large (not infinite, but a plausibly very large number). Overall, when a central bank targets interest rates, the ceiling of the money multiplier is not set by the central bank. Rather, the money multiplier is de facto determined by commercial banks' willingness to originate loans. Thus, the money multiplier can potentially be very high when animal spirits among bankers and borrowers run wild. Consequently, the points discussed in our Special Report titled, "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses"2 - namely that commercial banks create loans/money/deposits out of thin air - holds, and is relevant in a system where central banks target/control interest rates. Bottom Line: When central banks opt to control short-term interest rates, they must provide commercial banks with as much liquidity as the latter demands. In such a case, RRs and the RR ratio become almost irrelevant. Therefore, in an interest rate targeting system, banks' ability to originate loans/create money and deposits is not contingent on their reserves at the central bank. This point is greatly relevant to China. The PBoC: Shifting From Money To Interest Rate Targeting For the past few years, China’s central bank has silently moved away from controlling money growth to targeting interest rates. As a result, nowadays the PBoC has very little quantitative control over money/credit creation by commercial banks or the money multiplier. It is Chinese commercial banks that effectively drive money/credit/deposit creation. Chart I-3SHIBOR Crises In 2013 Forced PBoC ##br##To Start Targeting Interest Rates bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s1_c3 bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s1_c3 We suspect this shift in China's monetary policy management has been occurring since early 2014 on the heels of the so-called SHIBOR crisis, which erupted in June 2013 when interbank rates surged and was followed by another spike in interbank rates in December 2013 (Chart I-3). During these episodes, the PBoC enforced reserve requirements and thus did not provide liquidity to banks that were running short on it. In essence, it did whatever a central bank targeting money growth via control over RR would do. However, as interbank rates surged and banks complained, policymakers backed off, and provided banks with as much liquidity as they demanded. This stabilized interbank rates and, importantly, appears to have marked the PBoC's shift toward interest rate targeting. Thus, by de facto moving to a monetary system of targeting interest rates, the PBoC cannot effectively reinforce reserve requirements because it must supply any amount of reserves that commercial banks require to preclude a major spike in interbank rates. A few points illustrate that in fact the PBoC has been targeting short-term money market rates, and banks have expanded loans enormously despite their excess reserves being flat: Volatility in interbank rates has dropped substantially (Chart I-4), as the PBoC's claims on commercial banks has exploded 5.5-fold since the early 2014. Even though commercial banks' excess reserves have been flat, their lending has been booming - i.e., the money/credit multiplier has been rising (Chart I-5). This is only possible when the PBoC has been supplying reserves "on demand" or when it cuts the RR ratio. Since the RR ratio has not been cut over the past two years, it means that the former is true. Chart I-4Interbank Rate Volatility Has Fallen As ##br##PBoC Injected A Lot Of Liquidity bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s1_c4 bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s1_c4 Chart I-5China's Money/Credit Multiplier##br## Has Been Rising bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s1_c5 bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s1_c5 Just like central banks in advanced economies, the only way the PBoC can alter money/credit growth is if it lifts or cuts its interest rate target. Barring any changes to its policy rate, commercial banks, not the PBoC, determine money/loan/deposit creation in China. As to other factors that determine the amount of credit/money creation by commercial banks in China, we elaborated on these in the above-mentioned report. Bottom Line: It appears the PBoC has shifted toward targeting interest rates. Consequently, the PBoC cannot pretend to control money/credit origination unless it changes its interest rate target. Moreover, we reiterate that China's abnormal credit growth has been the result of speculative behavior among Chinese banks and borrowers, and not the natural result of the country's high savings rate. Oversupply Of RMBs = A Lower Currency As China's central bank has been printing RMBs and commercial banks have been "multiplying" them at a high rate (by originating loans), the supply of RMBs has continued to explode. Such an oversupply of local currency will continue to depress the value of the nation's exchange rate. The PBoC's liquidity injections have exploded in recent years (Chart I-6). The central bank has not only been offsetting the liquidity withdrawal due to its currency foreign exchange market interventions, but it has also been providing banks with as much liquidity as they require. The objective seems to have been to avoid a rise in interbank rates when corporate leverage is extremely high and banks are overextended. Since February 2015, the PBoC's international reserves have dropped by US$0.9 trillion, or 4.2 trillion RMB (Chart I-7). This means that the PBoC has withdrawn 4.2 trillion RMBs from the system. If the central bank did not re-inject these RMBs into the financial system, interbank rates would have skyrocketed. As the PBoC has injected RMBs into the system, it has effectively undone its RMB defense. The whole point of defending the exchange rate from falling or depreciating too fast is to shrink local currency liquidity. Yet, naturally, that would also lead to higher interbank rates. If the central bank chooses not to tolerate higher interest rates and continues to inject local currency into circulation, the RMB's depreciation will likely continue and accelerate. By injecting RMBs into the system, the monetary authorities have allowed banks to continue to lend, thereby creating enormous amounts of money and deposits. Banks create deposits when they lend. The Chinese banking system has a lot of deposits partially because commercial banks have lent too much. In short, the supply or quantity of money (RMBs) has continued to explode, despite massive capital outflows. Notably, if the PBoC did not lend RMBs to commercial banks, the latter's excess reserves would have plunged by 4 trillion RMB (Chart I-8) and banks would have been forced to pull-back their lending. Chart I-6PBoC's Liquidity Injections Have ##br##Exploded Since Early 2014 bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s1_c6 bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s1_c6 Chart I-7China: Foreign Exchange##br## Reserve Depletion bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s1_c7 bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s1_c7 Chart I-8China: What Would Have Banks' Excess Reserves##br## Been Without Borrowing From PBoC? bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s1_c8 bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s1_c8 Overall, in the current fiat money system, when a central bank targets interest rates, the monetary authorities can print unlimited high-powered money (bank reserves) and commercial banks can multiply it by creating enormous amounts of loans/deposits.3 However, there is no free lunch - no country can print its way to prosperity (otherwise all countries would have been very rich already). The negative ramifications of unlimited money creation are numerous, but this report focuses on the exchange rate implications. The growing supply of RMBs will lead to a much further drop in China's exchange rate. It seems Chinese retail investors and companies intuitively sense this, and are eager to get rid of their RMBs. This also explains Chinese investors' desire to overpay for any real or financial asset, domestically or abroad. We expect growing downward pressure on the RMB as capital outflows accelerate anew. Although China’s foreign exchange reserves are enormous in absolute U.S. dollar terms, they are low relative to money supply (Chart 9). The ratio of the central bank’s international reserves-to-broad money is 15% in China and it is relatively low compared with other countries (Chart 10). Chart I-9China: International Reserves Are Not##br## High Relative To Broad Money bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s1_c9 bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s1_c9 Chart I-10International Reserves-To-Broad##br## Money Ratio China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB China's Money Creation Redux And The RMB As a final note, the oversupply of local currency has not created inflation in the real economy because of massive overcapacity following years of booming capital spending. However, continued money creation will eventually lead to higher inflation. This does not seem imminent but we will be monitoring these dynamics carefully going forward. Bottom Line: China's banks have created too much RMBs and the PBoC has accommodated them. Such enormous supply of RMBs and mainland households' and companies' desire to get rid of their RMBs will lead to further yuan depreciation. Investment Implications: A Free-Fall For RMB And Asian Currencies The RMB's value versus the U.S. dollar will drop much further. Our new target range for US$/CNY is 7.8-8 over the next 12 months, or 11-14% below today's level. The forward market is discounting only 2.8% depreciation in the next 12 months (Chart I-11). We maintain our short RMB / long U.S. dollar trade (via 12-month NDF). A persistent relapse in the RMB's value will drag down other Asian currencies. In particular, the Korean won and the Taiwanese dollar have failed to break above important technical levels (their long-term moving averages), and have lately relapsed (Chart I-12). Chart I-11RMB Will Depreciate Much More##br## Than Priced In By Forwards RMB Will Depreciate Much More Than Priced In By Forwards RMB Will Depreciate Much More Than Priced In By Forwards Chart I-12Asian Currencies:##br##More Downside Ahead bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s1_c12 bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s1_c12 For the Korean won, we believe there is considerable downside from current levels. Consistently, we recommended shorting the KRW versus the THB trade on October 19.4 Chart I-13EM ex-China Currencies Total Return##br## (Including Carry): Is The Rally Over? bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s1_c13 bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s1_c13 Traders who believe in continued U.S. dollar strength, like we do, should consider shorting the KRW versus the U.S. dollar outright. For DM currencies, this means that the drop in the JPY has further to go. In emerging Asia, we are also shorting the MYR and the IDR versus the U.S. dollar and also versus Eastern European currencies such as the ruble and the HUF, respectively. As emerging Asian currencies depreciate versus the U.S. dollar, other EM currencies will likely follow. It is hard to see the RMB and other Asian currencies plunging and the rest of EM doing well. The total return (including the carry) of the aggregate EM ex-China exchange rate versus the U.S. dollar (equity market-cap weighted index) has failed to break above a critical long-term technical resistance, and has rolled over (Chart I-13). This is a bearish technical signal, implying considerable downside from these levels. As such, we maintain our core short positions in the following EM currencies outside Asia: TRY, ZAR, BRL and CLP and add COP to this list today. This is based on an assumption of diminished foreign inflows to EM and lower commodities prices. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy & Frontier Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Andrija Vesic, Research Assistant andrijav@bcaresearch.com Colombia: Headed Toward Recession In our May 4 Special Report on Colombia,5 we argued that despite a bright structural backdrop this Andean economy was headed for a growth recession (i.e. very weak but still positive growth). Domestic demand has buckled and now we believe the nation could be on the verge of its first genuine recession in two decades (Chart II-1). Colombia's Achilles heel is its low domestic savings rate, reflected by a still large current account deficit financed by FDI and portfolio capital inflows (Chart II-2). As a result, low oil prices and rising global interest rates have exposed the nation's main cyclical vulnerability. Given the trade deficit is still large (Chart II-3) and our bias is that oil prices will be flat-to-down, a further retrenchment in domestic demand is unavoidable. Chart II-1Colombia's First Recession##br## In 20 Years? bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s2_c1 bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s2_c1 Chart II-2Colombia's Lingering Balance Of ##br##Payments Vulnerability bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s2_c2 bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s2_c2 Chart II-3A Weaker COP Will Force The ##br##Necessary Adjustment bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s2_c3 bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s2_c3 Going forward, the external funding constraint will continue to bite. Moreover, policymakers are trapped and will be unable to prevent growth from contracting. The central bank is stuck between the proverbial rock and hard place. Cutting interest rates will undermine the appeal of the peso to foreign investors. Raising rates to prop up the currency, however, will exacerbate the economy's downward momentum. In the end, downward pressure on the exchange rate and still high inflation mean the central bank will not cut rates soon (Chart II-4). Tight monetary policy in turn means that private sector credit will decelerate much more (Chart II-5). Chart II-4High (Well Above Target) Inflation Limits##br## Central Bank's Ability To Ease bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s2_c4 bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s2_c4 Chart II-5Colombia: Credit Growth Is ##br##Headed Much Lower bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s2_c5 bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s2_c5 Our marginal propensity to consume proxy, an excellent leading indicator for household spending, signals consumption is set to weaken even further (Chart II-6). Facing weakening demand, investment is set to continue contracting (Chart II-7) and, ultimately, unemployment will be much higher, reinforcing the downtrend in consumer expenditures. Chart II-6Colombian Domestic Demand##br## To Retrench Further bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s2_c6 bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s2_c6 Chart II-7Contracting Investment Bodes ##br##Poorly For Employment bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s2_c7 bca.ems_sr_2016_11_23_s2_c7 Meanwhile, fiscal policy will remain tight as Colombia's orthodox policymakers struggle to adjust the fiscal accounts to the structurally negative terms-of-trade shock in this oil-dependent economy. The current fiscal reform effort is very positive for sustainable long-run dynamics, as influential central bank board members have highlighted.6 Yet particular parts of the reform, such as raising VAT taxes from 16% to 19%, will almost inevitably lead to a drop in consumer demand. Furthermore, nominal government revenues are already contracting and a slumping economy means that the total fiscal effort will need to be greater than currently envisioned. Overall, with monetary and fiscal policy stimulus hamstrung by the nation's low domestic savings rate (i.e. large current account deficit), a mild recession seems very likely. And while a lot of weakness has already been priced into the nation's financial markets, we think there is still more downside ahead. For instance, the Colombian peso may be cheap in real (inflation-adjusted) terms, but it is highly vulnerable due to the nation's still wide current account deficit. This week we recommend re-instating a short position in the peso; this time against an equal-weighted basket of the U.S. dollar and the Russian ruble.7 Turning to equities, Colombian stocks have fallen sharply since 2014, mostly a reflection of the collapse of the nation's energy plays. At present bank stocks account for 60% this nation's MSCI market cap, and though we believe they will fare better than many other EM banking systems,8 they will not go unscathed by a recession. Still, orthodox policymaking should limit the downside in the performance of this bourse and sovereign credit (U.S. dollar bonds) relative to their respective EM benchmarks. Meanwhile, fixed-income investors should continue to bet on yield curve flattening by paying 1-year/ receiving 10-year interest rate swaps, a trade we have recommended since September 16, 2015.9 The recent steepening in the yield curve will prove unsustainable as the economy tanks. Bottom Line: Colombia is probably headed toward recession and policymakers are straightjacketed and cannot ease monetary and fiscal policies to prevent it. As such, the currency will be the main release valve and it will depreciate further. Go short the COP versus an equal-weighted basket the U.S. dollar and the Russian ruble. Dedicated EM equity and credit investors should maintain a neutral allocation to Colombia within their respective EM benchmarks. Continue to bet on flattening in the yield curve by paying 1-year/ receiving 10-year interest rate swaps. Santiago E. Gomez Associate Vice President santiago@bcaresearch.com 1 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses", dated October 26, 2016. 2 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses," dated October 26, 2016. 3 As we argued in Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, titled "Misconceptions About China's Credit Excesses", dated October 26, 2016, it is new loans that create new deposits and vice versa. 4 Please refer to the section on Thailand in our Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, titled " The EM Rally: Running Out Of Steam?" dated October 19, 2016. 5 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Special Report titled, "Colombia: A Cyclical Downturn Amid Structural Strength," dated May 4, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 6 Please see Cano, Carlos Gustavo "Monetary Policy in Colombia: Main Challenges 2016 -2017" Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Small Talks Symposium, October 7, 2016, Washington DC http://www.banrep.gov.co/sites/default/files/publicaciones/archivos/cgc_oct_2016.pdf 7 For more on the ruble please refer to the section on Russia in our Emerging Markets Weekly Report, dated November 16, 2016, titled, "Russia: Overweight Equities; Reinstate Long RUB / Short MYR Trade". 8 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Special Report titled, "Colombia: A Cyclical Downturn Amid Structural Strength" dated May 4, 2016, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 9 Please refer to the section on Colombia in our Emerging Markets Weekly Report, dated September 15, 2015, titled "Colombia: An Incomplete Adjustment", available at ems.bcareseach.com Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations

Highlights Treasury Yields: The uptrend in Treasury yields has run into extreme technical resistance and is likely to abate during the next few weeks. Beyond that, a cyclical sweet spot of improving growth and accommodative monetary policy will open up during the first half of 2017 that will cause the Treasury curve to bear-steepen. Spread Product: Poor valuations and a probable Fed rate hike next month keep us cautious on spread product in the near term. But the environment for credit markets will turn more positive in the first half of 2017. Leveraged Loans: The combination of Fed rate hikes and elevated defaults should allow leveraged loans to outperform fixed rate junk bonds on a 12-month horizon. High-Yield Munis: An examination of spreads alone suggests that high-yield munis are attractive compared to high-yield corporate debt, but the attractiveness is not sufficient to compensate for lower tax rates under President Trump. Avoid high-yield municipal debt. Feature Several Fed speakers last week, including Fed Chair Janet Yellen, affirmed the case for a December rate hike, and the market has taken full notice of that message. We calculate that the market-implied odds of a rate hike next month rose to 84% as of the close of business on Friday.1 But just as critical for the path of Treasury yields is that the Fed will be taking a "wait and see" approach when it comes to the prospect of increased fiscal stimulus under the Donald Trump administration. Right now there is so much uncertainty about what the Congress will pass or not pass, what the president will propose. As a baseline, assuming a continuation of current fiscal policy has probably as good a chance as any other forecast that we are going to make up. Minneapolis Fed President Neel Kashkari2 This leads us to believe that the Fed will lift rates next month, but will also not revise its fed funds rate forecasts (dots) higher. We also expect that the Fed will be slow to respond to any pick-up in growth expectations as we head into 2017. This sets up a two-phase outlook for Treasury yields. During the next month, the uptrend in yields will meet resistance as both the market and Fed turn a more skeptical eye toward Trump's fiscal promises. But if growth picks up in early 2017, as we expect, and the Fed maintains its dovish bias, then we could enter a sweet spot where the Treasury curve resumes its bear-steepening and risk assets rally. Near-Term Pull-Back Two factors make us think it is likely that Treasury yields will at least level-off, and perhaps decline a bit, during the next month. First, market pricing has already mostly converged with the Fed's rate expectations, especially at the short-end of the curve (Chart 1). Our sense is that the Fed's dots provide a reasonable valuation anchor for yields in the absence of more concrete evidence that growth is accelerating. Second, technical measures and positioning data suggest that the rapid rise in yields is due for a pause. The fractal dimension for long-maturity Treasuries, a measure of groupthink developed by our Chief European Strategist Dhaval Joshi rests at 1.25, a level at which a trend reversal - even if only a temporary one - tends to emerge (Chart 2).3 Additionally, our composite sentiment indicator, based on the 13-week rate of change in prices, investor sentiment, and net speculative positions, is deeply oversold, highlighting the risk of a near-term reversal (Chart 3). Chart 1The Market & Dots Converge The Market & Dots Converge The Market & Dots Converge Chart 2Treasuries Face Technical Resistance Treasuries Face Technical Resistance Treasuries Face Technical Resistance Chart 3Bond Sentiment At A Bearish Extreme Bond Sentiment At A Bearish Extreme Bond Sentiment At A Bearish Extreme Cyclical Sweet Spot Once the December FOMC meeting has passed, we expect investor attention will turn toward U.S. economic growth, which should accelerate as we head into 2017 (Chart 4). Chart 4U.S. Growth: Poised To Accelerate U.S. Growth: Poised To Accelerate U.S. Growth: Poised To Accelerate Consumer confidence has been resilient at high levels, which supports continued strong consumer spending (Chart 4, panel 1). According to trends in public sector employment, government spending is poised to increase, even in the absence of new fiscal stimulus (Chart 4, panel 2). Inventories were an unusually large drag on growth in 2016. This drag will continue to unwind (Chart 4, panel 3). Survey measures suggest that non-residential investment will reverse its downtrend (Chart 4, panel 4). The supply of new residential housing remains tight, which will support increased construction even in the face of higher rates (Chart 4, bottom panel). On top of this, we can potentially tack on any newly enacted fiscal stimulus once Trump takes office in January. Our political strategists expect that the Trump administration will not face meaningful opposition from the Republican-controlled Congress, and will be able to enact - in relatively short order - a more stimulative fiscal policy in the form of lower taxes and increased spending for infrastructure and defense.4 A quicker pace of Fed tightening would be a powerful offset to this rosy growth outlook. In fact, Chair Yellen alluded to the notion that a large fiscal impulse would probably be counteracted by tighter monetary policy in her Congressional testimony last week: "The economy is operating relatively close to full employment at this point, so in contrast to where the economy was after the financial crisis when a large demand boost was needed to lower unemployment, we're no longer in that state."5 In essence, with the economy close to full employment it is more likely that a sufficiently large growth impulse will result in rising inflation, which the Fed will lean against. However, we believe this is a story for the second half of 2017. At least initially, the Fed will be in no rush to deviate from the dovish bias embedded in its current forecasts. Market-based measures of inflation compensation have increased strongly in the past few weeks, but remain below levels that are consistent with the Fed hitting its 2% PCE inflation target (Chart 5). The 5-year, 5-year forward TIPS breakeven inflation rate is currently 2.06%, and needs to rise another 34bps before it is consistent with its average pre-crisis level. The Fed will be extremely cautious about tightening monetary policy until TIPS breakevens are more firmly anchored around pre-crisis levels. This opens a window in the first half of 2017 when improving economic growth will be met with still-accommodative monetary policy. In this environment we would expect the Treasury curve to bear-steepen and spread product to outperform. All else equal, we are likely to shift our recommended portfolio allocation in that direction (initiate curve steepeners, increase allocation to spread product) once the near-term risk of a Fed rate hike is behind us. The major risk to the view that a cyclical sweet spot opens up in the first half of 2017 is that any improvement in growth might be quickly cut-off by overly restrictive financial conditions, specifically in the form of a much stronger dollar (Chart 6). The pace of dollar appreciation has increased since the election and overall indexes of financial conditions have tightened, but so far the tightening has not been as sharp as that which occurred around the time of last year's Fed rate hike. We anticipate that this time around, due to the improved trajectory of growth outside of the U.S., tightening of overall financial conditions will not be as severe. A second related risk is that the recent surge in bond yields will harm cyclical sectors of the economy such as housing and consumer spending on durable goods (Chart 7). This is undoubtedly true, but it is important to recall that this process is self-limiting. If yields rise too far, then growth will decelerate and yields will reverse course. Then lower yields will cause growth to re-accelerate, leading to higher yields. As long as the Fed is perceived to be "behind the curve" on inflation then the underlying trend will be one of improving growth and a bear-steepening of the Treasury curve. Chart 5Breakevens Still Too Low Breakevens Still Too Low Breakevens Still Too Low Chart 6A Strong Dollar Is The #1 Risk A Strong Dollar Is The #1 Risk A Strong Dollar Is The #1 Risk Chart 7Higher Yields Also A Drag On Growth Higher Yields Also A Drag On Growth Higher Yields Also A Drag On Growth Bottom Line: The uptrend in Treasury yields has run into extreme technical resistance and is likely to abate during the next few weeks. Beyond that, a cyclical sweet spot of improving growth and accommodative monetary policy will open up during the first half of 2017. This will cause the Treasury curve to bear-steepen and will be positive for spread product. Leveraged Loans: Still A Buy We recommended that investors favor leveraged loans over fixed-rate junk bonds on July 19.6 In large part, this recommendation was predicated on a high conviction view that Treasury yields were poised to increase, thus benefitting floating rate loans over fixed rate bonds. Since July 19, the S&P/LSTA Leveraged Loan 100 index has returned +196bps, compared to +176bps of total return from the Bloomberg Barclays High-Yield bond index, and flows into the largest leveraged loan ETF (BKLN) have outpaced flows into the largest junk bond ETF (HYG) since August (Chart 8). Historically, there are two reasons that leveraged loans might be expected to outperform fixed rate junk bonds (Chart 9). The first is that 3-month LIBOR is rising, causing loan coupons to reset higher. The second is that the default rate is elevated. Loans tend to benefit relative to bonds when the default rate is elevated because their senior position in the capital structure means they earn a higher recovery rate (Chart 10). Chart 8Loan Performance Is Lagging Fund Flows Loan Performance Is Lagging Fund Flows Loan Performance Is Lagging Fund Flows Chart 9Leveraged Loans Will Outperform Leveraged Loans Will Outperform Leveraged Loans Will Outperform Chart 10Loans Benefit From Higher Recoveries Loans Benefit From Higher Recoveries Loans Benefit From Higher Recoveries Taking a closer look at Chart 9 we can see that the above two factors have only led to two periods of sustained leveraged loan outperformance since 1991 (denoted by shaded regions). In 1994, loans outperformed bonds because the pace of Fed tightening surprised markets to the upside and 3-month LIBOR moved sharply higher. In this instance higher coupons were sufficient for loans to outperform even though corporate defaults were low. Loans also outperformed bonds between 1997 and 2002. In this case it was a prolonged uptrend in corporate defaults that drove the outperformance. Loans benefitted from higher LIBOR in the early stages of this period, but then the Fed began cutting rates in 2001. Loans did not outperform bonds during the 2004-2006 rate hike cycle, as defaults were very low and the rate hikes were well telegraphed - meaning that asset prices already reflected the up-move in 3-month LIBOR before it occurred. Likewise, loans did not outperform bonds during the 2008 default episode because the Fed was cutting rates sharply and, unlike in the 1990s, the spike and reversal in the default rate occurred over a relatively short period of time. The good news for loans is that the current environment very much resembles the early part of the 1997-2002 period insofar as the Fed is in the early stages of a rate hike cycle - so 3-month LIBOR can be expected to move higher - and corporate defaults have already started to increase. So far loans have only benefitted marginally from the rise in 3-month LIBOR because most have LIBOR floors. This means that the loan's coupon is only reset higher once 3-month LIBOR is increased above the stated floor. Bloomberg calculates that $221 billion of outstanding leveraged loans have LIBOR floors of 75bps and $690 billion of outstanding loans have LIBOR floors of 100bps. With 3-month LIBOR at 91bps currently, it will only take one more Fed rate hike before the floors on most loans are breached. Bottom Line: The combination of Fed rate hikes and elevated defaults should allow leveraged loans to outperform fixed rate junk bonds on a 12-month horizon. High-Yield Munis: Stay Away We detailed our longer-term outlook for municipal bonds in a recent Special Report,7 and then downgraded our muni allocation to underweight (2 out of 5) following Trump's surprise election win. Our expectation is that the combination of lower tax rates and increased infrastructure spending will be toxic for municipal debt. That analysis, however, focused on investment grade municipal debt. This week we investigate the relative value in high-yield municipal bonds relative to high-yield corporates. The starting point of our analysis is an examination of the spread differential between high-yield munis and high-yield corporates (Chart 11). The second panel of Chart 11 shows that, compared to history, munis offer a sizeable spread advantage over similarly-rated corporate debt. However, this comparison does not adjust for differences in duration and convexity between the two indexes. In the bottom panel of Chart 11 we show the residual from a model where the spread differential between high-yield munis and high-yield corporates has been regressed against differences in duration and convexity. We see that high-yield munis look even more attractive after making these adjustments. These simple adjustments reveal that high-yield munis are attractive relative to high-yield corporates, but they do not consider the impact of a macro environment that is about to turn extremely negative for municipal debt. To control for this we created an augmented model of the spread differential between high-yield munis and corporates, adjusting for duration, convexity, the effective personal tax rate, relative ratings migration and several other factors (Chart 12). Chart 11High-Yield Muni Valuation I High-Yield Muni Valuation I High-Yield Muni Valuation I Chart 12High-Yield Muni Valuation II High-Yield Muni Valuation II High-Yield Muni Valuation II High-yield munis still appear quite attractive based on this model, but if we assume that the effective personal income tax rate reverts even to 2011 levels, then the a good chunk of the spread advantage vanishes (Chart 12, panel 2). This is an extremely conservative assumption. In reality, we expect the effective personal tax rate will fall much below 2011 levels under the new administration. Bottom Line: An examination of spreads alone suggests that high-yield munis are attractive compared to high-yield corporate debt, but the attractiveness is not sufficient to compensate for lower tax rates under President Trump. Avoid high-yield municipal debt. Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Our internal calculation differs somewhat from the widely reported probability that is available on Bloomberg terminals. The reason is that the Bloomberg calculation assumes a baseline fed funds rate of 37.5 bps (the midpoint of the Fed's current target range), while we use the current effective fed funds rate which has recently been stable at 41 bps. 2 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-16/fed-s-kashkari-says-election-hasn-t-changed-economic-outlook-yet 3 Please see European Investment Strategy Special Report, "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model", dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see BCA Special Report, "U.S. Elections: Outcomes And Investment Implications", dated November 9, 2016, available at www.bcaresearch.com 5 https://www.c-span.org/organization/?63944 6 Please see Global Fixed Income Strategy / U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Six Reasons To Tactically Reduce Duration Exposure Now", dated July 19, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification

Highlights Portfolio Strategy The strong U.S. dollar is tightening global liquidity conditions, putting the post-election jump in stock prices at risk unless growth imminently accelerates. The spike in large cap industrial stocks represents a massive knee-jerk overreaction and we are adding the sector on our high conviction underweight list. Take profits in the S&P air freight & logistics group and cut to neutral, and downgrade the S&P electrical components & equipment group to underweight. Recent Changes S&P Air Freight & Logistics - Take profits of 6% and reduce to neutral. S&P Electrical Components & Equipment - Trim to underweight from neutral. S&P Industrials Sector - Add to our high-conviction underweight list. Table 1 Don't Disregard The Dollar Don't Disregard The Dollar Feature Equities are still in a post-election honeymoon phase. The savage reaction in the bond market has not yet backlashed onto the broad stock market. Instead it has sparked a rapid and powerful rotation in intra-sector capital flows. The danger is that an unwinding of the momentum trade in the bond market is being misinterpreted as a pro-growth, pro-cyclical investment shift. Investors appear to be equating a potential increase in economic growth with better profitability. However, basing equity strategy on unknown future policies is fraught with risk, as is equating GDP with corporate profits. Trump's signature policies, protectionism and fiscal spending, are inflationary and U.S. dollar bullish, and the timing of implementation and ultimate size of spending programs, remain anyone's guess. In a closed economy driven more by consumption than investment, a strong currency can be supportive via increased purchasing power and a dampening in corporate sector input costs. But what's good for the economy should not be automatically extrapolated through to profits. Net earnings revisions fall when the currency is strong (Chart 1). Capital has won out handily vs. labor since the Great Recession, which allowed profits to boom even though economic growth was below-potential. This is changing. Labor costs are now on the upswing, and productivity has deteriorated. If the economy strengthens, it may only serve to boost wage inflation. If labor expenses accelerate, it becomes even more critical for corporate sector sales to regain traction in order to offset the squeeze on profit margins. However, just under half of S&P 500 sales come from abroad. A strong U.S. dollar means the U.S. will be importing deflationary pressures, undermining pricing power. U.S. dollar appreciation also saps growth in developing countries. Emerging market capital spending is already contracting (Chart 2), and as shown last week, financial strains are flaring back up. Ergo, U.S. companies will be less competitive, and selling into weaker demand growth abroad. Chart 1A Strong Dollar Will Sink Profits... A Strong Dollar Will Sink Profits... A Strong Dollar Will Sink Profits... Chart 2... And Hit Global Growth ... And Hit Global Growth ... And Hit Global Growth Chart 3 shows that S&P 500 sales typically contract during major dollar bull markets. A recovery has only occurred once currency depreciation occurs. The equity market reaction has been mixed during these periods, as a strong dollar has capped growth and pushed down Treasury yields, supporting a valuation expansion. We do not recommend positioning for a bullish equity outlook, given already overvalued conditions and the rise in government bond yields. It is notable that the inflation component of yields has done the heavy lifting, rather than an upgrading in economic expectations (Chart 4). In other words, there is a sequencing issue, a strong currency saps profits now, while stimulus may only arrive much later. U.S. dollar-based global financial liquidity is now contracting as a consequence of U.S. dollar strength (Chart 4). If excess liquidity and low rates were the argument for supporting high valuations previously, tighter liquidity and rising rates can't also justify current multiples, especially if global growth is soft. As discussed in our November 3, 2014 Special Report, currency strength favors a mostly non-cyclical, domestically-oriented portfolio structure. One of our favored themes over the past few months has been to tilt portfolios in favor of domestic vs. globally-oriented industries. With the U.S. dollar breaking above its trading range, a catalyst now exists to spur an imminent recovery in the domestic vs. global share price ratio. The latter had become extremely oversold as the U.S. dollar consolidated and the Chinese economy began to stabilize, but economic fundamentals are shifting decisively back in favor of the U.S. The U.S. PMI is already making small strides vs. the Chinese and euro area PMI (Chart 5, second panel), heralding a rebound in the cyclical share price momentum. Chart 3No Sales Recovery Ahead No Sales Recovery Ahead No Sales Recovery Ahead Chart 4Tighter Liquidity, Rising Inflation bca.uses_wr_2016_11_21_c4 bca.uses_wr_2016_11_21_c4 Chart 5Domestic Will Beat Global bca.uses_wr_2016_11_21_c5 bca.uses_wr_2016_11_21_c5 World export growth remains anemic, and world export prices continue to deflate, albeit at a lesser rate. Sagging Asian currencies warn that trade is at risk, over and above protectionist rhetoric and/or policies. When compared with the reacceleration in U.S. retail sales, the outlook for domestic-sourced profits is even brighter. We reiterate our theme of tilting to domestic vs. globally-oriented industries. The bottom line is that the outlook for the broad averages has soured as a consequence of a strong dollar, rising yields and the prospect for tighter Fed policy. These dynamics augur well for domestic vs. global bias, small vs. large caps and defensive vs. cyclical sector strategy. This week we are taking some cyclicality out of our portfolio following the wild market gyrations in the past two weeks. Taking Advantage Of The Industrials Sector Overreaction... Industrials have vaulted higher, in relative terms, on the back of hopes for rampant fiscal stimulus and infrastructure spending as far as the eye can see, ignoring any negatives that may arise from protectionist policies and tighter monetary conditions. While defense contractors may see an increase in activity (we continue to recommend an overweight in the BCA defense index), in aggregate, the surge in the large cap industrials sector is an opportunity to retool exposure from a position of strength. Large cap industrials companies garner approximately 45% of their revenue from outside the U.S. The industrials sector has the second worst track record among all sectors during U.S. dollar bull phases, trailing only the materials sector. Regression analysis shows that industrial sectors sales would contract by 4.5% for every 10% in the trade-weighted dollar (Chart 6). Without revenue growth, it is hard for industrial companies to generate good profitability, given high operating leverage. The U.S. dollar surge is a direct threat to any benefit from an increase in domestic infrastructure spending. Commodity prices key off the U.S. dollar. Emerging markets (EM) are also sensitive to the currency. A strong U.S. dollar undermines income in commodity producing countries, creates financial strains related to EM foreign currency denominated debt and reins in domestic liquidity in countries that need to intervene to stop their currencies falling too far lest capital flight and inflation occur. As noted last week, emerging market currencies are already rolling over, and CDX spreads have begun to widen (Chart 7). EM equity markets are underperforming the global benchmark, reinforcing the lack of a regional growth impulse (Chart 7). It is rare for the industrial sector to deviate from relative EM equity performance. There has been no evidence of EM deleveraging, and the back up in global bond yields represents a financial stress. If U.S. industrials stocks are a high-beta play on EM, then contrarians should beware recent sector action. Chart 6Top-Line Trouble Ahead Top-Line Trouble Ahead Top-Line Trouble Ahead Chart 7Sell The Spike bca.uses_wr_2016_11_21_c7 bca.uses_wr_2016_11_21_c7 Importantly, capital spending is in retreat. Business investment is a function of confidence and expected return on investment. The gap between the return on and cost of capital is narrowing fast (Chart 8). Free cash flow is paltry, especially in resource sectors, major industrial sector end markets. It is hard to envision a major capital spending turnaround if the U.S. dollar keeps climbing and the cost of capital backs up further. Policy ambiguity will act as a weight for at least the next few quarters. During this period, the negative profit impact of the contraction in private and public sector construction activity will ultimately re-exert a major influence on sector risk premia. It will take at least several quarters before any hoped for fiscal spending will benefit industrial companies. Industrials sector pricing power has shifted from a deep negative to neutral. However, that appears to represent an unwinding of the rate of change shock more than a resumption of conditions conducive to companies lifting selling prices. Chart 9 shows that capital goods import price are still deflating. As the Chinese currency devalues, putting downward pressure on its regional counterparts, deflationary pressures will re-intensify for U.S. industrial firms (Chart 9). Chart 8Fiscal Stimulus Is Needed... Right Now! bca.uses_wr_2016_11_21_c8 bca.uses_wr_2016_11_21_c8 Chart 9The Dollar Will Do Damage bca.uses_wr_2016_11_21_c9 bca.uses_wr_2016_11_21_c9 ...By Selling Electrical Components & Equipment ... In terms of specifics, were we not underweight machinery shares already, we would institute a high conviction underweight today. In addition, the S&P electrical equipment and components (ECE) index looks equally vulnerable. While less exposed to commodity prices than machinery stocks, ECE shares have benefited alongside the overall sector from the post-election buying frenzy. Hefty short positions likely played a large role in powering the spike (Chart 10), and we are uncomfortable with paying a premium valuation for a dubious earnings outlook, particularly given the sector's brutal long-term track record during U.S. dollar bull markets (Chart 11, top panel, the currency is shown inverted). From a cyclical perspective, it is premature to position for a reversal in the relative earnings bear market. New orders for electric equipment are sensitive to EM currency movements. The current message is that new orders are likely to languish (Chart 11). Relief is not imminent from domestic sources. Chart 11 shows that real investment spending on electrical equipment is contracting at a steep rate. That is consistent with the trend in overall construction spending, which represents a long-term headwind. It is no surprise that industry productivity growth is contracting (Chart 11), reinforcing that the path of least resistance for profits is lower. It would take a major resurgence in top-line growth to restore productivity to positive levels. The ECE industry is one of the few 'smokestack' parts of the economy to have added capacity in recent years. That is confirmed by persistent growth in ECE wage inflation (Chart 12). Without a pickup in demand, this backdrop is conducive to ongoing deflation (Chart 12, bottom panel). Sell into strength. Chart 10Short Covering Will Not Last... Short Covering Will Not Last... Short Covering Will Not Last... Chart 11... As Fundamentals Erode ... As Fundamentals Erode ... As Fundamentals Erode Chart 12Cost Structures Are Too High Cost Structures Are Too High Cost Structures Are Too High ...And Taking Profits In Air Freight Stocks ... Elsewhere, we are taking profits on our overweight S&P air freight & logistics index. While we only recently went overweight in early-September, a much shorter time horizon than our desired cyclical calls, we are concerned that the index has front run an improvement in global trade that may be slow to materialize. Our upgrade was predicated on a tightening in inventories relative to GDP, which boosts the need for just-in-time air freight services, as well as a pickup in emerging markets activity. However, our confidence in the latter has been shaken. Air freight stocks are a reflation play, and a surging U.S. dollar is a threat to global liquidity (Chart 13). Global revenue ton miles have already crested after a muted rebound (Chart 14, second panel). Chart 13A Reflation Play A Reflation Play A Reflation Play Chart 14Take Profits Take Profits Take Profits Moreover, protectionist/anti-globalization sentiment may heat up, representing a risk to a recovery in global trade. The IFO export expectations index continues to sink, a warning for relative forward earnings estimates (Chart 14). The contraction in transport and warehousing hours worked confirms that transport activity is not yet on the mend (Chart 14). Relative performance has a history of violent oscillations, and the price ratio has soared to the top end of its multiyear range. Thus, even though the structural increase in online sales bodes well for long-term growth, and value remains appealing, we are booking profits and reducing positions in this globally-exposed group back to neutral in order to de-risk in our portfolio. Bottom Line: Take profits of 6% in the S&P air freight & logistics index and reduce to neutral. Downgrade the S&P electrical equipment index to underweight and add the overall industrial sector to our high conviction underweight list. The ticker symbols for the stocks in these indexes are: BLBG: S5AIRF - UPS, FDX, CHRW, EXPD, and BLBG: S5ELCO - AME AYI EMR ETN ROK. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and growth over value.

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Retail food stocks are deep into the buy zone. Deflating food costs augur well for profit margins in the coming quarters. Lift the financial sector to neutral, via the asset manager and investment bank indexes. Recent Changes S&P Financials Sector - Raise to neutral, recording a loss of 8%. S&P Asset Manager & Custody Bank Index - Raise to overweight from underweight, locking in a profit of 5%. S&P Investment Bank & Brokerage Index - Raise to neutral, recording a loss of 3%. Table 1Sector Performance Returns (%) The Teflon Market The Teflon Market Equity markets celebrated the surprise Republican U.S. election victory. Investors believe the regime shift will entail fiscal stimulus and a lifting in regulatory constraints that stir animal spirits and lift the economy out of its growth funk. The reality is that it is premature to make long-term assumptions. Meanwhile, the underlying fragility of the U.S. economic expansion will be tested in the coming quarters. Indeed, it is easy to envision a hit to business confidence, causing delays in decision making and investment, especially given Trump's anti-trade rhetoric and penchant for profligacy. Policy uncertainty and confidence have been reliable leading indicators for valuations, and slippage would put upward pressure on the Equity Risk Premium (Chart 1). It will be critical to monitor aggregate financial conditions. The Goldman Sachs Financial Conditions index has tentatively edged up (Chart 1), and if corporate bond spreads, long-term yields and the U.S. dollar move much higher, upside risks will intensify. The low level of overall potential growth has made the economy increasingly sensitive to swings in financial conditions and deflationary impulses from abroad. Both the high yield and investment-grade corporate bond index are languishing, perhaps picking up on the deflationary signal from U.S. dollar strength and growth drag from higher Treasury yields (Chart 2, bottom panel). It is notable that emerging markets currencies have pulled back. These exchange rates are typically pro-cyclical. Sustained currency weakness typically leads to domestic corporate bond spread widening (Chart 2, CDX spreads shown inverted). In the past five years, it has paid to bet on defensive over cyclical sectors when EM currencies weaken and CDX spreads are this tight, i.e. contrarians should take note. At a minimum, it may be a signal that global growth is less robust than the rise in global bond yields implies. As a result, forecasts for double-digit profit growth in the next twelve months look very aggressive, even if our economic outlook proves too cautious. The tentative trough in third quarter S&P 500 profits has not yet been validated by other indicators. For example, tracking tax revenue provides a good real-time gauge on corporate sector cash flows. Federal income tax receipts have dropped into negative territory. Corporate income taxes are contracting. Previous major and sustainable overall profit recoveries have been either led by, or coincident with, corporate income tax growth (Chart 3). This argues against extrapolating positive third quarter earnings growth in the S&P 500. Chart 1Watch Confidence And Financial Conditions Watch Confidence And Financial Conditions Watch Confidence And Financial Conditions Chart 2Don't Get Caught Up In The Hype Don’t Get Caught Up In The Hype Don’t Get Caught Up In The Hype Chart 3Taxes And Profits bca.uses_wr_2016_11_14_c3 bca.uses_wr_2016_11_14_c3 Rather than get overly excited about the potential for a new fiscal spending impulse, it may be more appropriate to view the latter as truncating downside economic risks, given that the corporate sector remains a key headwind to stronger growth, even excluding its balance sheet stress. Consequently, we still expect undervalued defensives to retake a leadership role from overvalued cyclical sectors and we also retain a domestic vs. global bias. If the U.S. dollar breaks above its recent trading range, the odds of the broad market making further liquidity fueled gains will diminish significantly. Importantly, the last few days of market moves have been massively exaggerated, as industrials and materials have rallied as if fiscal stimulus is about to hit next month. Even when implemented, it is not a panacea for sector earnings. Drug and biotech stocks have soared as if pricing pressures will evaporate, when in reality price pressures emerged prior to any political interference. Tech stocks have been crushed because of fears they will be forced to move production back to the U.S. All of these knee-jerk reactions should be treated with caution, with the exception of financials, where a step function reduction in the risk premium may be underway. There Is A New Sheriff In Town: Lift Financials To Neutral Financials have celebrated the modest upshift in the interest rate structure and hopes for a reversal of the regulatory framework that has been a structural noose on profitability, and risk premiums. These factors, along with our domestic vs. global bias, argue against maintaining a below benchmark weighting on a tactical basis. As discussed last week, our view on banks remains cautious, however, asset managers and investment banks have lower odds of falling back toward recent lows even after election euphoria inevitably fades. The largest earnings drags from the past year have eased. M&A activity has troughed. New and secondary stock offerings have hooked back up and margin debt is back to new highs, suggesting that investor risk appetites have stopped shrinking (Chart 4). Thus, capital formation is unlikely to dry up, even if upside is limited given poor corporate sector balance sheet health and an upward creep in the cost of capital. In terms of asset managers and custody banks (AMCB), even modestly higher interest rates would reduce a major profit impediment. Fees on funds held in trust have been decimated by ZIRP, underscoring that the latest uptick in short-term Treasury yields is a plus. Relative performance had already diverged negatively from the stock-to-bond ratio, the equity risk premium and global economic sentiment (Chart 5). This gap could close with a prospective thawing in relations between lawmakers and the industry. There is still structural downward pressure on fees as low cost ETFs gain market share, but that is being partially offset by the renewed growth in total mutual fund assets (Chart 4, bottom panel). Bear in mind that both groups tend to do well when the stocks outperform bonds, as seems likely in the near run given creeping protectionism. In sum, despite our concerns about overall financial sector productivity growth, mainly owing to rising bank cost structures, and the risks of a renewed deflationary impulse from U.S. dollar strength, we are lifting sector weightings to neutral. This will put us onside with the objective message from our Cyclical Macro Indicator, the buy signal from our Technical Indicator (Chart 6) and our broader theme of favoring domestic vs. global industries. Chart 4Earnings Drivers Have Stabilized bca.uses_wr_2016_11_14_c4 bca.uses_wr_2016_11_14_c4 Chart 5Recovery Candidate Recovery Candidate Recovery Candidate Chart 6Following Our Indicators Following Our Indicators Following Our Indicators Bottom Line: The Republican victory has provided a fillip to the financials sector, and underweight positions putting underweight positions offside. We are lifting allocations to neutral, via the S&P AMCB and S&P investment banks & brokerage indexes. AMCB moves to overweight, and the latter to neutral, with an eye to downgrading again once euphoria fades and investor focus returns to economic durability. Food Retailers: Too Cheap To Overlook Food retailers offer attractive value, defensive and domestic equity exposure with the potential for upside profit surprises. This group will benefit if U.S. wage inflation persists. The latter would boost consumer purchasing power and could lead to tighter financial conditions, either through U.S. dollar strength and/or a tighter Fed. The defensive appeal of retail food equities would shine through under that scenario. The starting point for grocery stocks is extremely appealing. The price ratio is extraordinarily oversold. It fell farther below its 200-day moving average than at any time since 2002, before recently bouncing (Chart 7). Valuations are cheap, return on equity is solid and share prices have diverged negatively from a number of macro indicators. For instance, relative performance has been tightly linked with the U.S. dollar, but the former plunged even as the currency firmed (Chart 8, top panel). A strong exchange rate will keep a lid on imported food costs, boost the allure of domestically-oriented industries while lifting consumer spending power. Chart 7Extraordinarily Oversold bca.uses_wr_2016_11_14_c7 bca.uses_wr_2016_11_14_c7 Chart 8Top-Line Improvement Ahead bca.uses_wr_2016_11_14_c8 bca.uses_wr_2016_11_14_c8 Outlays on food products have climbed as a share of total spending in the past six months, reversing a long-term downtrend (Chart 8). If consumer confidence stays firm as a consequence of rising wage growth and a positive wealth effect, then it is conceivable that store traffic and total grocery spending will accelerate. The surge in capital spending in recent years reflects store upgrades and a refreshed shopping experience, which could also translate into faster sales growth. Now that capital spending growth is cooling, it will reduce a profit margin drag. Profitability should also benefit from cost deflation. The food manufacturing PPI is contracting, reflecting shrinking raw food prices (Chart 9, top panel, shown inverted). It is normal for food stocks to outperform when raw food prices fall. Importantly, capacity utilization rates in the packaged food industry are very low (Chart 9), which augurs well for ongoing pricing pressure among suppliers. Tack on deflation in industry wage inflation, and it is no wonder profit margins have been able to grind back toward previous highs without a strong sales impulse. If sales rebound, as seems likely given evidence of market share gains away from hypermarkets (Chart 10, bottom panel), then grocery stores should continue to demonstrate decent pricing power gains (Chart 10, middle panel). Chart 9Cost Deflation Cost Deflation Cost Deflation Chart 10Gaining Market Share Gaining Market Share Gaining Market Share Adding it up, the ingredients for a powerful rally in the S&P retail food store index exist, with good downside protection should the economy disappoint on the back of tighter financial conditions. Bottom Line: We recommend an overweight position in the S&P retail food store index (BLBG: S5FDRE - KR, WFM). Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and growth over value.

Highlights Chart 1Targeting 2% bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c1 bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c1 The Fed did its best to avoid roiling markets so close to today's election, but still managed to hint at a December rate hike. The post-meeting statement was tweaked so that now only "some further evidence" rather than "further evidence" is required in order to lift the funds rate. We remain below benchmark duration in anticipation of a December rate hike. Before the end of the year we expect our 12-month discounter to reach at least 40-50bps (meaning the market will expect a further 1-2 hikes in 2017) from its current level of 28bps, and for the 10-year Treasury yield to reach 1.95-2%. While our global PMI model pegs fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.27%, the uptrend in the 10-year yield will face severe technical resistance as it approaches 2% (Chart 1). Positioning has already moved to net short duration, signaling that the bond sell-off is becoming stretched. While a Clinton victory would all but ensure a December rate hike, a Trump victory could cause a large enough market riot that the Fed delays until 2017. This would only be a brief hiccup in the return of the 10-year yield to the 1.95-2% range, and would not signal a long-lasting trend reversal. Feature Investment Grade: Neutral Chart 2Investment Grade Market Overview bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c2 bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c2 Investment grade corporate bonds outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +56bps in October, but have already given back -26bps of those gains so far this month (Chart 2). The index option-adjusted spread is -2bps tighter than at the end of September and, at 136bps, it remains very close to its historical average. Corporate credit performance faces two immediate risks. The first is today's election and the second is the prospect of a Fed rate hike in December. A Clinton victory would likely prompt a knee-jerk rally in risk assets and virtually ensure a rate hike next month. In that case we would be inclined to further trim exposure to credit risk in the coming weeks as the rate hike approaches. Already, we recommend investors avoid the Baa credit tier within a neutral allocation to investment grade corporates. In a recent report we pointed out that highly-rated credit (A-rated and above) performed well in the initial stages of last year's run-up in rate hike expectations, but then started to suffer once market-implied rate hike probabilities approached 100%.1 Conversely, a Trump victory would likely prompt a flight-to-safety event in markets which, depending on its severity, could also cause the Fed to delay the next rate hike into 2017. In that event, the prospect of delayed Fed tightening would make us more likely to increase credit exposure in the near term, especially if any knee-jerk sell-off in risk assets creates better value in corporates. Table 3Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation* (Continued) "Some"thing To Talk About "Some"thing To Talk About Table 3BCorporate Sector Risk Vs. Reward* "Some"thing To Talk About "Some"thing To Talk About High-Yield: Maximum Underweight Chart 3High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield Market Overview High-Yield outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +92bps in October, but has already underperformed the Treasury benchmark by -108bps so far in November. The index option-adjusted spread is +25bps wider since the end of September and, at 505bps, it is 16bps below its historical average. In a Special Report2 published last week we noted that while the default rate will not re-visit its previous lows (at least until after the next recession), it should decline from 5.4% to close to 4% during the next 12 months (Chart 3). However, even a slightly brighter default outlook will not be enough for junk bonds to sustain their current pace of outperformance. A simple model of lagged junk spreads and default losses explains more than 50% of the variation in 12-month high-yield excess returns. This model suggests that even with lower default losses, excess junk returns will be +264bps during the next 12 months (panel 3). The reason is that lower default losses are more than offset by the lower starting point for spreads. Junk spreads should also come under widening pressure in the very near term, as a December Fed rate hike spurs an increase in implied volatility. Maintain a maximum underweight allocation to high-yield and await a better entry point for spreads in the New Year. MBS: Overweight Chart 4MBS Market Overview bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c4 bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c4 Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +2bps in October, but are underperforming the benchmark by -7bps so far in November. Year-to-date, MBS have outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by a mere +22bps. Since the end of September, the conventional 30-year MBS yield has risen +23bps, driven by a +21bps increase in the rate component. The option-adjusted spread has widened +2bps, while the compensation for prepayment risk (option cost) has remained flat. Unattractive option-adjusted spreads and the prospect of further increases in issuance make for bleak long-run return prospects in MBS. However, the likelihood that Treasury yields will continue to rise in the near-term means that MBS could outperform due to a decline in the option cost component of spreads (Chart 4). We will likely reduce exposure to MBS once a December rate hike has been fully digested by the market, and the uptrend in Treasury yields starts to taper off. The Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey for the third quarter, released yesterday, showed that banks continue to ease standards on GSE-eligible mortgage loans, while demand for these same loans continues to increase. The combination of easing lending standards and strengthening demand means that issuance is likely to continue its march higher, as does the persistent uptrend in existing home sales (bottom panel). Government Related: Overweight Chart 5Government Related Market Overview bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c5 bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c5 The government-related index outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +5bps in October, but has already underperformed the Treasury benchmark by -9bps so far in November. The Foreign Agency and Local Authority sub-sectors drove October's outperformance, returning +24bps and +14bps in excess of Treasuries respectively. Domestic Agency debt outperformed the Treasury benchmark by +3bps, while Supranationals (-7bps) and Sovereigns (-10bps) both underperformed. After adjusting for differences in credit rating and duration, Foreign Agency and Local Authority bonds still appear attractive relative to investment grade U.S. corporate debt. Sovereigns, on the other hand, appear modestly expensive. We continue to recommend avoiding Sovereign issues while remaining overweight the other sub-sectors of the government related index. In a recent report,3 we observed that the performance of sovereign debt relative to equivalently-rated and duration-matched U.S. corporate credit tends to track movements in the U.S. dollar. As such, a continued bull market in the U.S. dollar will remain a significant headwind for sovereigns. At the country level, the only nations whose USD-denominated debt offers a spread advantage over Baa-rated U.S. corporate debt are Hungary, South Africa, Colombia and Uruguay. Unusually, bullet agency debt outperformed callable agency debt last month even though Treasury yields moved higher (Chart 5). Within Domestic Agency bonds, we continue to favor callable over bullet issues on the expectation that this divergence will not persist. Municipal Bonds: Overweight Chart 6Municipal Market Overview bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c6 bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c6 Municipal bonds underperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by -12bps in October, dragging year-to-date excess returns down to -152bps (before adjusting for the tax advantage). The average Municipal / Treasury (M/T) yield ratio is largely unchanged since the end of September, and remains close to its post-crisis average. In recent months, trends in M/T yield ratios have fluctuated alongside the betting market odds for today's Presidential election. A Trump victory would cause yield ratios to widen sharply, as President Trump's promised tax cuts would substantially de-value the tax advantage in municipal bonds. We expect yield ratios to tighten in the event that Clinton prevails, as any expectation of a Trump victory works its way out of the price. Due to attractive yield ratios relative to recent history, we are inclined to remain overweight municipal bonds in the near-term. However, we will likely downgrade the sector if yield ratios move back to previous lows. As we detailed in a recent Special Report,4 historical lags between the corporate and municipal credit cycles suggest that municipal bond downgrades will start to increase in the second half of next year, alongside a deterioration in state & local government balance sheets. Further, state & local government investment spending is poised to move higher next year, regardless of the election result, leading to even greater muni issuance (Chart 6). Elevated fund flows have offset the impact of strong issuance this year, the risk is that they will not keep pace going forward. Treasury Curve: Stay In Flatteners Chart 7Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview Treasury Yield Curve Overview The Treasury curve has bear-steepened significantly since the end of September. The 2/10 Treasury slope has steepened +16bps and the 5/30 slope has steepened +14bps. As a result, our two curve flattener trades have struggled. Our 2/10 Treasury curve flattener has returned -41bps since initiation on September 6. Our 10/30 Treasury curve flattener has returned -25bps since initiation on September 20. Our other tactical trade - short December 2017 Eurodollar - has returned +16bps since initiation on July 12. All three of the above tactical trades are premised on the view that the Fed will deliver a rate hike in December, and that such a rate hike has not yet been fully discounted by the market. At present, we calculate that the market-implied probability of a December rate hike is 62%, as discounted in fed funds futures. The historical pattern suggests the yield curve should bear flatten as the rate hike probability approaches 100%. Unusually, the correlations between both the 2/10 and 10/30 Treasury slopes and the level of Treasury yields have moved into positive (bear-steepening) territory (Chart 7). This is especially unusual for the 10/30 slope, where the correlation has been firmly in negative (bear-flattening) territory since 2013. We continue to recommend holding curve flatteners, and expect both correlations to revert into negative (bear-flattening) territory in advance of a December rate hike, as they did last year. Any surge in bullish dollar sentiment between now and December would only increase the flattening pressure on the curve (bottom panel). So far bullish dollar sentiment has remained relatively flat, but we cannot discount a large increase in the run-up to the next rate hike, as occurred last year. TIPS: Overweight Chart 8TIPS Market Overview bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c8 bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c8 TIPS outperformed the duration-equivalent nominal Treasury index by +112bps in October. The 10-year breakeven rate has increased +8bps since the end of September, and currently sits at 1.68%. The 10-year TIPS breakeven rate has increased substantially during the past couple months, and has now converged with the fair value reading from our TIPS Financial model (Chart 8). Rising expectations of a Fed rate hike and a flatter Treasury curve will weigh on TIPS during the next month, and we would not be surprised to see breakevens temporarily cease their uptrend as attention turns to Fed hawkishness following today's election. But we also expect that TIPS breakevens will resume their uptrend heading into next year. As we flagged in a recent report,5 the sensitivity of TIPS breakevens to core inflation has increased since the financial crisis. We posit that the reason for this increased sensitivity is that the Fed's ability to control long-dated inflation expectations has been impaired by the zero-lower bound on rates. As a result, the trend in breakevens is increasingly taking its cue from the realized inflation data. Realized inflation continues to trend steadily higher (bottom two panels), and diffusion indexes suggest that further gains are ahead (panel 4). Given that breakevens remain well below pre-crisis levels, we intend to remain overweight TIPS relative to nominal Treasuries and ride out any near-term volatility related to a Fed rate hike. ABS: Maximum Overweight Chart 9ABS Market Overview bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c9 bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c9 Asset-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +10bps in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +101bps. Aaa-rated ABS outperformed the Treasury benchmark by +8bps on the month, while non-Aaa issues outperformed by +24bps. The index option-adjusted spread for Aaa-rated ABS has tightened -3bps since the end of September and, at 45bps, is considerably below its pre-crisis average (Chart 9). According to our days-to-breakeven measure, there still exists a valuation advantage in Aaa-rated auto ABS relative to Aaa-rated credit card ABS, but that advantage is rapidly evaporating (panel 3). We calculate that it will take 12 days of average spread widening for Aaa-rated auto ABS to underperform Treasuries on a 6-month horizon and 10 days of average spread widening for Aaa-rated credit card ABS to underperform. Moreover, credit card ABS exhibit superior collateral credit quality relative to autos. Credit card charge-offs remain near all-time lows, while the auto net loss rate appears to have bottomed (bottom panel). Further, the Fed's senior loan officer survey shows that auto lending standards have tightened for two consecutive quarters, while credit card lending standards were unchanged in Q3 following 25 consecutive quarters of net easing (panel 4). We recommend investors favor Aaa-rated credit cards over Aaa-rated auto loans within a maximum overweight allocation to consumer ABS. CMBS: Underweight Chart 10CMBS Market Overview bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c10 bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c10 Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +4bps in October, bringing year-to-date outperformance up to +194bps. The index option-adjusted spread for non-agency Aaa-rated CMBS has tightened -3bps since the end of September, and remains very close to its pre-crisis average (Chart 10). The Fed's Senior Loan Officer Survey for the third quarter, released yesterday, showed that banks continue to tighten standards on all classes of commercial real estate (CRE) loans (panel 3). The survey also shows that CRE loan demand continues to increase, though at a less rapid pace than in prior quarters. While CRE prices continue to march higher (bottom panel), tightening lending standards and a rising delinquency rate (panel 4) make us cautious on non-agency CMBS. Agency CMBS outperformed the duration-equivalent Treasury index by +4bps in October, bringing year-to-date excess returns up to +105bps. Agency CMBS still offer 56bps of option-adjusted spread. This is greater than what is offered by Aaa-rated consumer ABS (45bps) and conventional 30-year MBS (19bps) for a similar amount of spread volatility. We continue to recommend overweight positions in Agency CMBS. Treasury Valuation Chart 11Global PMI Model Global PMI Model Global PMI Model The current reading from our Global PMI Treasury model places fair value for the 10-year Treasury yield at 2.27% (Chart 11). This model is based on a linear regression of the 10-year Treasury yield on three factors, using a post-financial crisis time interval.6 The three factors are: Global Growth: Measured using the Global Manufacturing PMI (sourced from JP Morgan and Markit) Global Growth Divergences: Proxied by bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar (sourced from Marketvane.net) Economic Uncertainty: Measured using the Global Economic Policy Uncertainty Index (sourced from policyuncertainty.com) The correlation between the global PMI and the 10-year Treasury yield is strongly positive (panel 3). However, improving global growth is offset by any increase in bullish sentiment toward the U.S. dollar. For a given level of global growth any increase in bullish sentiment toward the dollar represents a drag on interest rate expectations. As such, bullish dollar sentiment enters our model with a negative sign (panel 4). The final component of our model - global economic policy uncertainty - captures changes in Treasury yields related to headline risk and "flights to quality". This factor enters our model with a negative sign - more uncertainty correlates with lower bond yields (bottom panel). Monetary Conditions And Rate Expectations The BCA Monetary Conditions Index (MCI) combines changes in the fed funds rate with changes in the trade-weighted dollar using a 10:1 ratio. Historically, economic downturns have been preceded by a break in this index above its equilibrium level - calculated using the Congressional Budget Office's estimate of potential GDP growth (Chart 12). Using assumptions for the time until the MCI converges with equilibrium and the annual appreciation of the trade-weighted dollar, it is possible to calculate the expected change in the fed funds rate for the cycle. The shaded region in Chart 13 shows the expected path for the federal funds rate assuming that the MCI reaches equilibrium at the end of 2019. The upper-end of the region corresponds to a scenario where the trade-weighted dollar depreciates by 2% per year and the lower-end of the region corresponds to a scenario where the dollar appreciates by 2% per year. The thick line through the middle of the region corresponds to a flat dollar. Chart 12Monetary Conditions Vs. Equilibrium bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c12 bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c12 Chart 13Fed Funds Rate Scenarios bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c13 bca.usbs_pas_2016_11_08_c13 Ryan Swift, Vice President U.S. Bond Strategy rswift@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching", dated September 13, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Don't Chase The Rally In Junk", dated November 1, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching: An Update", dated October 25, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle", dated October 18, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 5 Please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "Dollar Watching: An Update", dated October 25, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 6 For additional details on the model please see U.S. Bond Strategy Weekly Report, "The Message From Our Treasury Model", dated October 11, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com Fixed Income Sector Performance Recommended Portfolio Specification Corporate Sector Relative Valuation And Recommended Allocation Total Return Comparison: 7-Year Bullet Versus 2-20 Barbell (6-Month Investment Horizon)

Highlights Portfolio Strategy Bank profits are unlikely to match those of the broad market if the Fed hikes interest rates and loan demand cools. Sell into strength. Gold shares are looking increasingly attractive, but we will refrain from upgrading until the U.S. dollar is closer to a peak. Drug pricing power is worse than government data suggests, warranting a downshift in our previously upbeat view toward pharmaceutical equities. Recent Changes S&P Health Care - Removed from our high conviction list. Upgrade Alert Gold Shares - Currently neutral. Downgrade Alert S&P Pharmaceuticals Index - Currently overweight. S&P Biotech Index - Currently overweight. Table 1 Wobbly Markets Wobbly Markets Feature Chart 1From Greed To Fear bca.uses_wr_2016_11_07_c1 bca.uses_wr_2016_11_07_c1 The gaping mismatch between fundamentals and broad market valuations remains intact, but will be in jeopardy of re-converging should the Fed signal an intention to tighten monetary conditions through next year. As previously outlined, our view is that the economy, particularly the corporate sector, will struggle further if financial conditions become more restrictive and/or election uncertainty persists. Indeed, investors have been scrambling to buy protection, aggressively bidding up near-term VIX contracts, especially relative to longer-term contracts. While it is tempting to view this increase in fear as a contrary positive, this measure typically sinks lower when investors turn cautious. Chart 1 shows that tactical broad market vulnerability still exists. On a more fundamental basis, the non-financial corporate sector's return on equity has already fallen to its lowest level in more than 60 years (Chart 2). Yet the median price/sales and price/earnings ratios are flirting with all-time highs (Chart 2). That divergence is not sustainable, given the direct link between ROE, profit growth and valuations. Central bank benevolence has underwritten this gap. Third quarter earnings have failed to impress thus far, keeping the equity market locked in a tight range. So far, one nascent trend is that domestic and consumer-linked equities appear to be gaining traction at the expense of global, business-dependent sectors. We expect the complexion of earnings contributions to become more lopsided in the quarters ahead, in support of most of these budding trend changes. The inevitable upshot of a strong U.S. dollar is deteriorating profit breadth. Chart 3 shows that the number of industry groups experiencing rising forward earnings estimates is likely to erode as the currency strengthens. Clearly, industries most reliant on exports and/or capital spending are most vulnerable. The corporate sector has run up debt levels and is struggling to generate profit growth. In turn, business spending has been compromised, as measured by the contraction in core durable goods orders (Chart 3). On the flipside, consumers have rebuilt their savings and are enjoying the benefits of a positive wealth effect. The increase in real wage and salary growth is underpinning real median household income. The latter surged 5.2%, posting the largest percentage increase in the history of the data. Consumer income expectations are well supported (Chart 3, top panel). The implication is that consumption-oriented plays should be well positioned to deliver profit outperformance, even if the labor market slows. From an investment theme perspective, the upshot is domestic-oriented areas are poised to make a comeback relative to globally-exposed sectors after a burst of speed in recent months (Chart 4). Net earnings revisions are already shifting in that direction, with more upside ahead based on U.S. dollar strength, as well as dirt cheap relative valuations (Chart 4). Chart 2A Disturbing Mismatch A Disturbing Mismatch A Disturbing Mismatch Chart 3Consumers Are Stronger Than Corporates bca.uses_wr_2016_11_07_c3 bca.uses_wr_2016_11_07_c3 Chart 4Favor Domestic Vs. Global bca.uses_wr_2016_11_07_c4 bca.uses_wr_2016_11_07_c4 One exception is the banking sector, where there is limited scope for earnings outperformance and/or valuation expansion. Bank Stocks Are Showing Signs Of Life, But... Bank stocks have moved higher, following the sell-off in global bond markets and steepening in yield curves sparked initially by the Bank of Japan's curve targeting shift and a reversal of incremental easing expectations from the Bank of England. However, we are not convinced that the relative performance bear market is over. A Special Report published on October 3 surveyed the performance of banks during Fed tightening cycles, to help put context around the widely held view that Fed rate hikes will bolster bank stocks on a sustained basis. History shows there has been only a loose relationship between the Fed funds rate and net interest margins. It would take rising rate expectations within the context of a steeper yield curve, improving credit quality and rapid loan growth to justify an optimistic profit outlook. Bank profits have not been able to outpace the broad corporate sector since the beginning of 2015 (Chart 5, top panel), even though loan growth has been healthy and overall earnings were crushed by the implosion in commodity prices during that period, allowing most other sectors to show earnings outperformance. Will another 25 bps interest rate hike remedy this? The Fed is keen to hike rates partially because it views them as being overly accommodative for an economy operating close to full employment, and is keen to reestablish firepower in advance of the next economic downturn. But there is scant evidence of economic overheating to support the view that rates have been 'too low'. Inflation and inflation expectations, while up from very depressed levels, are still historically low and the economy is struggling to grow at, let alone above, trend. Consequently, a strident Fed would boost the odds of a policy mistake. The market appears to share that view, given the failure of the yield curve to stop narrowing since the taper talk started, notwithstanding the recent blip up (Chart 5, bottom panel). Chart 5Why Would Bank Profits Outperform Now? bca.uses_wr_2016_11_07_c5 bca.uses_wr_2016_11_07_c5 Chart 6Beware U.S. Dollar Strength bca.uses_wr_2016_11_07_c6 bca.uses_wr_2016_11_07_c6 Now that the USD is strengthening anew, the odds of imported deflation have climbed, to the detriment of corporate profits and bank stock relative performance (Chart 6, top panel). While nominal yields have backed up, real 2-year yields have declined, which is not consistent with an upgrading in economic expectations. Indeed, C&I loan growth has dropped sharply in recent weeks (Chart 6). By extension, it is hard to envision long-term yields rising much, if at all, which will keep net interest margins thin. Furthermore, if overall earnings remain stuck in neutral, corporate credit quality will undoubtedly worsen given the debt binge in recent years. Non-performing loans have only just begun to increase. Higher interest rates will not solve these problems. Instead, the downturn in credit quality could accelerate via more onerous debt servicing requirements, given the lack of a corporate sector balance sheet cushion. Perhaps more worrying is that banks are no longer pruning cost structures, which is unusual given that credit standards are tightening on most credit products outside of traditional mortgages. In the last 25 years, or as far back as we have the data, bank stocks lagged the broad market after bank employment started rising. The only exception was in the aftermath of the tech bubble, when all non-TMT sectors outperformed (Chart 7). If banks continue to expand their wage bill, without a widening in net interest margins and/or reversal in increased loan loss reserving, bank profits will fail to match the growth rate of the overall S&P 500. The optimal, but not exclusive, time for banks to outperform is typically exiting recession, when policy is easing and the yield curve is steepening, and in the late innings of an expansion. In fact, productivity is sagging throughout the financial sector. Financial sector employment is probing new highs (Chart 8), reflecting a more onerous cost structure required to meet regulatory obligations. Employment is now growing faster than sales, a reliable indication of flagging productivity. The implication is that financial sector profits will continue to lag those of the broad market. Chart 7Beware Rising Bank Employment bca.uses_wr_2016_11_07_c7 bca.uses_wr_2016_11_07_c7 Chart 8Sectoral Productivity Drain bca.uses_wr_2016_11_07_c8 bca.uses_wr_2016_11_07_c8 Bottom Line: Strength in bank stocks is a chance to sell. Is It Time To Buy Back Gold Shares? Gold shares are bouncing after having been punished in the last few months. Overheated technical conditions and prospects for a more hawkish Fed led us to recommend taking profits in August, despite a positive long-term outlook. Indeed, the likelihood of a prolonged period of negative to ultra-low real interest rates is high given startlingly low potential GDP growth in most of the developed world. Gold shares typically do well in the aftermath of a debt binge, as proxied by our Corporate Health Monitor (CHM, shown advanced, Chart 9). It is unnerving that the CHM has suffered such a broad-based deterioration without any back up in interest rates. Low interest rates and tight credit spreads have cushioned what has otherwise been a stark erosion in debt servicing capabilities: there is little scope for a parallel upshift in the global interest rate structure. These are bullish conditions for gold shares, as captured by the upbeat reading in our Cyclical Gold Indicator (Chart 9, top panel). As such, when we took profits we advised that we would look to return to an overweight position once tactical downside risks had been reduced. Are we there yet? Chart 10 suggests that extreme bullishness toward the yellow metal has not yet fully unwound. While the share price ratio has dropped back to its 200-day moving average, cyclical momentum remains elevated, as measured by the 52-week rate of change. Sentiment in the commodity pits is still elevated, flows into gold ETFs are still strong and net speculative positions have not yet made a full retreat (Chart 10), especially in view of the recent politically-motivated pop in market volatility. The implication is that there could be additional selling pressure in the coming weeks. Chart 9Cyclically Appealing, But... bca.uses_wr_2016_11_07_c9 bca.uses_wr_2016_11_07_c9 Chart 10... Still Tactically Frothy bca.uses_wr_2016_11_07_c10 bca.uses_wr_2016_11_07_c10 Chart 11The Currency Is Critical bca.uses_wr_2016_11_07_c11 bca.uses_wr_2016_11_07_c11 In terms of potential buy triggers, anything that causes the U.S. dollar to lose its bid is a strong candidate. Ironically, a Fed rate hike could produce such an outcome, contrary to popular wisdom. In our view, the U.S. (and global) economy cannot handle tighter financial conditions, and a rise in interest rates would need to be offset by a weaker currency. Gold shares perform well when economic expectations are faltering (Chart 11, shown inverted), and a hawkish Fed would likely raise global economic fears. On the flipside, a go-slow Fed could keep the currency bid. That would allow the economy more time to heal and recover, and possibly overheat, thereby potentially boosting future returns on capital, certainly relative to other countries where output gaps remain larger. Bottom Line: Stay neutral on gold stocks, but put them on upgrade alert in recognition that an upgrade back to overweight could occur sooner rather than later, i.e. by yearend, depending on macro dynamics. What To Do With Drug Stocks? A number of drug wholesalers reported earnings misses and provided disappointing guidance, specifically citing worse than expected generic pricing pressure, enough to offset ongoing branded drug price increases. In the current environment of political uncertainty toward health care companies, the knee jerk reaction has been to abandon all pharmaceutical-related equities, regardless of exposure to branded or generic medicines. Our pharmaceutical equity view has noted that the time to worry about the pace of drug price increases would be if they sparked a change in consumption patterns and/or buyer behavior. The fact that major buying groups such as health insurers and pharmacy benefit managers are balking at generic drug price increases constitutes such a shift. Consumer spending on drugs has slowed, albeit that has not been confirmed by neither strong retail drug store sales nor booming hospital employment (Chart 12). Nor is there an unwanted inventory build (Chart 12). Nevertheless, in light of new information, which implies that company-reported pricing pressure is worse than current government data shows, we are downgrading our outlook for drug-related shares. Still, rather than sell after the index has already taken a large hit, pushing relative performance to oversold and undervalued levels (Chart 12), we will await a more opportune moment to lighten positions, especially in view of our preference for defensive equities. Keep in mind that the drug price increases are still well in excess of the overall rate of inflation as branded drug prices continue to rise (Chart 13), and earnings stability should be increasingly desirable as the U.S. dollar climbs. In the meantime, drug-related shares are now on downgrade alert and the overall health care sector is off our high-conviction list. The good news is that other parts of the health care sector should benefit if drug inflation cools. For instance, a reduction in the rate of drug price increases, and in the case of generics, outright price cuts, is a blessing for the S&P managed care industry. Cost inflation had been perking up, but should ease in the coming quarters as drug expenses abate. Health insurance premiums are growing at a faster rate than overall inflation, while job growth remains decent (Chart 14), underscoring that top-line growth is still outpacing that of the overall corporate sector. If cost inflation eases while revenue climbs, the index should move to at least a market multiple from its current discounted valuation. Importantly, technical readings have improved. Chart 12Under The Gun... bca.uses_wr_2016_11_07_c12 bca.uses_wr_2016_11_07_c12 Chart 13... But Pricing Power Remains Strong bca.uses_wr_2016_11_07_c13 bca.uses_wr_2016_11_07_c13 Chart 14Celebrating Reduced Cost Inflation bca.uses_wr_2016_11_07_c14 bca.uses_wr_2016_11_07_c14 Cyclical momentum has begun to reaccelerate from neutral levels after unwinding overbought conditions (Chart 14), suggesting that a breakout to new relative performance highs is in the offing. Bottom Line: The pain in drug-related shares should provide a gain to health care insurers. Stay overweight the S&P managed care index. However, look to lighten the S&P pharmaceutical and biotech indexes on a relative performance bounce in the coming weeks, both are now on downgrade alert. Current Recommendations Current Trades Size And Style Views Favor small over large caps and growth over value.

Highlights By now, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia have figured out that if each cuts 500k b/d of production, the revenue enhancement for both will be well worth the foregone volumes. Even without additional cuts from other OPEC and non-OPEC producers - most of whom already have seen output drop as a result of OPEC's market-share war - KSA and Russia benefit. A 1mm b/d cut would accelerate the draw in oil inventories next year, allowing U.S. shale-oil producers to quickly move to replace shut-in output. Importantly, shale producers' marginal costs will then begin to set market prices. Longer term, KSA and Russia would have to manage their production in a way that keeps shale on the margin. Whether they can continue to cooperate over the long term remains to be seen. Energy: Overweight. We are recommending investors go long February 2017 $50 Brent calls vs. short $55 Brent calls, in anticipation of a production cut from KSA and Russia. Base Metals: Neutral. We remain neutral base metals, despite the better-than-expected PMIs for China reported earlier this week. Precious Metals: Neutral. We are moving our gold buy-stop to $1,250/oz from $1,210/oz, expecting higher core PCE inflation. Ags/Softs: Underweight. We are recommending a strategic long position in Jul/17 corn versus a short in July/17 sugar. Feature The options market gives a 43% probability to Brent prices exceeding $50/bbl by the end of this year (Chart of the Week). We think these odds are too low, given our expectation KSA and Russia will announce production cuts of 500k b/d each at the OPEC meeting scheduled for November 30, 2016 in Vienna. Chart of the WeekOptions Probability Brent Exceeds $50/bbl By Year-End Is Less Than 50% Raising The Odds Of A KSA-Russia Oil-Production Cut Raising The Odds Of A KSA-Russia Oil-Production Cut A production cut totaling 1mm b/d - plus whatever additional volumes are contributed by GCC OPEC members - will, in all likelihood, send Brent prices back above $50/bbl by year end. This is a fairly high-conviction call for us: We are putting the odds prices will exceed $50/bbl by year-end closer to 80%. As such, we are opening a Brent call spread, getting long February 2017 $50 Brent calls vs. short $55 Brent calls, in anticipation of this production cut from KSA and Russia.1 There are two simple facts driving our assessment: KSA and Russia are desperate for cash - they're both trying to source FDI, and will continue to need external financing for years. They can't wait for supply destruction to remove excess production from the market, given all they want to accomplish in the next two years. The vast majority of income for these states is derived from hydrocarbon sales - 70% by one estimate for Russia, and 90% for KSA - and both have seen painful contractions in their economies during the oil-price collapse, which forced them to cut social spending, raise fees, issue bonds and sell sovereign equity assets.2 With the exception of KSA, Russia, Iraq and Iran, most of the rest of the producers in the world have seen crude oil output fall precipitously - particularly poorer non-Gulf OPEC states (Chart 2), and market-driven economies like the U.S. (Chart 3). Thus, KSA's insistence that others bear the pain of cutting production has already been realized. Iran and Iraq, which together are producing ~ 8mm b/d, maintain they should be exempt from any production freeze or cut, given their economies are in the early stages of recovering from economic sanctions related to a nuclear program and years of war, respectively. Chart 2GCC OPEC Production Surges, ##br##Non-Gulf OPEC Production Collapses bca.ces_wr_2016_11_03_c2 bca.ces_wr_2016_11_03_c2 Chart 3Russia' Gains Lift Non-OPEC Production;##br## U.S. Declines Continue bca.ces_wr_2016_11_03_c3 bca.ces_wr_2016_11_03_c3 Why Would KSA And Russia Act Now? Neither trusts the other, which is why neither cut production unilaterally to accelerate storage drawdowns. Any unilateral cut would have ceded market share to the arch rival. Both states have gone to great efforts to show they can increase production even in a down market, just to make the point that they would not give away hard-won market share (Chart 4). Chart 4KSA and Russia Devoted##br## Significant Resources to Lift Production bca.ces_wr_2016_11_03_c4 bca.ces_wr_2016_11_03_c4 These states are at polar-opposite ends of the geopolitical spectrum - KSA is supporting Iran's enemies in proxy wars throughout the Middle East, while Russia is supporting Iran and its allies. In the oil markets, they are both going after the same customers in Asia and Europe. Each state had to convince the other it could endure the pain of lower prices, which brought both to the table at Algiers, and allowed their continued dialogue since then to flourish. Globally, the market rebalancing already is mostly - if not completely - done. Excess production has been removed from the market, and very shortly we will see inventory drawdowns accelerate. But, if KSA and Russia leave this process to the market, we may be looking at 2017H2 before stocks start to draw hard. By cutting production now, KSA and Russia accelerate the stock draw and hasten the day when shale is setting the marginal price in the market. While shale now is comfortably in the middle of the global cost curve, it still sits above KSA's and Russia's cost curve, which means the marginal revenue to both will be higher than if their marginal costs are driving global pricing. Both states have a lot they want to do next year and in 2018: Russia is looking to sell 19.5% of Rosneft; KSA is looking to issue more debt and IPO Aramco. Both must convince FDI that the money that's invested in their industries will not be wasted because production has not been reined in. And, they both must keep restive populations under control. Cutting production by 1mm b/d or more would push prices back above $50/bbl, perhaps higher, resulting in incremental income of some $50mm to $75mm per day for KSA and Russia. Viewed another way, the incremental revenue generated annually by higher prices brought on by lower production would service multiples of KSA's first-ever $17.5 billion global debt issue brought to market last month. Both KSA and Russia will be able to lever their production more - literally support more debt issuance - by curtailing production now. KSA will need that leverage to pull off the diversification it is attempting under its Vision 2030 initiative. Russia would be able to do more with higher revenues, as well. Balances Point To Supply Deficit Next Year The meetings - "sideline" and otherwise - in Algiers, Istanbul and Vienna over the past month or so at various producer-consumer conclaves were attended mostly by producers that already have endured painful revenue cutbacks brought on by the OPEC market-share war declared in November 2014. Even those producers that did not endure massive production cuts - e.g., Canada, where oil-sands investments sanctioned prior to the price collapse continue to come on line despite low prices - will see far lower E&P investment activity going forward, given the current price environment. Chart 5Oil Markets Will Go Into Deficit Next Year Oil Markets Will Go Into Deficit Next Year Oil Markets Will Go Into Deficit Next Year Global oil supply growth will be relatively flat this year and next (Chart 5). This will create a physical deficit in supply-demand balances, even with our weaker consumption-growth expectation: We've lowered our growth estimate to 1.30mm b/d this year, and expect 1.34mm b/d growth next year. We revised demand growth lower based on actual data from the U.S. EIA and weaker projections for global growth.3 Among the major producers, only Iran, Iraq, KSA, and Russia increased output yoy. North America considered as a whole is down despite Canada's gains, and will stay down till 2017H2, based on our balances assessments. South America is essentially flat this year and next. The North Sea's up slightly this year, down more than 5% yoy in 2017, while the Middle East ex-OPEC is flat. Lastly, we expect China's production to be down close to 7% this year, and almost 4% next year. Managing The KSA-Russia Production Cut If KSA and Russia can cut 1mm b/d of production, they'd have to actively manage global balances so that the U.S. shale barrel meets the bulk of demand increases, while conventional reserves fill in decline-curve losses. Iran and Iraq together will be up 1mm b/d this year, but only 350k b/d next year. Both states are going to have a tough time attracting FDI to accelerate production gains, although ex-North America, these states probably have a higher likelihood of attracting investment than Non-Gulf OPEC, which is in terrible shape, and will have a hard time funding projects. Recently recovered Libyan and Nigerian output likely is the best they will be able to do until additional FDI arrives.4 At low price levels, even KSA can't realize the full value of the assets it is attempting to sell and the debt it will be servicing (lower prices mean lower rating from rating agencies). This is a worry for KSA, as it looks to IPO 5% of Aramco and issue more debt.5 Without higher prices, they will need to continue to slash spending, cut defense budgets, salaries and bonuses, and begin to levy taxes and fees. Below $50/bbl Brent, Russia faces similar constraints, and cannot expect to realize the full value of the 19.5% share of Rosneft it hopes to sell into the public market. Net, if KSA and Russia can get prices up above $50/bbl by cutting 1mm from their combined production and increase their gross revenues doing so, it's a major win for them. Such a cut would bring forward the global inventory drawdown we presently see picking up steam in 2017H2 without any reductions in production. In addition, because International Oil Companies (IOCs) are limited in terms of capex they can deploy to invest in National Oil Company (NOC) projects, conventional oil reserves will not be developed in the near term due to funding constraints. That, and higher capex being devoted to the U.S. shales, will keep a lid on production growth ex-U.S. Given how we see investment in production playing out over the medium term - i.e., 3 - 5 years - it will fall to the U.S. shales and Iran-Iraq production to find the barrels to meet demand increases and to replace production lost to natural declines. Given that we expect non-Gulf OPEC yoy production in 2017 to be down close to 1.3mm b/d (or -13%), and that we expect Brazil to be flat next year, cutting 1mm b/d from KSA and Russia's near-record levels of production is a bet both states will find worth taking, in order to lift and stabilize prices over the medium term. GCC OPEC production is expected to be up ~ 1% next year, or ~ 150kb/d, so these states have some scope for reducing output, as well. Price Implications If KSA and Russia Cut If we do indeed see KSA and Russia reduce output 1mm b/d as we expect, we expect storage draws will likely accelerate next year, which will flatten WTI and Brent forward curves, and send both into backwardation (Chart 6). We also would expect prices to move toward $55/bbl in the front of the WTI and Brent forward curves, once the storage draws start backwardating these curves. This would be a boon to KSA's and Russia's gross revenues, generating ~ $75mm a day of incremental revenue post-production cuts. Chart 6Expect Backwardation With ##br##A KSA-Russia Production Cut bca.ces_wr_2016_11_03_c6 bca.ces_wr_2016_11_03_c6 Given this expected dynamic, we recommend going long a February 2017 Brent call spread: Buy the $50 Brent call and sell the $55/bbl Brent call. We also recommend getting long WTI front-to-back spreads expecting a backwardation by mid-year or thereabouts: Specifically, we recommend getting long August 2017 WTI futures vs. short November 2017 WTI futures. This scenario also will be bullish for our Energy Sector Strategy's preferred fracking Equipment services companies, HAL and SLCA. ...And if They Fail to Cut Production? If KSA and Russia fail to cut production, and instead freeze it or raise output following the November OPEC meeting, the market will quickly look through their inaction and continue to price to the actual supply destruction we've been observing for the better part of this year. In such a scenario, prices will push into the lower part of our expected $40 to $65/bbl price range for a longer period of time, which not only will prolong the financial stress of OPEC and non-OPEC producers, but will keep the probability of a significant loss of exports from poorer OPEC states elevated. Either way, global inventories will be significantly reduced by the end of 2017, either because of a production cut by KSA and Russia, or because of continued supply destruction brought about by lower prices. Bottom Line: We expect KSA and Russia to announce a 1mm b/d production cut at the upcoming OPEC meeting at the end of this month. This will rally crude oil prices above $50/bbl, and accelerate the drawdown in global storage levels, which will backwardate Brent and WTI forward curves. We recommend getting long Feb17 $50/bbl Brent calls vs. short $55/bbl Brent calls, and getting long Jul17 WTI vs. short Nov17 WTI futures in anticipation of these cuts. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com SOFTS Sugar: Downgrade To Strategically Bearish, Look To Go Long Corn Vs. Sugar We downgrade our strategic sugar view from neutral to bearish, as we expect a much smaller supply deficit next year. We also downgrade our tactical sugar view from bullish to neutral, as prices have already surged over 120% since last August. We expect corn to outperform sugar in 2017. Brazil will likely increase its imports of cheaper U.S. corn-based ethanol. We look to long July/17 corn versus July/17 sugar if the price ratio drops to 17 (current: 17.94). If the position gets filled, we suggest a 5% stop-loss to limit the downside risk. Sugar prices have rallied more than 120% since last August on large supply deficits and an extremely low global stock-to-use ratio (Chart 7). Falling acreage and unfavorable weather have reduced sugarcane supplies from major producing countries Brazil, India, China and Thailand. Chart 7Sugar Tactically Neutral, Strategically Bearish bca.ces_wr_2016_11_03_c7 bca.ces_wr_2016_11_03_c7 Tactically, We Revise Our Sugar View From Bullish To Neutral. Sugar prices are likely to stay high over next three to six months on tight supplies. The global sugar stock-to-use ratio is at its lowest level since 2010 (Chart 7, panel 3). Inventories in India and China fell to a six-year low while inventories in the European Union (EU) were depleted to all-time lows. These three regions together accounted for 36.7% of global sugar consumption last year. However, we believe prices will have limited upside over next three to six months. Despite tight inventories, India and China likely will not increase imports. India currently has a 40% tax on sugar imports, and the government also imposed a 20% duty on its sugar exports in June to boost domestic supply. China started an investigation into the country's soaring sugar imports in late September. The probe will last six months, with an option to extend the deadline. In the meantime, other sugar importers likely will reduce or delay their sugar purchases because of currently high prices. Lastly, speculative buying is running out of steam, as traders already are deeply long sugar - net speculative positions as a percentage of total open interest is sitting at record-high levels (Chart 7, panel 4). Strategically, We Downgrade Our Sugar View From Neutral To Bearish. Assuming normal weather conditions across major producing countries next year, we believe the global sugar market will have a much smaller supply deficit over a one-year time horizon. Although sugar prices in USD terms reached their highest level since July 2012, prices in other currencies actually rose to all-time highs (Chart 8). Record high sugar prices in these countries will encourage planting and investment, which will consequently result in higher sugar production, especially in Brazil, India and Thailand. This year, due to adverse weather during April-September, the USDA has revised down its sugarcane output estimates for Brazil and Thailand by 3.2% and 7.1%, respectively. Assuming a return of normal weather next year, we expect sugarcane output in these two countries to recover. Farmers in China and India have cut their sown acreage for sugarcane this year on extremely low prices late last year and early this year. With prices up significantly in the latter half of this year, we expect sugar output in these two countries to rebound on acreage recovery as well. In addition, Brazilian sugar mills have clearly preferred producing sugar over ethanol so far this year on surging global sugar prices. According to the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association (UNICA), for the accumulated production until October 1, 2016, 46.31% of sugarcane was used to produce sugar, a considerable increase from 41.72% for the same period of last year. We expect this trend to continue in 2017, adding more sugar supply to the global market. Moreover, as the market becomes more balanced next year, speculators will likely unwind their huge long positions, which may accelerate a price drop sometime next year (Chart 7, panel 4). Where China Stands In The Global Sugar Market? China is the world's biggest sugar importer, the third-largest consumer and the fifth-biggest producer, accounting for 14.2% of global imports, 10.3% of global consumption and 4.9% of global production, respectively (Chart 9, panel 1). Chart 8Sugar Supply Will Increase In 2017 bca.ces_wr_2016_11_03_c8 bca.ces_wr_2016_11_03_c8 Chart 9Chinese Sugar Imports May Slow Chinese Sugar Imports May Slow Chinese Sugar Imports May Slow Sugar production costs are much higher in China than in Brazil and Thailand, due to higher wages and low rates of mechanization. Falling sugar prices in 2011-2015 further reduced the profitability of Chinese sugar producers. As a result, the sugarcane-sown area in China has dropped 24% in three years, resulting in a huge supply deficit (Chart 9, panel 2). Because domestic prices are much higher than global prices, the country has boosted its imports rapidly in recent years (Chart 9, panel 3). We believe, in the near term, the recently announced investigation into surging sugar imports will slow the inflow of sugar into the country, which will be negative for global sugar prices. In the longer term, the sugarcane-sown area in China will recover on elevated sugar prices, indicating the country's production is set to rebound, which likely will reduce its sugar imports. This is in line with our strategic bearish view. Chart 10Corn Is Likely To Outperform Sugar In 2017 bca.ces_wr_2016_11_03_c10 bca.ces_wr_2016_11_03_c10 Risks To Our Sugar View In the near term, sugar prices could rally further on negative weather news or if the USDA revises down its estimates of global sugar production and inventories. Prices also could go down sharply if speculators unwind their huge long positions before the year end. We will re-evaluate our sugar view if one of these risks materializes. In the long term, if adverse weather occurs and damages the Brazilian sugarcane yield outlook for next season, which, in general starts harvesting next April, we may upgrade our bearish view to bullish. How To Profit From The Sugar Market? In the softs market, we continue to prefer relative-value trades to outright positions. With regards to sugar, we look to go long corn vs. short sugar, as we expect corn to outperform sugar in 2017. Both sugar and corn are used in ethanol production. Ethanol is also a globally tradable commodity. While sugar prices rose to four-year highs, corn prices fell to seven-year lows, resulting in a significant increase in Brazilian sugar-based ethanol production costs and a considerable drop in U.S. corn-based ethanol production costs. We believe the current high sugar/corn price ratio is unlikely to sustain itself, as Brazil will likely increase its imports of cheaper U.S. corn-based ethanol (Chart 10, panels 1, 2 and 3). In addition, global ethanol importers will also prefer buying U.S. corn-based ethanol over Brazilian sugar-based ethanol. Eventually, this should bring down the sugar/corn price ratio to its normal range. Therefore, we look to long July/17 corn versus July/17 sugar if the price ratio drops to 17 (current: 17.94) (Chart 10, panel 4). If the position gets filled, we suggest a 5% stop-loss to limit the downside risk. In addition to the risks related to the fundamentals, this pair trade also faces the risk of a steep contango in the corn futures curve, and a steep backwardation in the sugar futures curve. The July/17 corn prices are 6.2% higher than the nearest futures prices and July/17 sugar prices are 5.2% lower than the nearest sugar futures prices. Long Wheat/Short Soybeans Relative Trade On another note, our long Mar/17 wheat/short Mar/17 soybeans relative trade was stopped out at a 5% loss on October 26. We still expect wheat to outperform soybeans over next three to six months. We will re-initiate this relative trade if the ratio drops to 0.41 (current: 0.426) (Chart 10, bottom panel). Ellen JingYuan He, Editor/Strategist ellenj@bcaresearch.com 1 The Feb17 options expire 22 December 2016, three weeks after the OPEC meeting. 2 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Ignore The KSA - Russia Production Pact, Focus Instead On The Need For Cash," dated September 8, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 The IMF expects slightly slower global GDP growth this year (3.1%), and a slight pick-up next year (3.4%). Please see "Subdued Demand, Symptoms and Remedies," in the October 2016 IMF World Economic Outlook. 4 Please see "OPEC Special-Case Nations Add 450,000 Barrels in Threat to Deal," by Angelina Rascouet and Grant Smith, published by Bloomberg news service November 2, 2016. 5 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Desperate Times, Desperate Measures: Aramco And The Saudi Security Dilemma," dated January 14, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Closed Trades

Highlights The RMB will continue to drift lower against a broadly stronger dollar, but the risk of chaotic depreciation is very low. The TWD will likely remain strong in the near term, mostly due to the unyielding strength in the JPY, but it should depreciate both against the dollar and in trade-weighted terms over the medium-to-long term. Hong Kong's currency peg will not be challenged, and will rise along with the greenback, but this will prove to be deflationary for its economy and asset prices. Feature The broad trend in the U.S. dollar will remain the dominant global macro force in the near term, which in turn will dictate the performances of the three currencies in the Greater China region. Historically these currencies have had a lower "beta" - i.e. systematically lower volatility than most of their global peers. This week we review the unique driving forces behind these currencies and the cyclical dynamics of their respective economies. In a nutshell, the fundamentals of these currencies are stronger than most of their global counterparts, which diminishes the odds of outsized depreciation. Therefore, they will remain "low-beta" plays, and may even appreciate in trade-weighted terms as the dollar strengthens. The RMB: Drifting With The Flow The USD/CNY has now approached 6.8, the level at which the RMB was essentially pegged to the dollar post the global financial crisis until late 2010 (Chart 1). This has raised speculation that the People's Bank of China (PBoC) may once again soft-peg the RMB around current levels to the U.S. dollar. While there is no doubt that the PBoC will maintain tight control over the exchange rate, it is impossible to predict how the central bank intends to control it in the near term. We suspect the path of least resistance is for the RMB to continue to drift lower against a broadly stronger dollar, but the risk of chaotic depreciation is very low. First, much of the RMB's valuation froth has been cleansed through a combination of nominal depreciation and lower inflation. The RMB's 12% depreciation against the dollar since its all-time peak in January 2014 has erased all the gains since 2010 and has weakened the currency by over 10% in real effective terms since its historical high in mid-2015 - non-trivial moves for a tightly managed currency. Our models suggest that the RMB is no longer overvalued either against the dollar or in real effective terms, as discussed in recent reports.1 Similarly the trade-weighted RMB has been oscillating around a well-defined uptrend in the past decade, and it depreciation since last year has pushed the currency from a two-sigma overshoot above its long-term trend to a two-sigma undershoot (Chart 2). Chart 1Will The RMB Be Re-pegged? Will The RMB Be Re-pegged? Will The RMB Be Re-pegged? Chart 2The RMB And Long Term Trend The RMB And Long Term Trend The RMB And Long Term Trend Second, most market participants have focused squarely on the destabilizing impact of the RMB depreciation, but have ignored the reflationary benefits of a weaker currency. For a large open economy, the exchange rate matters materially. The RMB's 10% depreciation in trade-weighted terms has significantly boosted profit margins of Chinese exporters. Even though export prices measured in dollar terms are still declining, they have increased sharply in RMB terms, boosting profits as well as overall industrial activity (Chart 3). The most recent readings of purchasing managers' surveys released early this week confirm that the manufacturing sector has continued to recover, and currency weakness may be an important factor behind the regained strength (Chart 4). In the near term, the performance of the USD/CNY is largely dictated by the dollar's trend, but the downside of the RMB should be self-limiting, as the reflationary impact of a weaker exchange rate will help boost Chinese growth, which in turn will reduce downward pressure on the Chinese currency. Chart 3A Weaker RMB Helps Exporters' Profits A Weaker RMB Helps Exporters' Profits A Weaker RMB Helps Exporters' Profits Chart 4A Weaker RMB Leads Cyclical Recovery A Weaker RMB Leads Cyclical Recovery A Weaker RMB Leads Cyclical Recovery Finally, the risk of major RMB depreciation largely hinges on whether China would suffer massive capital flight that depletes its foreign exchange reserves. The risk certainly cannot be ignored, but the odds are low for now. The lion's share of China's capital outflows in the past two years have been attributable to Chinese firms paying back borrowings in foreign currencies. Therefore, the pressure for capital outflows will diminish as foreign debts are paid back (Chart 5). In addition, we expect Chinese regulators to strengthen capital account restrictions. Early this week, the authorities further tightened regulations for residents purchasing overseas insurance products. It is likely they will further crack down on administrative loopholes to hinder capital outflows. Bottom Line: Expect further weakness in the RMB/USD, but odds of material depreciation are low. The Strong TWD Will Hurt In contrast to the RMB, the Taiwanese dollar has in fact appreciated both against the dollar and in trade-weighted terms so far this year, likely due to the strong Japanese yen (Chart 6). Taiwan competes with Japan in similar value-added segments in the global supply chain, and therefore their currencies have historically been closely correlated. In this vein, the Bank of Japan's failed attempts to further weaken the yen against the dollar has also effectively boosted the Taiwanese currency. Chart 5Chinese Companies Rushed To##br## Pay Back Foreign Debt Greater China Currencies: An Overview Greater China Currencies: An Overview Chart 6TWD And JPY: Joined At The Hip TWD And JPY: Joined At The Hip TWD And JPY: Joined At The Hip From a valuation perspective, the TWD appears cheap based on standard purchasing power parity assessment. Nonetheless, with exports accounting for over 50% of Taiwan's GDP, a strong currency is neither desirable nor affordable. Similar to Japan, Taiwan's headline consumer price inflation has been uncomfortably low, rising by a mere 0.33% in September from a year ago. Meanwhile, the rising TWD will continue to depress corporate sector pricing power. Wholesale prices of manufactured goods, after briefly moving into positive territory earlier this year, have crashed back into deflation in recent months alongside the strong TWD (Chart 7, top panel). Furthermore, the untimely strength in the exchange rate may short-circuit Taiwan's nascent growth recovery that has been budding in recent months. Export orders, after rising at an above 8% annual rate in previous months, have already begun to roll over, and will likely come under further downward pressure inflicted by the exchange rate (Chart 7, bottom panel). Furthermore, overall inventory levels in the economy have been rising in recent years. Chart 8 shows that manufacturers' inventory-to-shipment ratio has increased notably since 2011. The combination of a potential slowdown in new orders and elevated inventory levels bodes poorly for industrial production and overall business activity. Chart 7A Strong TWD Is Deflationary A Strong TWD Is Deflationary A Strong TWD Is Deflationary Chart 8Inventory Level Has Been Rising Inventory Level Has Been Rising Inventory Level Has Been Rising To be sure, with its chronic current account surplus and an outsized foreign exchange reserve, Taiwan is much better equipped than most of its global and EM peers to deal with external turmoil. As a large net creditor nation, the risk of a typical balance-of-payment crisis and chaotic currency depreciation is not in the cards. The problem for Taiwan is that the TWD has become unduly strong, which could lead to quick growth deterioration and in turn sow the seeds for currency depreciation. Bottom Line: In the near term we expect the TWD to remain strong, mostly due to the unyielding strength in the JPY, but it should depreciate both against the dollar and in trade-weighted terms over the medium- to long term. We will be looking for opportunities to short the TWD/USD in the coming months. The HKD Peg Will Remain Solid The Hong Kong dollar has remained remarkably strong against the dollar in recent months, despite the broad dollar bull market (Chart 9). In the spot market, the HKD/USD has been hovering around the stronger end of the convertibility undertaking. In the forward market, the HKD non-deliverable forward (NDF) contract's premium over the dollar has widened notably in recent weeks. We suspect stronger demand for the HKD is mainly from the mainland, as it is viewed as an alternative to the greenback. Furthermore, the RMB cash accumulated in Hong Kong in previous years is being unwound (Chart 10). RMB deposits at Hong Kong banks have almost halved in the past year, but remain elevated. They may continue to be converted back into HKD supporting its exchange rate. Chart 9The HKD Still Faces Upward Pressure The HKD Still Faces Upward Pressure The HKD Still Faces Upward Pressure Chart 10HK RMB Deposits May Continue To Unwind HK RMB Deposits May Continue To Unwind HK RMB Deposits May Continue To Unwind More fundamentally, compared with the late 1990s' episode when the HKD was under furious speculative attack, the HKD's current valuation is substantially cheaper. In 1997 when the Asian crisis erupted, the Hong Kong economy had just gone through a massive inflationary boom, which dramatically pushed up its real effective exchange rate (Chart 11). This in of itself created acute deflationary pressure, which had to be corrected by either nominal exchange rate depreciation or domestic price declines. By defending the currency peg, the Hong Kong authorities opted for price deflation to realign the then-overvalued HKD. This time around, Hong Kong's real effective exchange rate is just above its all-time low, and there are no clear signs that the economy is facing strong deflationary pressures that would call for meaningful exchange rate adjustment. Similar to China and Taiwan, a strong HKD pegged to a rising USD is not ideal for the Hong Kong economy due to its heavy dependence on external demand, particularly from the mainland. Already, mainland tourism to Hong Kong has begun to moderate, and average spending among foreign tourists has dropped significantly in the past few years - at least partially attributable to the strong HKD (Chart 12). More importantly, further HKD strength will continue to tighten Hong Kong's monetary conditions, which fundamentally matters for its asset prices. As discussed in detail in previous reports,2 tightening monetary conditions are particularly bearish for real estate prices, which are already in "bubble" territory. The downside in Hong Kong stocks should be limited due to their deeply depressed valuation parameters. Chart 11The HK Dollar Is Not Expensive The HK Dollar Is Not Expensive The HK Dollar Is Not Expensive Chart 12Tourists' Spending And Exchange Rate Tourists" Spending And Exchange Rate Tourists" Spending And Exchange Rate Bottom Line: Hong Kong's currency peg will not be challenged, and the trade-weighted HKD will rise along with the greenback, but this will prove to be deflationary for its economy and asset prices. Yan Wang, Senior Vice President China Investment Strategy yanw@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Can The RMB Withstand More Fed Rate Hikes?", dated September 1, 2016; and China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The RMB's Near-Term Dilemma And Long-Term Ambition", dated October 20, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Hong Kong: From Politics To Political Economy", dated September 8, 2016, available at cis.bcaresearch.com Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations