Policy

Special Report

Highlights Emerging Market (EM) hard currency debt, both sovereign and corporate, has consistently outperformed the broad global bond index. However, investors should steer clear of always maintaining maximum overweights to EM given its weak volatility reduction benefits and a much higher-than normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns. Our long-term analysis suggests a structural 5% allocation offers the best risk/reward potential. The Fed is still in the early stages of rate normalization. At this point in the Fed policy cycle, where the Fed is hiking rates but monetary conditions are still stimulative, EM hard currency debt has historically performed well both on a relative and absolute basis. Looking ahead, EM returns should begin to suffer in latter half of 2018 as the Fed moves to more restrictive policy stance. While global growth will remain supportive of EM credit next year, renewed U.S. dollar strength and a re-convergence to the downside with commodity prices present considerable headwinds. Maintain an underweight stance on EM hard currency debt. Favor DM spread product due to more supportive relative growth trends and valuations. Feature Emerging market (EM) sovereign and corporate debt returns have surged in 2017, returning 9.4% and 7.5%, respectively (Chart 1). Investor interest has been renewed, with the latest IMF Financial Stability Report indicating that non-resident inflows of portfolio capital to EM countries have recovered since early 2016 and reached $205 billion for 2017 through August. Against a backdrop of above-trend global economic growth, monetary policy settings from the major central banks that are still accommodative, and some diminished risks from the world's geopolitical hotspots, the current uptrend for EM debt performance could continue. Nevertheless, we urge caution. We moved to a moderate underweight stance on EM hard currency debt back in August, while at the same time increasing our current recommended overweight to U.S. investment grade (IG) corporate debt on the other side of the trade.1 Even with synchronized global growth boosting both EM export demand and industrial commodity prices, we prefer U.S. credit exposure over EM at this point in the cycle, for several reasons: The massive flow-driven EM rally has resulted in not only outsized returns but stretched valuations, with EM debt spreads now back to post-2008-crisis low (or even through those levels for EM hard currency corporates) without any major improvement in EM fundamentals; The previously reliable correlation between EM debt and commodity prices, a long-time driver of EM performance, has broken down, bullishly, for EM - potentially another sign of flow-driven overvaluation; Growing uncertainty over the near-term China growth outlook raises risks on further gains in industrial commodity demand and EM exports; The USD will appreciate once again on the back of additional Fed interest rate hikes beyond levels currently discounted by markets, which could trigger some reversal of the sharp inflows into EM seen this year. Over a strategic horizon, however, it remains difficult to argue against owning a core structural allocation of EM hard currency debt within global fixed income portfolios, given the higher yields that are typically on offer and the fairly consistent historical outperformance over Developed Market (DM) debt. Although the benefits of EM in a portfolio context are slightly overstated given its skewed risk profile (i.e. fat negative tails) and high correlation with DM spread product, specifically U.S. high-yield corporates (Chart 2). Chart 1How Much Longer Can This Rally Last? Chart 2EM Debt Offers Little Diversification Benefits In this Special Report, we examine the long-term role of EM hard currency debt within a fixed-income portfolio, and re-iterate our case for being underweight EM debt on a cyclical basis. The Long-Run Case For Owning EM Debt: A Moderate Core Allocation Makes Sense It is not a stretch to say that EM debt has become the most important part of global bond portfolios in the 21st century. Having a significant EM allocation at the right time can make a bond manager's year, while having it at the wrong time can end a bond manager's career. But what is the "right" allocation to optimize the long-run contribution to returns in a global fixed income portfolio? To answer this question, we took a look at the historical performance of a global bond portfolio that consisted of both DM and EM debt (sovereign and corporate), looking for the combination that would maximize the risk-adjusted return of the portfolio. In our analysis, we ran calculations for two different time periods as the available index data for EM sovereign debt goes back to 1994, while EM corporate debt indices begin in 2002. For DM debt, we used a single index - the Bloomberg Barclays Global Aggregate - as this has a long history and is a common benchmark used by global bond managers that includes both DM sovereign and corporate debt. Though the sample size of our combined global portfolio is limited due to the shorter history of the EM corporates asset class, the findings generally align with our intuition. On a standalone basis, modern portfolio theory proposes that an individual asset should be included within a portfolio if its excess return divided by its standard deviation is higher than the excess return of the portfolio divided by the portfolio's standard deviation, multiplied by the correlation between the portfolio and the asset. Though the correlation to the DM portfolio from 2004 was fairly high for both assets at over 0.6, when we applied this formula, both EM sovereign and corporate debt warranted an allocation in a standard global fixed-income portfolio. EM sovereign debt scored higher, by offering a considerably better Sharpe ratio with only a minimally higher correlation to DM fixed income. While EM hard currency debt has fairly consistently outperformed the DM benchmark on a 12-month rolling basis, investors must be careful not to simply maintain large positions at all times. Obviously, the majority of fixed-income investors have volatility constraints that impose limits on credit allocations. Additionally, apart from simple volatility measures, EM debt has a "hidden" risk profile when looking at the higher moments of return distributions. Table 1EM Debt Returns Are##BR##Negatively Skewed Both EM sovereign and corporate credit historical returns have exhibited significant negative skewness and excess kurtosis, indicating a much higher-than-normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns (Table 1). This is confirmed through Historical Value-at-Risk (VaR) analysis, where the 5% worst returns far eclipsed those of DM investment grade and government debt. Nevertheless, it is important to view EM from a holistic perspective. For example, an asset with a high standard deviation may be less desirable as a standalone investment, but can be highly beneficial if it enhances overall the returns of a portfolio while also reducing its volatility. We tested these "portfolio effects" of EM debt by creating 21 hypothetical portfolios. We began with a DM-only portfolio (consisting of the Global Aggregate index) and increased the weighting toward EM debt by one percentage point in each portfolio, with the last portfolio having a 20% weighting toward EM. The breakdown within EM was 62% corporates and 38% sovereigns based on the market capitalizations of the relevant benchmark indices. Our calculations indicate that the highest portfolio Sharpe ratio was achieved with a 5% EM debt allocation, which also happens to be the "neutral" weighting of EM debt in the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy model portfolio benchmark index (Chart 3).2 Global bond investors should hover around this weighting on EM hard currency debt, absent a high conviction view on EM. Chart 3The Optimal EM Hard Currency Debt Allocation Is 5% So while the data suggests that EM hard currency debt warrants a long-term allocation, its beneficial impact on a fixed-income portfolio is at least slightly exaggerated. Portfolio managers are typically seeking out assets that can both improve return and decrease overall volatility, thereby increasing the efficiency of their portfolios. This was not the case with EM debt. In our study, increasing the EM allocation consistently raised both returns and volatility. Chart 4EM/DM Correlations Should Decline In 2018 This lack of diversification benefit is a result of the high correlation between EM hard currency debt and DM fixed income. Currently, the correlation between EM and DM (the Global Aggregate) is 0.90, near the upper end of its range, indicating that diversification benefits over the last year were essentially non-existent (Chart 4). Nevertheless, this relationship clearly exhibits a mean reversion tendency. That EM/DM correlation in recent years has been itself correlated to global growth and monetary policy changes. As we show in Chart 4, our diffusion index of OECD Leading Economic Indicators (LEI) - the number of countries with a rising LEI relative to those with a declining LEI - does tend to lead the EM/DM correlation and is currently pointing to a lower correlation as global growth becomes a little less synchronized in 2018. The same goes for the growth rate of major central bank balance sheets which is already slowing and will decelerate even more in 2018 on the back of a diminished pace of bond buying by the ECB and the Fed runoff of maturing bonds on its balance sheet. The conclusion is this - the EM/DM correlation should decline in 2018 but, as we discuss below, we think that happens through relative underperformance of EM credit. Bottom Line: EM hard currency debt, both sovereign and corporate, has consistently outperformed the broad global index. However, investors should steer clear of always maintaining maximum overweights given its weak volatility reduction benefits and a much higher-than normal tendency of experiencing outsized, negative returns. Our long-term analysis suggests a structural 5% allocation offers the best risk/reward potential. The Shorter-Run Case For Owning EM Debt: Will Macro Drivers Remain Supportive? So far in 2017, EM sovereign and corporate debt have been beneficiaries of robust global growth, a declining USD and a decoupling from a broader index of commodity prices. While we expect global growth will remain strong over the medium term, our outlook for the USD is still bullish and there is a risk that commodity prices and EM debt performance re-converge to the downside. Global growth will remain strong. Outside of a major global growth slowdown, which we currently view as a low probability event, a mass flight out of EM assets anytime soon is highly unlikely. Indicators such as the global PMI index, industrial production growth and the OECD leading economic indicator are all booming (Chart 5). Inflation will head higher on the back of rising oil prices, but the increase is likely to be gradual. Importantly, this is happening alongside global monetary conditions that remain generally accommodative, even with the Fed in a tightening cycle. Credit, both DM & EM, has historically performed well against this backdrop, as we discuss in the next section of this report. A renewed upleg in the USD bull market is already underway. The correlation between EM currencies and EM debt performance has recovered after breaking down during 2013-15 (Chart 6). Year-to-date, EM currency strength - the flipside of the weaker U.S. dollar - has been a major driver of EM relative performance. Using the IMF's measure real effective exchange rates based on unit labor costs, the U.S. dollar is fairly valued.3 Neutral valuations suggest that directional market indicators are driving currency movements. As the EM business cycle slows and the Fed ramps up its rate hikes in response to rising inflation, the USD cyclical bull market should resume. Chart 5Robust Global Growth##BR##Is Supportive For EM Chart 6Can EM Ignore Another##BR##Round Of USD Strength? The de-coupling between EM debt and commodity price movements is unsustainable. EM debt has experienced a strong rally since 2016 with only a moderate rise in commodity prices compared to past periods of EM strength. We view this decoupling to be temporary (Chart 7). Many sovereign EM issuers are commodity producers, suggesting that this divergence is unsustainable. EM sovereign and corporate debt will not be able to continue their massive rallies if commodity prices relapse. We maintain a bullish view on oil prices, but there are signals that base metal prices are at risk over the next 6-12 months. Chinese monetary authorities have tightened policy and the resulting sharp slowdown in money supply growth is a worrisome sign for Chinese demand for commodities (Chart 8).4 Chart 7EM-Commodity Divergence##BR##Is Unsustainable Chart 8China Downside Risks For##BR##Industrial Commodity Prices Bottom Line: While global growth will remain supportive of EM credit, currency weakness and a re-convergence with commodity prices present considerable headwinds. EM Debt Performance & The Fed Policy Cycle Chart 9The Fed Policy Cycle As more central banks are shifting to a tightening bias, investors are becoming increasingly concerned over policy normalization and its potential impact on credit market performance. Given the strong historical linkages between EM debt performance and Fed policy changes, the current U.S. tightening cycle looms as a major potential problem for EM assets. We have found it most useful to think about changes in Fed monetary policy and asset market performance in terms of breaking up the Fed policy into four distinct phases (Chart 9).5 These are characterized by both the level of interest rates (whether they are above or below "equilibrium") and the direction of policy changes (whether the Fed is raising or cutting rates):6 Phase 1 - the Fed is hiking while the fed funds rate is below equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are stimulative). Phase 2 - the Fed is hiking or keeping policy on hold while the fed funds rate is above equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are restrictive). Phase 3 - the Fed is cutting while the fed funds rate is above equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are restrictive). Phase 4 - the Fed is cutting rates while the fed funds rate is below equilibrium (i.e. monetary conditions are stimulative). For EM sovereign debt where we have index data going back to 1994, there have been four episodes of Phase 1 and three episodes of the other phases. For EM corporate debt, where the index data begins in 2002, there have been two episodes of Phases 1 and 4 and only one occurrence of Phases 2 and 3. We present the excess returns of EM debt relative to other major fixed income classes by phase in Table 2. In the limited sample, EM sovereign debt and corporate debt consistently outperformed the Global Aggregate index and most individual bond classes. However, relative to DM high-yield debt, which has the most comparable risk profile, EM sovereign bonds underperformed in Phase 1 and EM corporate debt underperformed in all phases. Table 2Relative EM Debt Performance Worsens As Fed Policy Tightens Excess returns for both EM debt classes were highest in Phase 4, where the central bank is easing while conditions are stimulative. Similar to other risk assets, EM debt also outperformed in Phase 1, where the central bank is tightening while rates are below equilibrium. This makes sense, as the early stages of monetary tightening typically occur in conjunction with stable, above-trend growth. Liquidity conditions are still stimulative in Phase 1, which provides a substantial tailwind for spread product performance. On the other end of the spectrum, EM debt excess returns were relatively low during Phase 2 and Phase 3, and even negative in the case of EM corporate debt for Phase 3. Surprisingly, EM debt has been less affected by the direction of U.S. interest rates than what we would have expected. Monetary easing in Phase 3 was not enough to substantially boost EM relative returns and tightening in Phase 1 did not derail growth or lift the USD enough for EM debt to underperform. In fact, because EM debt still offers robust excess returns during Phase 1 when the central bank is tightening, while also suffering during Phase 3 during central bank easing, we can conclude that the level of policy rates relative to equilibrium has a greater impact on returns than the direction of rates. The severity of the Global Financial Crisis and the relatively subdued pace of recovery for both growth and inflation led to one of the longest Phase 4s in history. Given the low level of starting yields, indicating a large gap to equilibrium, and the 'gradual' pace of normalization, the current Phase 1 should also last longer than it typically has. This bodes well for all credit sectors, including EM sovereign and corporate debt, if history is any guide. However, there are still reasons to be concerned about the impact of U.S. monetary policy on EM assets next year. If the Fed follows through with the interest rate hikes it is currently projecting - another 100bps in total by the end of 2018 - the funds rate will be much closer to equilibrium. If the U.S. dollar rallies alongside that Fed tightening, as we expect, overall U.S. monetary conditions could end up being much closer to a restrictive level than implied by strictly looking at our Fed Policy Cycle (which only looks at the funds rate to determine monetary conditions). Also, the equilibrium funds rate may now be lower than the levels we are assuming in the Fed Policy Cycle framework, suggesting that policy could turn restrictive more quickly in the current tightening cycle. Bottom Line: The Fed is still in the early stages of rate normalization. At this point in the Fed policy cycle, where the Fed is hiking rates but monetary conditions are still stimulative, EM hard currency debt has historically performed well both on a relative and absolute basis. Looking ahead, EM returns should begin to suffer in latter half of 2018 as the Fed moves to more restrictive policy stance. Another Reason For Caution: Our EM Corporate Health Monitor The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor (CHM) is a directional indicator aimed at modeling the path of EM corporate spread movements. Financial data from 220 emerging market companies in over 30 countries is aggregated. Only firms that issue USD-denominated bonds are included, with banks and other financials also omitted in a similar fashion to the CHMs we have constructed for DM corporates. The indicator is made up of four financial ratios: profit margins, free cash flow to total debt, liquidity and leverage. Unlike the DM CHMs, the ratios are not equally weighted in the construction of the EM CHM. Profit margins and free cash flow to debt combined represent 75% of the EM CHM. The latest available reading is from Q2 2017, showing a large decrease, with the indicator now only barely in 'Improving Health' territory (Chart 10). This has occurred in tandem with EM corporate spreads narrowing to post-crisis lows, leaving EM debt at potentially overvalued levels on a fundamental basis. While this slowdown in the EM CHM is not yet a cause for concern, if this became an extended trend of financial health deterioration, the divergence with EM corporate debt performance would be unsustainable and leave EM corporates highly vulnerable to a correction. Chart 10The BCA EM Corporate Health Monitor Has Rolled Over EM Corporate Health Monitor Is Sending A 'Sell' Signal Bottom Line: Our EM Corporate Health Monitor has declined drastically and is barely in 'Improving Health' territory. This alone is not cause for concern yet, but further deterioration in our Monitor combined with additional credit spread narrowing would be a worrisome divergence. Investment Implications Emerging market debt is facing conflicting forces. While continued robust global growth and accommodative monetary policy provide a substantial tailwind for credit performance, extended valuations, the turn in the USD and a potentially worsening commodities outlook present difficult hurdles for EM to overcome. Given the mixed messages, we prefer owning cyclical credit exposure through DM corporate debt, particularly U.S. investment grade. EM debt yields have collapsed and are expensive relative to DM investment grade debt (Chart 11). Combined with a higher risk profile in EM, elevated valuations indicate that EM sovereign and corporate debt are vulnerable to larger corrections. From a return perspective, the difference in the corporate option-adjusted spreads (OAS) has been an excellent leading indicator for relative total returns (Chart 12). This differential indicates that there is considerable relative upside potential for U.S. investment grade over EM hard currency debt. Additionally, while global growth should support credit-related plays, relative growth dynamics are more supportive of U.S. investment grade because the next phase of the global growth upturn will be driven by DM countries and not EM. The difference between the manufacturing PMIs in the U.S. and EM has historically been a good directional indicator for the spread between U.S. corporate bond spreads and EM debt spreads (Chart 13). The gap between the relative manufacturing PMI readings is at a post-crisis high, and could widen further if EM economies suffer on the back of any pullback in Chinese growth in 2018. Chart 11EM Yields & Spreads Look Full Valued Chart 12Favor U.S. IG Over EM Corporates... Chart 13...Because Of Stronger U.S. Growth What are the risks to our view? Our recommended position would suffer in the event that inflation in the U.S. slows, keeping the Fed on hold and maintaining this year's USD downtrend. Also, if China were to ease up on its policy tightening, industrial commodity prices could strengthen once again. Under these scenarios, EM hard currency debt would likely outperform DM spread product. Bottom Line: Maintain moderate underweight positions in EM hard currency debt. Favor DM spread product (especially U.S. investment grade corporates) due to more supportive relative valuations and growth trends. Patrick Trinh, Associate Editor Global Fixed Income Strategy patrick@bcaresearch.com Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 This “EM versus IG” trade was implemented in both our Emerging Markets Strategy and Global Fixed Income Strategy services. Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, “EM: The Focus Is On Profits”, dated August 16th 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com, as well as the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, “A Lack Of Leadership”, dated August 22nd 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 2 The weighting to EM debt in the Global Fixed Income Strategy model bond portfolio benchmark is based on market capitalizations of all the fixed income sectors we wanted to have in the benchmark, which includes non-investment grade debt like global high-yield corporates. It is reassuring to see that our benchmark weighting is also the desired weighting from a long-run portfolio optimization perspective. 3 Please see BCA Emerging Markets Strategy Weekly Report, "Is The Dollar Expensive, And Are EM Currencies Cheap?", dated October 11th, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see the joint BCA Global Asset Allocation/Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report, "Global Equity Allocation: The Underwhelming Case For EM", dated August 9th 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com & gaa.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy Special Report, "Bonds And The Fed Funds Rate Cycle", dated May 27th 2014, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 6 The equilibrium policy rate is a BCA calculation based on long-run real potential GDP growth and long run inflation expectations.

Dear Clients, Please note there was an error in the Recommend Asset Allocation table published on November 1, 2017. This has now been amended. We apologize for the confusion and any inconvenience it may have caused. Best Regards, Garry Evans Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation Reflation Trade Returns Recommended Allocation The market mood has shifted remarkably quickly over the past couple of months. The probability of a December Fed rate hike has moved up from 20% in early September to close to 100%, pushing the 10-year Treasury bond yield from 2.0% to 2.4% and causing the trade-weighted U.S. dollar to appreciate by 2%, and Emerging Market equities to underperform. We expect this trend to continue. Global growth continues to surprise to the upside (Chart 1). The softness in U.S. inflation this year is likely to reverse over coming quarters - an argument supported by the New York Fed's new Underlying Inflation Gauge, which indicates that sustained movements in inflation continue to trend higher (Chart 2). This makes it likely that the Fed will move ahead with its forecast three rate hikes in 2018, which the market has not yet priced in (Chart 3) - the implied probability of this is only 10%. Consequently, rates have further to rise: our fair value for the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield currently is 2.7%. And the increasing gap between U.S. and euro zone interest rates suggests that the dollar can appreciate further (Chart 4). All this supports our view that risk assets (equities and corporate credit) should outperform over the next 12 months, with developed government bonds producing a negative return, and emerging markets lagging because of rising rates and the stronger dollar (and a possible slowdown in China, as it focuses on reforming its economy and cleaning up the debt situation). Chart 1Growth Surprising To The Upside Chart 2Underlying Inflation Still Trending Up Chart 3Market Expects Fed To Move Only Slowly Chart 4Rate Gap Suggests Dollar Appreciation The key question, though, is how long this positive scenario can continue. With stock market valuations expensive (Chart 5) and investors fully invested, though not yet euphoric (Chart 6), we are clearly in late cycle. Rising rates could put a dampener on growth. Chart 5 Equities Close To Extremely Overvalued Chart 6Investors Are Fully Invested, But Cautious We find the Fed policy cycle a useful tool for thinking about probable investment returns from different assets (Chart 7). The best quadrant for risk assets is when the Fed is easing and policy is easy (with the Fed Funds Rate below the neutral rate). Currently we are in the bottom-right quadrant (Fed tightening, but not yet in the tight zone), which also has produced attractive returns for equities and credit. But once the Fed Funds Rate (FFR) moves above the neutral rate, returns from risk assets are on average poor and, historically, recession often followed quite quickly. How much longer do we have before Fed policy moves into the top-right quadrant? The Fed's own estimate of the neutral rate, in real terms, is 0.3%. The current real FFR (using core PCE inflation, 1.3%, as the deflator) is -0.17 (Chart 8). This implies that it will take only two further Fed hikes to move into the tight zone, which could happen as soon as March. This is why the outlook for inflation is critical. If, as the Fed forecasts and we also expect, core PCE inflation rises to 2%, it will be another five hikes before policy turns tight - we are unlikely to get there until early 2019. Chart 7The Fed Policy Cycle Chart 8How Far From The Tight Zone? For now, therefore, we continue to recommend an overweight on risk assets and pro-cyclical portfolio tilts. Global monetary policy remains easy and we see no indicators that suggest growth is slowing or that the risk of recession over the next 12 months is rising. The risks to this optimistic scenario (a hawkish Fed, over-eager structural reform in China, provocation from North Korea) seem limited. But we also continue to warn of the possibility of a recession in 2019 or 2020 caused, as so often, by excessive Fed tightening. We see, therefore, the possibility of our turning more defensive somewhere in mid-2018. Equities: We prefer developed over emerging market equities. Rising interest rates and an appreciating dollar will be headwinds for EM. Moreover, Xi Jinping's speech at the Communist Party Congress hinted at supply side structural reforms, overcapacity reduction, and deleveraging efforts. A renewed reform effort could dampen Chinese growth somewhat which, as in 2013-15, would negatively impact EM equities (Chart 9). Within DM, we are overweight euro zone and Japanese equities, which are higher beta, have stronger earnings momentum, and benefit from looser monetary policy. Fixed Income: We expect bonds to underperform over coming quarters, as U.S. inflation picks up and the Fed moves raises rates in line with its "dots". Corporate credit still has some attractions, provided the economic expansion continues. U.S. sub-investment grade bonds, in particular, have an attractive default-adjusted yield, as long as a strong economy keeps the default rate over the next 12 months to the historically low 2% our model suggests (Chart 10). The pick-up in inflation we expect would mean inflation-linked bonds outperform nominal bonds. Chart 9Slowing China Would Hurt EM Equities Chart 10Junk Attractive If Defaults Stay This Low Currencies: The ECB delivered a dovish tapering last month, extending its asset purchases until at least September 2018 and emphasizing that its current low interest rates will continue "well past the horizon of our net asset purchases". Given this, and the gap between U.S. and euro zone interest rates (Chart 4), we expect moderate further euro weakness over coming months. The dollar is likely to appreciate even more against the yen. There are the first tentative signs of inflation emerging in Japan (Chart 11) which, combined with the Bank of Japan sticking to its 0% 10-year JGB target and rising global interest rates, could push the yen to 120 against the dollar over coming months. Commodities: BCA's energy strategists recently revised up their crude oil forecasts on the back of strong demand, a likely extension of the OPEC agreement until at least end-2018, and possible supply disruptions in Iraq, Venezuela and other troubled regions.1 They see inventories continuing to draw down until at least 2H 2018 (Chart 12). Accordingly, they forecast $65 a barrel for Brent and $63 for WTI and flag upside risk to those projections. The outlook for industrial and precious metals, however, is less positive. A stronger dollar and a shift in the growth drivers in China will depress prices for base metals. Rising real interest rates will hurt gold, although we still like precious metals as a long-term hedge. Chart 11First Signs Of Inflation In Japan? Chart 12Oil Inventory Drawdowns Support Higher Price Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Oil Forecast Lifted As Market Tightens," dated 19 October 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com GAA Asset Allocation

Feature This week we are sending you a shorter-than-usual market update, as we are also publishing a Special Report exploring the outlook for USD cross-currency basis swap spreads. This report argues that USD basis swap spreads should widen over the next 12 months. Being a phenomenon associated with higher FX vols, this should hurt carry trades, including EM and dollar bloc currencies. It will also potentially create additional support for the USD. Also, next week, we will provide a deeper analysis of the fallout from the New Zealand government's dynamics. ECB Tapers? European Central Bank President Mario Draghi refused to call it "tapering," but he nonetheless announced that the ECB will be cutting back its asset purchases to EUR30 billion per month until at least September 2018. However, because the ECB will continue to proceed with re-investment of the stock of assets it holds, the monthly total presence of the ECB in European bond markets will stay above EUR 30 billion. Moreover, the ECB is keeping the door open to leaving its purchases in place beyond September 2019, if inflation does not keep track with the central bank's forecasts, and thus referred to the adjustment as being open-ended. Ultimately, the ECB does think that the recent rebound in inflation has been and remains a function of maintaining a very accommodative monetary setting. We think this option to keep the asset purchases in place beyond September 2018 is just this: an option. However, we do believe that yesterday's change in policy means the ECB will not increase interest rates until well into 2019. We also anticipate U.S. core inflation to begin outperforming euro area core inflation as U.S. financial conditions have eased significantly relative to the euro area - a key factor to redistribute inflationary pressures among these two economies (Chart I-1). As a result, because we anticipate that the Federal Reserve will increase the fed funds rate by more than the 67 basis points currently expected over the next two years, there could be some downside risk in EUR/USD. This downside risk is already highlighted by the large gap that has recently emerged between the 1-year/1-year forward risk-free rate spread between Europe and the U.S. versus the euro itself (Chart I-2). Chart I-1U.S. Inflation Set To Outperform Euro Area Prices Chart I-2Forward Interest Rates Point To A Lower Euro Moreover, the elevated long positioning right now further highlights the downside risk present in the euro (Chart I-3), probably explaining the European currency's rather violent reaction to what was a well-anticipated policy move. This means that EUR/USD could end 2017 in the 1.15 neighborhood, and fall further in 2018. Chart I-3Positioning Risk In EUR/USD Bottom Line: The ECB delivered exactly what was anticipated, yet the euro sold off. The ECB is unlikely to increase interest rates until well into 2019, suggesting the first anticipated rate hike in Europe is fairly priced. Thus, in order to justify any downside in the euro, one needs to be more positive on the Fed than what is currently priced into the U.S. interest rate curve. We fall into this camp. Moreover, positioning remains too long the euro. We expect EUR/USD to fall toward 1.15 by year end, and display more downside in 2018. Bank Of Canada The Bank of Canada (BoC) surprised the market this week by expressing a reversing of its recent pronounced hawkish bias, instead expressing a much more cautious tone. Where a closed output gap was once driving the need for tighter policy, residual labor market slack now warrants a more restrained approach to tightening. What has changed? NAFTA. The most recent and tenuous NAFTA negotiation round raised the specter of an end to the North American FTA. While NAFTA is still not dead, the rising probability that Canada-U.S. trade falls backs under the umbrella of the previous CUSFTA or even maybe something worse is causing a headache for Canadian policymakers. Some 20% of Canadian GDP is made up of products destined to be exported to the U.S., and this large chunk of GDP could be under some risk. Additionally, as the BoC highlighted, future investment decisions by firms in Canada may become investments in the U.S. to bypass regulatory uncertainty. Ultimately, if the Canada / U.S. trade relationship falls back under the CUSFTA umbrella, the impact on Canadian growth will be limited. Nonetheless, we think the BoC is correct to play its hand carefully, especially as the Canadian housing market is cooling. Moreover, a recent IPSOS survey revealed that around 40% of Canadian households would face financial difficulties if rates moved up significantly, which may justify a slower pace of hiking. With all this uncertainty looming, it is logical for the BoC to take its time before tightening policy anew. But in the end, we do anticipate the Canadian central bank to increase rates around two times next year, which is in line with the market's assessment: Canada's output gap is closing, and inflation is moving in the right direction. Thus, the outlook for the CAD is likely to be dominated by the outlook for oil. Robert Ryan, who runs BCA's Commodity And Energy Strategy service, expects WTI to move toward US$63/bbl next year, with upside risk to his forecast.1 This could help the CAD. However, the CAD does not seem particularly cheap against the USD when Canada's poor productivity performance is taken into account (Chart I-4), and speculators are now quite long the CAD (Chart I-5). As a result, our preferred medium to express positive views on the CAD is to be short AUD/CAD, where a valuation advantage is still present for the loonie (Chart I-6). Moreover, the AUD is more likely to suffer from China moving away from its investment-led growth model, while the CAD is less exposed to this risk. Chart I-4The CAD Is Not That Cheap Chart I-5Speculators Are Very Long The CAD Chart I-6Short AUD/CAD Bottom Line: The BoC is rightfully concerned that a breakdown of NAFTA would negatively affect the Canadian economy. While a return to CUSFTA would minimize any impact, the current high degree of uncertainty warrants that the BoC takes a more cautious stance. Ultimately, the BoC will increase rates next year, potentially two times. We continue to prefer to short AUD/CAD. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Upside Risks Dominate BCA's Oil Price Forecast", dated October 26, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 U.S. data has been strong: Manufacturing PMI came out at 54.5, stronger than expected; Services PMI came out at 55.9, also stronger than expected; Durable goods orders increased by 2.2%; New home sales increased by 18.9% monthly, the highest growth rate in 25 years; Initial jobless claims declined and beat expectations. Crucially, the DXY is above its 100-day moving average and has broken the reverse head-and-shoulders neckline, with momentum in the greenback's favor. The ECB's tapering weakened the euro by 1.4%. Further weakness in commodity currencies also allowed the dollar to gain momentum. We expect this momentum to continue as inflation in the U.S. re-emerges over the next six to twelve months. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 The ECB's decision was largely in line with market consensus, but the euro nonetheless fell significantly. The ECB will halve its rate of purchases to EUR 30 bn a month starting next year until at least September 2018. However, President Mario Draghi stated that this could be extended beyond September, or even increased, if conditions warrant it. Draghi noted that "domestic price pressures are still muted overall and the economic outlook and the path of inflation remain conditional on continued support from monetary policy", also stating that rates would remain low for an extended period of time, and possibly even "past the horizon of the net asset purchases". Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Recent data in Japan has been mixed: The Leading Economic Index increased from 105.2 to 107.2 in the month of August. Nikkei Manufacturing PMI surprised to the downside, coming in at 52.5, declining from 52.9 the month before. However, corporate service prices year-on-year growth came in at 0.9%, against expectations of 0.8%. Following the overwhelming victory of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, the USD/JPY traded above 114, before stabilizing just below later in the week. Now that Abe has won the election, he is freer to implement loose fiscal policy in order to increase his chances to amend the pacifist Japanese constitution. This, accompanied by 10-year JGB rates anchored around zero, and a Federal Reserve that is likely to hike more than expected, should push USD/JPY higher. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Recent data in Britain has been mixed: Gross Domestic product yearly and quarterly growth surprised to the upside, coming in at 1.5% and 0.4% respectively. Moreover, public sector net borrowing was also lower than expected coming in at 5.236 billion pounds for the month of September. However, BBA mortgage approvals came below expectations, coming in at 41.584 thousand, which is lower than the month before. The pound has gone up following the positive GDP reading. As of now the market considers there is a 91% probability that the Bank of England hikes rates in November. However any hikes beyond that would require a significant improvement in economic activity. Thus, we would tend to fade any strength in GBP/USD, as the Fed is more likely to hike rates than the BoE on a sustainable basis. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 The AUD declined on weak consumer price numbers. The trimmed mean CPI remained steady at 1.8% annually, below the expected 2% rate, and weakened to 0.4% quarterly, down from 0.5%. The largest yearly decline was in communication (services or equipment) of 1.4%, although declines in food prices and clothing were also substantial at 0.9%. This is largely in line with our view that the consumer sector is handicapped with poor wage growth. We believe inflation is unlikely to move much higher; this will keep the RBA at bay. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Recent data in New Zealand has been negative: Imports surprised to the upside, coming in at 4.92 billion dollars. This figure also increased form last month's reading. However exports underperformed expectations, coming in at 3.78 billion dollars for the month of September. Finally the trade balance, also underperformed expectations, coming in at -1.143 billion dollars. After the election of new Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern the kiwi has plunged, and now has a negative return year-to-date. The government is trying to implement three measures which significantly affect the value of the kiwi: a dual central bank mandate, restrictions on immigration, and a stop to foreign real estate purchases. All these measures lower the terminal rate for the RBNZ. With this being said, we are still shorting AUD/NZD given that commodity dynamics will dominate the movements of this cross. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Bad Breadth - July 7, 2017 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 CAD had an eventful week as the Bank of Canada came out with a monetary policy decision. The decision was in line with the consensus, but the statement was not. The Bank was particularly concerned "about political developments and fiscal and trade policies, notably the renegotiation of the North American Free Trade Agreement". Additionally, it was also noted that "because of high debt levels, household spending is likely more sensitive to interest rates than in the past". The Bank also made a U-turn in its view of the labor market, stating that "wage and other data indicate that there is still slack in the labor market". These unexpected remarks dropped the CAD's value by 1% against USD. Report Links: Currency Hedging: Dynamic Or Static? - A Practical Guide For Global Investors - September 29, 2017 Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 The Franc continues to depreciate against the Euro, even as EUR/USD has gone down more than 2.5% since peaking early in December. Meanwhile, as the franc has depreciated, economic variables have improved. The KOF Industry Survey Business Climate indicator is now positive for the first time since 2011. Meanwhile, core inflation has reached 2011 highs as well. Additionally multiple components of PMI are at their highest level in the past 6 years. All of these factors bode well for the Swiss economy, and prove that the SNB's ultra-loose monetary policy and currency intervention is working. That being said, we would like to see more strength from key economic variables to consider shorting EUR/CHF, given that the recovery is still too fragile for the SNB to change policy. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 The Norges Bank left their key policy rate unchanged at 0.5% yesterday. The central bank highlighted that capacity utilization was below normal levels and that inflation was expected to be below 2.5% in the coming years. Furthermore, the comittee highlighted that although the labor market appears to be improving, inflation has been lower than expected, while the krone is also weaker than projected. The bank has reassured our view that even in the face of strong oil prices, slack is still too big in the Norwegian economy for the Norges Bank to start raising rates. Furthermore, a hawkish fed will further put upward pressure on USD/NOK. Than being said, EUR/NOK should depreciate, given that this cross is much more sensitive to oil than it is to rate differentials. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 10 Charts For A Late-August Day - August 25, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 The SEK has depreciated considerably in recent weeks owing to somewhat weaker inflation figures. It has weakened particularly against the EUR, as markets are expecting the Riksbank to follow the ECB in its rate path. This was confirmed by a particularly dovish tone from the recent monetary policy statement which exacerbated this decline, with the board expecting to maintain the current monetary policy until mid-2018, and even discussed a possible extension of asset purchase programs beyond December. The Board has "also taken a decision to extend the mandate that facilitates a quick intervention in the foreign exchange market". Finally, they lowered their inflation forecasts for both 2017 and 2018. Stefan Ingves is firmly in control. Report Links: Updating Our Long-Term Fair Value Models - September 15, 2017 Balance Of Payments Across The G10 - August 4, 2017 Who Hikes Next? - June 30, 2017 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Special Report

Highlights Three factors point to stable or narrower USD cross-currency basis swap spreads: the improving health of global banks, the end of the adjustment to the regulatory change affecting prime-money market funds, and the relaxation to the Supplementary Leverage Ratio rules by the U.S. Treasury. Four factors point to wider basis swap spreads: BCA's forecast that U.S. loan growth will pick up, our view on U.S. inflation, the coming decline in the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, and the potential for U.S. repatriation. We expect USD basis swap spreads to widen again, which suggests increasing FX vol. This would hurt carry trades, EM currencies and dollar bloc currencies. Feature Three factors point to stable or narrower USD cross-currency basis swap spreads: the improving health of global banks, the end of the adjustment to the regulatory change affecting prime-money market funds, and the relaxation to the Supplementary Leverage Ratio rules by the U.S. Treasury. Four factors point to wider basis swap spreads: BCA's forecast that U.S. loan growth will pick up, our view on U.S. inflation, the coming decline in the Federal Reserve's balance sheet, and the potential for U.S. repatriation. We expect USD basis swap spreads to widen again, which suggests increasing FX vol. This would hurt carry trades, EM currencies and dollar bloc currencies. The rather arcane topic of cross-currency basis swap spreads has periodically surfaced in the news in the past few years. The widening in cross-currency basis swap spreads has been highlighted as one of the key factors explaining why covered interest rate parity relationships (the link between the price of FX forward, spot prices and interest rate differentials) have not held as closely after the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) as before. The widening of cross-currency basis swap spreads has also been highlighted as a factor behind the strength in the U.S. dollar in 2014 and 2015. Similarly, the recent narrowing in the cross-currency basis swap spread has been highlighted as a factor behind the weakness in the USD this year. This week we delve a little deeper into what cross-currency basis swap spread measures, and what some of its major determinants are. We ultimately expect the USD cross-currency basis swap spread to widen again, which should contribute to a stronger dollar and increased global FX volatility. What Is A Cross-Currency Basis Swap? To examine what drives cross-currency basis swap spreads, one first needs to understand what these instruments are. Let's begin with a regular FX swap. An FX swap in EUR/USD is a contract through which two counterparties agree to exchange EURs for USDs today, with a reversal of that exchange at the maturity of the contract - a reversal set at a predetermined exchange rate simply equal to the forward value of the EUR/USD. So, if counterparty A lends X million EURs to counterparty B, the former receives in U.S. dollars the equivalent of X million EURs times the prevalent EUR/USD spot rate from counterparty B today. The transaction does not end there. Simultaneously, the FX swap forces B to give back the X million EURs to counterparty A at maturity, while counterparty A gives back X million EUR times the EUR/USD forward rate in U.S. dollars to counterparty B. This forward rate is the rate prevalent when the contract was agreed upon. The transactions are illustrated in the top panel of Chart 1. Chart 1FX Swaps Vs. Cross Currency Basis Swaps The problem with regular FX swaps is that they offer little liquidity at extended maturities. If market players want to hedge long-term liabilities and assets, they tend to do so using a cross-currency basis swap, where much more liquidity is available at long maturities. Chart 2A Bigger Funding Gap = ##br##A Wider Basis Swap Spread A EUR/USD cross currency basis swap begins in the same way as a regular FX swap: counterparty A lends X million EURs to counterparty B, and the former receives in U.S. dollars the equivalent of X million EURs times the prevalent EUR/USD spot rate from counterparty B today. However, this is where the similarities end. A cross-currency basis swap has exchanges of cash flows through its term. Counterparty B, which provided USDs to counterparty A, receives 3-month USD Libor, while counterparty A, which provided EURs to counterparty B, received 3-month EUR Libor + a (alpha being the cross-currency basis swap spread). At the maturity of the contract, counterparty A and B both receive their regular intermediary cash flows, and also re-exchange their respective principal - but this time at the same spot rate as the one that existed at the entry of the contract (Chart 1, bottom panel). In both regular FX and cross-currency basis swaps, counterparties have removed their FX risks, except that in the latter, the interest differentials have been paid during the life of the contract instead of being factored through the forward premium/discount. This is fine and dandy, but it leaves a unexplained. The cross currency basis swap spread (a), is a direct function of the relative supply and demand for each currency. If investors demand a lot of EUR in the swap market relative to its supply, a will be positive. If they demand more USDs, a will be negative. A good example of this dynamic is the funding gap of banks. Let's take the Japanese example. Japanese banks have a surplus of domestic deposits (thanks to the massive savings of the Japanese corporate sector) relative to their yen lending. As a result, they have large dollar lending operations. To hedge their dollar assets, Japanese banks borrow USD in large quantities in the cross-currency swap market. This tends to result in a negative swap spread in the yen (Chart 2). This is particularly true if both the banking sector and the other actors in the economy (institutional investors and non-financial firms) also borrow dollars in the swap market to hedge dollar assets, which is the case in Japan (Chart 3). Chart 3Japanese Investors Are Accumulating Assets Abroad Additionally, if there are perceived solvency risks in the European banking sector, this should further weigh on the cross-currency basis swap spread, pushing it deeper into negative territory, as the viability of the main EUR counterparties becomes at risk. The same dance is true for any currency pair. Chart 4The Structural Gap In The Basis Swap Spread##br## Reflects Regulation The other factor that affects USD cross-currency basis swap spreads is the supply of U.S. dollars, especially the room on large banks' balance sheets to service these markets. The cross-currency basis swap spread could be close to zero if large arbitrageurs take offsetting positions to arbitrage the spread away, doing so until the spread disappears. However, with the imposition of Basel III and Dodd-Franks, banks have been constrained in their capacity to do this. Indeed, increased leverage ratio requirements (now banks need to post more capital behind repo transactions as well as collateralized lending and other derivatives) mean that arbitraging cross-currency basis swap spreads and deviations from covered interest rate parity has become much more expensive. Furthermore, the increase in Tier 1 capital ratios associated with these regulations has forced banks to de-lever; however, engaging in arbitrage activities still requires plenty of leverage (Chart 4). Economic Factors Driving The Spread The factors that we look at essentially relate to the supply of USD available for lending in offshore markets, as well as determinants of relative counterparty risks between the U.S. and the rest of the world. Factors Arguing For Narrower Cross-Currency Basis Swap Spreads Global Banks Health The price-to-book ratio of global banks outside the U.S. has been largely correlated with USD cross-currency swap spreads. When global banks get de-rated, spreads widen, and it becomes more expensive to hedge USD positions in the swap market (Chart 5). This is because as investors perceive the solvency of global banks deteriorating, they impose a penalty as the Herstatt risk increases. Additionally, solvency problems can force banks to scramble to access USD funding, prompting deeper spreads. Chart 5Banks Perceived Health Determines ##br##Basis Swap Spreads BCA is positive on global financials and sees continued improvement in European NPLs. This means that solvency risk concerns are likely to remain on the backburner for now, pointing to narrower basis swap spreads. Supplementary Leverage Ratio Changes In June, the U.S. Treasury announced a relaxation of some of its rules on supplementary leverage ratios, lowering the amount of capital required to support activity in the repo market behind initial margins for centrally cleared derivatives, and behind holdings of Treasurys. This means that commercial banks in the U.S. can have bigger balance sheets and more room to engage in arbitrage activity, implying a greater supply of dollars in the USD cross-currency basis swap market. In response to last June's proposal, basis swap spreads narrowed by 11 basis points. BCA believes these changes will continue to support dollar liquidity, and will further help in narrowing cross-currency basis swap spreads. Prime Money-Market Funds Debacle Is Over Chart 6More Expensive Bank Funding Equals ##br##Wider Basis Swap Spreads In October 2016, regulatory changes were implemented that allowed prime money market funds to have fluctuating net asset values. Obviously, this meant that prime money-market funds would be not-so-prime anymore. As a result, to remain the ultra-safe vehicles that they once were, prime money-market funds de-risked. As a result, they cut their exposure to risky activities in anticipation of these changes. In practice, a key source of short-term funding for banks evaporated from the market, putting upward pressure on bank financing costs. As the LIBOR-OIS spread increased, so did basis-swap spreads (Chart 6): as it became more expensive for banks to finance themselves, they had to curtail the supply of USDs provided to the swap market, an activity normally requiring intense demand on banks' balance sheets. This adjustment is now over, suggesting limited potential widening in USD basis swap spreads. Factors Arguing For Wider Cross-Currency Basis Swap Spreads 1. U.S. Loan Growth When U.S. banks increase their loan formation activity, USD cross-currency basis swap spreads widen (Chart 7). As banks increase their extension of credit through loans, they decrease the amount of securities they hold on their balance sheets (Chart 8). This means there is less supply of liquidity available for balance sheet activities, particularly providing dollar funding in the offshore market. In the Basel III / Dodd-Frank world, less-liquid bank balance sheets are synonymous with wider USD basis-swap spreads. As we argued last week, increasing U.S. capex, easing lending standards for firms and rising household income levels should result in increasing loan growth in the U.S. which will result in lower abundance of liquid assets and a widening basis swap spreads.1 Chart 7More Bank Loans Lead To Wider Swap Spreads Chart 8More Debt Equals Less Securities In Bank Credit 2. U.S. Inflation There is a fairly close relationship between U.S. inflation and the USD basis swap spread, where a higher core CPI tends to lead to a wider spread (Chart 9). The fall in U.S. inflation this year likely contributed to the narrowing in basis swap spreads. Our take on this is that as inflation falls, it gives an incentive for banks to hold low-yielding liquidity on their balance sheets as real returns on cash improve. This fuels a gigantic carry trade through the basis-swap market. We expect inflation to pick up meaningfully by mid-2018, which should widen cross-currency basis swap spreads.2 3. Central Bank Balance Sheets When the Federal Reserve increases the size of its balance sheet relative to other balance sheets, this tends to lead to a narrowing of the USD basis swap spread as the global supply of dollars relative to other currencies increases. The opposite is also true. This relationship did not work after late 2016 (Chart 10). However, during that episode, as the change in prime money-market funds caused a dislocation in banks' funding, commercial banks exhibited cautious behavior and increased their reserves with the Fed. As Chart 11 illustrates, there is a tight relationship between the change in commercial banks' reserves held at the Fed and cross-currency basis swap spreads. Going forward, as the Fed lets it balance sheet run off, we expect to see a decrease in commercial banks' excess reserves. This could contribute to upward movement in the basis swap spread. Chart 9When U.S. Inflation Increases, ##br##Swap Spreads Widen Chart 10Smaller Fed Balance Sheet Leads To##br## Wider Basis Swap Spreads Chart 11Fed Runoff Could##br## Widen Basis Swap Spreads 4. U.S. Repatriations The most revealing relationship unearthed in our study was that when U.S. entities repatriate funds at home, this tends to put strong widening pressure on the USD cross-currency basis swap spread (Chart 12). U.S. businesses hold large cash piles abroad - by some estimates more than US$2.5 trillion. However, most of these funds are held in highly liquid, high-quality U.S.-dollar assets offshore. These assets are perfect collaterals for various transactions in the interbank market. The funds held abroad by U.S. firms are a source of supply for U.S. dollars in the offshore markets. When U.S. entities bring assets back home, the widening in the basis swap spread essentially reflects a decline in the supply of USD in offshore markets, and vice versa when Americans export capital abroad. Chart 12U.s. Repatriations Support Wider Basis Swap Spreads BCA's base case is that tax cuts are likely to hit the U.S. economy in 2018, even if the growing feud between Trump and the establishment Republican party members is a growing risk. BCA still views a tax repatriation as a higher-likelihood event, as it is the easiest way for the U.S. government to bring funds into its coffers. The 2004 tax repatriation under former President George W. Bush did result in substantial fund repatriation in the U.S. This time will not be different. We expect any such tax repatriation to cause a potentially large deficit of supply in the USD offshore markets, which could create a strong widening basis on the cross-currency basis swap spread in favor of the dollar. Bottom Line: Three factors argue for USD cross-currency basis swap spreads to stay at current levels, or even narrow further. These factors are the health of global banks, the easing in U.S. supplementary leverage ratios and the end of the adjustment of U.S. bank funding to new regulations affecting prime money-market funds. On the other hand four factors points to wider USD cross-currency basis swap spreads: BCA's positive outlook for U.S. credit growth; BCA's positive outlook on U.S. inflation; the run-off of the Fed's balance sheet; and the potential for U.S. entities repatriating funds from abroad. Potential Direction And Investment Implications We anticipate USD cross-currency basis swap spreads to widen over the coming 12 months. We think the easing in the Supplementary Leverage Ratios rules by the U.S. Treasury is the most important factor pointing to narrower USD cross-currency basis swap spreads. However, Basel III rules and most of Dodd-Frank are still in place, which suggest there remains large constraints on the balance-sheet activities of global banks, which will limit the potential for a narrowing of the USD basis swap spread as U.S. banks will remain constrained in their ability to supply U.S. dollars in the offshore market. On the other hand many factors support wider USD cross-currency basis swap spreads, most important of which is the potential for more credit growth. This is in our view a very strong force as it requires banks to ration the use of their balance sheets, limiting their activity in the offshore market. Moreover, we do foresee a high probability of tax repatriation, which would put strong widening pressure on the swap spreads. In terms of implications, wider USD basis swap spreads tend to be associated with rising FX vols (Chart 13). As we highlighted in a Special Report last year, higher FX vols are poison for carry trades.3 As such, we think that widening swap spreads could spur a period of trouble for traditional carry currencies. This means EM and dollar-block currencies are likely to suffer in this environment. Chart 13Wider Basis Swap Spreads Equals Higher Vol Additionally, in China, Xi Jinping is consolidating power and has taken control of the Politburo. This implies he now has more room to implement reforms. Removal of growth targets after 2020, removal of growth as a criterion for grading local officials, a focus on balanced growth, and a focus on combatting pollution all suggest that Chinese growth is unlikely to follow the same debt-fueled, capex-led model.4 This will weigh on Chinese imports of raw materials, and hurt export volumes and prices for many EM countries and commodities producers. This means these policies represent a headwind for many carry currencies. Moreover, historically, wider USD funding costs have been associated with a stronger dollar, as it makes it more expensive to hedge dollar assets. Thus, in an environment where U.S. interest rates are rising relative to the rest of the world - making U.S. assets attractive - wider basis swap spreads are an additional factor that could lift the dollar. Bottom Line: We anticipate the USD cross-currency basis swap spread to widen over the next 12 months. This will be associated with higher FX vols, which hurt carry trades, EM currencies and dollar-block currencies. Chinese reforms will reinforce these risks. Additionally, wider basis swap spreads will create support for the USD. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "All About Credit", dated October 20, 2017, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Conflicting Forces For The Dollar", dated September 8, 2017, and "Is The Dollar Expensive?", dated October 13, 2017. 3 Please see Foreign Exchange Strategy Special Report, titled "Carry Trades: More Than Pennies And Steamrollers", dated May 6, 2016. 4 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, titled "Xi Jinping: Chairman Of Everything", dated October 25, 2017 and Special Report, titled "How To Read Xi Jinping's Party Congress Speech", dated October 18, 2017.

Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights The macro environment remains positive for risk assets. Nonetheless, the shadow of the '87 stock market crash is a reminder that major market corrections can occur even when the earnings and economic growth backdrop is upbeat. Our base case remains that global growth will stay reasonably firm in 2018, although the composition of that growth will shift towards the U.S. thanks to the lagged effects of easier financial conditions and the likelihood of some fiscal stimulus next year. Positive U.S. economic growth surprises and the disappearing output gap will allow the Fed to raise rates more than is discounted by the markets, providing a lift to the dollar and widening U.S. yield spreads relative to its trading partners. The momentum in profit growth, however, will favor Japan relative to the U.S. and Europe. Investors should overweight Japanese equities and hedge the currency risk. There is still more upside for oil prices, but we are not playing the rally in base metals. The Chinese economy is performing well at the moment, but ample base metal supply and a rising dollar argue against a substantial price rise from current levels. Emerging market equities should underperform the developed markets due to a rising U.S. dollar and the largely sideways path for base metals. Our macro and profit views are consistent with cyclicals outperforming defensive stocks. Investors should also continue to bet on higher inflation expectations and be overweight corporate bonds (relative to governments). High-yield relative value is decent after accounting for the favorable default outlook. It is too early to fully retreat from risk assets and prepare for the next recession. Nonetheless, the market has entered a late cycle phase. Investors appear to have shed fears of secular stagnation, and have embraced a return to a lackluster-growth version of the Great Moderation. The risk of disappointment is therefore elevated. Low levels of market correlation and implied volatility can perhaps be justified, but only if there are no financial accidents on the horizon and any rise in inflation is gradual enough to keep the bond vigilantes at bay. Investors with less tolerance for risk should maintain an extra cash buffer to protect against swoons and provide dry powder to boost exposure after the correction. Feature The October anniversary of the '87 stock market crash was a reminder to investors that major market corrections can arrive out of the blue. With hindsight, there were some warning signs evident before the crash. Nonetheless, the speed and viciousness of the correction caught the vast majority of investors by surprise, in large part because the economy was performing well (outside of some yawning imbalances such as the U.S. current account deficit). Many worried that the 20% drop in the S&P 500 would trigger a recession, but the economy did not skip a beat and it was not long before the equity market recouped the losses. We view the '87 crash as a correction rather than a bear market. BCA's definition of a bear market is a combination of magnitude (at least a 15% decline) and duration (lasting at least for six months). Bear markets are usually associated with economic recessions. Corrections tend to be short-lived because they are not associated with an economic downturn. None of our forward-looking indicators suggest that a recession is in the cards in the near term for any of the major economies. Even the risk of a financial accident or economic pothole in China has diminished in our view. As discussed below, the global economy is firing on almost all cylinders. Chart I-1Valuation Today Is Very Stretched Vs. 1987 Nonetheless, there are some parallels today with the mid-1980s. A Special Report sent to all BCA clients in October provides a retrospective on the '87 crash.1 One concern is that the proliferation of financial computer algorithms and derivatives is a parallel to the popularity of portfolio insurance in the 1980s, which was blamed for turbocharging the selling pressure when the market downturn gathered pace in October. My colleague Doug Peta downplays the risks inherent in the ETF market in the Special Report, but argues that automatic selling will again reinforce the fall in prices once it starts. It is also worrying that equity valuation is much more stretched than was the case in the summer of 1987 based on the cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio (CAPE, Chart I-1). The CAPE is currently at levels only previously reached ahead of the 1929 and 2000 peaks. In contrast, the CAPE was close to its long-term average in 1987. Quantitative easing and extremely low interest rates have pulled forward much of the bond and stock markets' future returns. It has also contributed to today's extremely low readings on implied volatility. The fact that the Fed is slowly taking away the punchbowl and that the ECB is dialing back its asset purchase program only add to the risk of a sharp correction. The Good News For now though, investors are focusing on the improving global growth backdrop and the still-solid earnings picture. While the S&P 500 again made new highs in October, it was the Nikkei that stole the show among the major countries. Impressively, the surge in the Japanese stock market was not on the back of a significantly weaker yen. As we highlighted last month, risk assets are being supported by the three legged stool of robust earnings growth, low volatility and yield levels in government bonds, and the view that inflation will remain quiescent for the foreseeable future. The fact that the global growth impulse is broadly-based is icing on the cake because it reduces lingering fears of secular stagnation. Even emerging economies have joined the growth party, while a weak U.S. dollar has tempered fears of a financial accident in this space. Our forward-looking growth indicators are upbeat (Chart I-2). Our demand indicators in the major economies remain quite bullish, especially for capital spending (not shown). Animal spirits are beginning to stir. Moreover, financial conditions remain growth-friendly, especially in the U.S., and subdued inflation is allowing central banks to proceed cautiously for those that are tightening or tapering. The global PMI broke to a new high in October, and the economic surprise index for the major economies has surged in recent months. Our global LEI remains in a strong uptrend and its diffusion index shifted back into positive territory, having experiencing a worrisome dip into negative territory earlier this year. We expect the global growth upturn will persist for at least the next year. The U.S. will be the first major economy to enter the next recession, although this should not occur until 2019. It is thus too early to expect the equity market to begin to anticipate the associated downturn in profit growth. Earnings: Japan A Star Performer It is still early days in the Q3 earnings season, but the mini cyclical rebound from the 2015/16 profit recession in the major economies is still playing out. The bright spots at the global level outside of energy are industrials, materials, technology and consumer staples (Chart I-3). All four are benefitting from strengthening top line growth and rising operating margins. Chart I-2Upbeat Global Economic Indicators Chart I-3Global Earnings By Sector The U.S. is further advanced in the mini-cycle and EPS growth is near its peak on a 4-quarter moving total basis. The expected topping out in profit growth is more a reflection of challenging year-on-year comparisons than a deterioration in the underlying fundamentals. The hurricanes will take a bite out of third quarter earnings, but this effect will be temporary. Moreover, oil prices are turbocharging earnings in the energy patch and we expect this to continue. Our commodity strategists recently lifted their 2018 target price for both Brent and WTI to $65/bbl and $63/bbl, respectively. The global uptick in GDP growth, along with continued production discipline from OPEC 2.0 are the principal drivers of our revised outlook. We expect the fortuitous combination of fundamentals to accelerate the drawdown in oil inventories globally, which also will be supportive for prices. While U.S. financials stocks have cheered the prospects that Congress may pass a tax bill sometime in early 2018, sell-side analysts have been brutally downgrading financial sector EPS estimates. This has dealt a blow to net earnings revisions in the sector. Expected hurricane-related losses are probably the main culprit, especially in the insurance sector. Nonetheless, our equity sector strategists argue that such indiscriminate downgrades are unwarranted, and we would lean against such pessimism.2 Recent profit results corroborate our positive sector bias, although we are still early in the earnings season. European profits will suffer to some extent in the third quarter due to the lagged effects of previous euro strength. The same will be true in the fourth quarter, although we expect this headwind to diminish early in 2018. That leaves Japan as the star profit performer among the majors in the near term. The recent surge in foreign flows into the Japanese market suggests that global investors are beginning to embrace the upbeat EPS story. Abe's election win in October means that the current monetary stance will remain in place. The ruling LDP's shift away from austerity (e.g. abandoning the primary balance target) may also be lifting growth expectations. A Return To The Great Moderation? Chart I-4Market Correlation And The ERP A lot of the good news is already discounted in equity prices. The depressed level of the VIX and the drop in risk asset correlations this year signal significant complacency. Large institutional investors are reportedly selling volatility and thus dampening vol across asset classes. But there is surely more to it. It appears that investors believe we have returned to the pre-Lehman period between 1995 and 2006 when the Great Moderation in macro volatility contributed to low correlations among stocks within the equity market (Chart I-4). The idea is that low perceived macroeconomic volatility during that period had diminished the dispersion of growth and inflation forecasts, thereby trimming the variance of interest rate projections. This allowed equity investors to focus on alpha rather than beta, given less uncertainty about the macro outlook. Of course, the Great Recession and financial market crisis brought the Great Moderation to a crashing end. Correlations rocketed up and investors demanded a higher equity risk premium to hold stocks. Today, dispersion in the outlooks for growth and interest rates have fallen back to pre-Lehman levels, helping to explain the low levels of implied volatility and correlation in the equity market (Chart I-5). Some of this can be justified by fundamentals. The onset of a broadly-based global expansion phase has likely calmed lingering fears that the global economy is constantly teetering on the edge of the abyss. Investor uncertainty regarding economic policy has moderated as well (bottom panel). Historically, implied volatility tended to fall during previous periods when global industrial production was strong and global earnings were rising across a broad swath of countries (Chart I-6). Our U.S. Equity Sector Strategy service points out that, during the later stages of the cycle, equity sector correlations tend to fall as earnings fundamentals become more important performance drivers and sector differentiation generates alpha, as the broad market enters the last stage of the bull market. Similarly, the VIX can fluctuate at low levels for an extended period when global growth is broadly based. Chart I-5A Less Uncertain Macro Outlook? Chart I-6Broad-Based Growth Lower Implied Volatility Still, current levels of equity market correlation and the VIX are unnerving given a plethora of potential geopolitical crises and the pending unwinding of the Fed's balance sheet. Moreover, any meaningful pickup in inflation would upset the 'low vol' applecart. Table I-1 shows the drop in the S&P 500 index during non-recession periods when the VIX surges by more than 10% in a 13-week period. The equity price index fell by an average of 7% during the nine episodes, with a range of -3.6 to -18.1%. Table I-1Episodes When VIX Spiked The Equity Risk Premium Chart I-7Still Some Value In High-Yield On a positive note, the equity risk premium (ERP) is not overly depressed. There are many ways to define the ERP, but we present it as the 12-month forward earnings yield minus the 10-year Treasury yield in Chart I-4. It has fallen from about 760 basis points in 2011 to 310 basis points today. We do not believe that the ERP can return to the extremely low levels of 1990-2000. At best, the ERP may converge with the level that prevailed during the last equity bull market, from 2003-2007 (about 200 basis points). The current forward earnings yield is 550 basis points and the 10-year Treasury yield is 2.4%. The ERP would need to fall by 110 basis points to get back to the 2% equilibrium. This convergence can occur through some combination of a lower earnings yield or higher bond yield. If the 10-year yield is assumed to peak in this cycle at about 3% (our base case), then this leaves room for the earnings yield to fall by 50 basis points. This would boost the forward earnings multiple from 18 to 20. However, a rise in the 10-year yield to 3½% would leave no room for multiple expansion. We are not betting on any further multiple expansion but the point is that stocks at least have some padding in the event that bond yields adjust higher in a gradual way. It is the same story for speculative-grade bonds, which are not as expensive as they seem on the surface. The average index OAS is currently 326 bps, only about 100 bps above its all-time low. However, junk value appears much more attractive once the low default rate is taken into account. Chart I-7 presents the ex-post default-adjusted spreads, along with our forecast based on unchanged spreads and our projection for net default losses over the next year. The spread padding offered by the high-yield sector is actually reasonably good by historical standards, assuming there is no recession over the next year. We are not banking on much spread tightening from here, which means that high-yield is largely a carry trade now. Nonetheless, given a forecast for the default and recovery rate, we expect U.S. high-yield excess returns to be in the range of 2% and 5% (annualized) over the next 6-12 months. The bottom line is that the positive growth backdrop does not rule out a correction in risk assets, especially given rich valuations. But at least the profit, default and growth figures will remain a tailwind in the near term. The main risk is a breakout in inflation, which financial markets are not priced for. Inflation And Hidden Slack The September CPI report did little to buttress the FOMC's view that this year's inflation pullback is temporary. The report disappointed expectations again with core CPI rising only 0.13% month-over-month. For context, an environment where inflation is well anchored around the Fed's target would be consistent with core CPI prints of 0.2% every month, roughly 2.4% annualized. The inflation debate continues to rage inside and outside the Fed as to whether the previous relationship between inflation and growth have permanently changed, whether low inflation simply reflects long lags, or whether it will require tighter labor markets in this business cycle to fuel wage and price pressures. We back the latter two of these three explanations but, admittedly, predicting exactly when inflation will pick up is extremely difficult and we must keep an open mind. A Special Report in the October IMF World Economic Outlook sheds some light on this vexing issue.3 Their work suggests that the deceleration in wage growth in the post-Lehman period in the OECD countries can largely be explained by traditional macro factors: weak productivity growth, lower inflation expectations and labor market slack. The disappointing productivity figures alone account for two-thirds of the drop in wage growth. However, a key point of the research is that the headline unemployment figures are not as good a measure of labor market slack as they once were. This is because declining unemployment rates partly reflect workers that have been forced into part-time jobs, referred to as involuntary part-time employment (IPT). The rise in IPT employment could be associated with automation, the growing importance of the service sector, and a diminished and more uncertain growth outlook that is keeping firms cautious. The IMF's statistical analysis suggests that the number of involuntary part-time workers as a share of total employment (IPT ratio) is an important measure of slack that adds information when explaining the decline in wage growth. Historically, each one percentage point rise in the IPT ratio trimmed wage growth by 0.3 percentage points. Chart I-8 and Chart I-9 compare the unemployment rate gap (unemployment rate less the full-employment estimate) with the deviation in the IPT ratio from its 2007 level. The fact that the IPT ratio has had an upward trend since 2000 in many countries makes it difficult to identify a level that is consistent with full employment. Nonetheless, the change in this ratio since 2007 provides a sense of how much "hidden slack" the Great Recession generated due to forced part-time employment. Chart I-8Measures Of Labor Market Slack (I) Chart I-9Measures Of Labor Market Slack (II) For the OECD as a whole, labor market slack has been fully absorbed based on the unemployment gap. However, the IPT ratio was still elevated at the end of 2016 (latest data available), helping to explain why wage growth has remained so depressed across most countries. The IPT ratio is still above its 2007 level in three-quarters of the OECD countries. Of course, there is dispersion across countries. Japan has no labor market slack by either measure. In the U.S., the unemployment gap has fallen into negative territory, but only about half of the post-2007 rise in the IPT ratio has been unwound. For the Eurozone, the U.K. and Canada, the unemployment gap is close to zero (or well into negative territory in the U.K.). Nonetheless, little of the under-employment problem in these economies has been absorbed based on the IPT ratio. Our discussion in last month's report highlighted the importance of the global output gap in driving inflation in individual countries. Consistent with this, the IMF finds that there have been important spillover effects related to labor market slack, especially since 2007. This means that wage growth can be held down even in countries where slack has disappeared because of the existence of a surplus of available labor in their trading partners. Phillips Curve Is Not Dead That said, we still believe that the U.S. is at a point in the cycle when inflationary pressures should begin to build, even in the face of persisting labor market slack at the global level. Chart I-10 shows the ECI and the Atlanta Fed wage tracker, which are the best measures of wages because they are less affected by composition effects. Both have moved higher along with measures of labor market tightness. Wage and consumer price inflation have ebbed this year, but when we step back and look at it over a longer timeframe, the Phillips curve still appears to be broadly operating. Moreover, inflation is a lagging indicator. Table I-2 splits the post-war U.S. business cycles into short, medium, and long buckets based on the length of the expansion phase. It presents the number of months from when full employment was reached to the turning point for consumer price inflation in each expansion. There was a wide variation in this lag in the short- and medium-length expansions, but the lags were short on average. Chart I-10Phillips Curve Still (Weakly) Operating Table I-2Inflation Reacts With A Lag It is a different story for long expansions, where the lag averaged more than two years. We have pointed out in the past that it takes longer for inflation pressures to reveal themselves when the economy approaches full employment gradually, in contrast to shorter expansions when momentum is so strong the demand crashes into supply constraints. The fact that U.S. unemployment rate has only been below the estimate of full employment for eight months in this expansion suggests that perhaps we and the Fed are just being too impatient in waiting for the inflection point. Turning to Europe, the IPT ratio confirms the ECB's view that there is an abundance of under-employment, despite the relatively low unemployment rate. This suggests that the Eurozone remains behind the U.S. in the economic cycle. As expected, the ECB announced a tapering in its asset purchase program to take place next year. While policymakers are backing away from QE in the face of healthy growth and a shrinking pool of bonds to purchase, they will continue to emphasize that rate hikes are a long way off in order to avoid a surge in the euro and an associated tightening in financial conditions. U.S./Eurozone bond yield spreads are still quite wide by historical standards and thus it is popular to bet on spread narrowing and a stronger euro/weaker dollar. However, some narrowing in short-term rate spreads is already discounted based on the OIS forward curve (Chart I-11). The real 5-year, 5-year forward OIS spread - the market's expectation of how much higher U.S. real 5-year rates will be in five years' time relative to the euro area - stands at about 70 basis points. This spread is not wide by historical standards, and thus has room to widen again if market expectations for the fed funds rate moves up toward the Fed's 'dot plot' over the next 6-12 months. While market pricing for the ECB policy rate path appears about right in our view, market expectations for rate hikes in the U.S. are too complacent. This implies that long-term spreads could widen in favor of the U.S. dollar over the coming months, especially if U.S. growth accelerates while euro area growth cools off a bit. The fact the U.S. economic surprise index has turned positive is early evidence that this process may have already begun. Moreover, the starting point is that the dollar has been weaker than interest rate differentials warrant, such that there is some room for the dollar to 'catch up', even if interest rate differentials do not move (Chart I-12). We see EUR/USD falling to 1.15 by the end of the year. Chart I-11Room For U.S./Eurozone Spreads To Widen... Chart I-12...Giving The Dollar A Lift A New Fed Chair? Our forecast for yield spreads and currencies is not overly affected by the choice of Fed Chair for next year. President Trump's meeting with academic John Taylor reportedly went well, but we think the President will prefer someone with a less hawkish bent. Keeping Chair Yellen is an option, but she has strong views on financial sector regulation that Trump does not like. The prevailing wisdom is that Jerome Powell is a moderate who is only slightly more hawkish than Yellen. But the truth is that we don't really know where he stands because he has no academic publication record and has generally steered clear of taking bold views on monetary policy. In any event, the organizational structure of the Fed makes it impossible for the chair to run roughshod over other FOMC members. This suggests that no matter who is selected, the general thrust of monetary policy will not change radically next year. As discussed above, uncertainty is elevated, but our base case sees inflation rising enough in the coming months for the Fed to maintain their 'dot plot' forecast. The market and the Fed are correct to 'look through' the near-term growth hit from the hurricanes, to the rebound that always follows the destruction. The U.S. housing sector is a little more worrying because some softness was evident even before the hurricanes hit. Since the early 1960s, a crest in housing led the broader economic downturn by an average of seven quarters. Nonetheless, we continue to expect that the housing soft patch does not represent a peak for this cycle. Residential investment should provide fuel to the economy for at least the next two years as pent up demand is worked off, related to depressed household formation since the 2008 financial crisis. Affordability will still be favorable even if mortgage rates were to rise by another 100 basis points (Chart I-13). Robust sentiment in the homebuilder sector in October confirms that the hurricane setback in housing starts is temporary. China And Base Metals Turning to China, economic momentum is on the upswing. Real-time measures of economic activity such as electricity production, excavator sales, and railway freight traffic are all growing at double-digit rates, albeit down from recent peak levels (Chart I-14). Various price indexes also reveal a fairly broadly-based inflation pickup to levels that will unnerve the authorities. Growth will likely slow in 2018 as policymakers continue to pare back stimulus. We do not foresee a substantial growth dip next year, but it could be hard on base metals prices. Chart I-13Housing Affordability Outlook Housing ##br##Affordability Under Various Rate Assumptions Chart I-14China: Healthy ##br##Growth Indicators Policy shifts discussed in Chinese President Xi's speech in October to the Party Congress are also negative for metals prices in the medium term. The speech provided a broad outline of goals to be followed by concrete policy initiatives at the National People's Congress (NPC) in March 2018. He emphasized that policy will tackle inequality, high debt levels, overcapacity and pollution. Globalization will also remain a priority of the government. The supply side reforms required to meet these goals will be positive in the long run, but negative for growth in the short run. Restructuring industry, deleveraging the financial sector and fighting smog will all have growth ramifications. The government could use fiscal stimulus to offset the short-term hit to growth. However, while overall growth may not slow much, the shift away from an investment-heavy, deeply polluting growth model, will undermine the demand for base metals. Our commodity strategists also highlight the supply backdrop for most base metals is not supportive of an extended rally in prices. The implication is that investors who are long base metals should treat it as a trade rather than a strategic position. Despite our expectation that policy will continue to tighten, we believe that investors should overweight Chinese stocks relative to other EM markets. Investment Conclusions: Our base case remains that global growth will stay reasonably firm in 2018, although the composition of that growth will shift towards the U.S. thanks to the lagged effects of the easing in U.S. financial conditions that has taken place this year and the likelihood of some fiscal stimulus next year. The U.S. Congress has drawn closer to approving a budget resolution for fiscal 2018 that would pave the way for tax legislation to reach President Donald Trump's desk by the end of the first quarter of next year. Surveys show that investors have all but given up on the prospect of tax cuts, which means that it will be a positive surprise if it finally arrives (as we expect). Positive U.S. economic growth surprises and the disappearing output gap will allow the Fed to raise rates more than is discounted by the markets, providing a lift to the dollar and widening U.S. yield spreads relative to its trading partners. The momentum in profit growth, however, will favor Japan relative to the U.S. and Europe. Investors should favor Japanese equities and hedge the currency risk. There is still more upside for oil prices, but we are not playing the rally in base metals. The Chinese economy is performing well at the moment, but ample base metal supply and a rising dollar argue against a substantial price rise from current levels. Emerging market equities should underperform the developed markets due to a rising U.S. dollar and the largely sideways path for base metals. Our macro and profit views are consistent with cyclicals outperforming defensive stocks. Investors should also continue to bet on higher inflation expectations and be overweight corporate bonds (relative to governments) in the major developed fixed-income markets. Our base-case outlook implies that it is too early to fully retreat from risk assets and prepare for the next recession. Nonetheless, the market has entered a late-cycle phase. Calm macro readings and still-easy monetary policy have generated signs of froth. Investors appear to have shed fears of secular stagnation, and have embraced a return to a lackluster-growth version of the Great Moderation. Low levels of market correlation and implied volatility can perhaps be justified, but only if there are no financial accidents on the horizon and any rise in inflation is gradual enough to keep the bond vigilantes at bay. Upside inflation surprises would destabilize the three-legged stool supporting risk assets, especially at a time when the Fed is shrinking its balance sheet. Black Monday is a reminder that major market pullbacks can occur even when the economic outlook is bright. Thus, investors with less tolerance for risk should maintain an extra cash buffer to protect against swoons, and to ensure that they have dry powder to exploit them when they materialize. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst October 26, 2017 Next Report: November 20, 2017 1 Please see BCA Special Report, "Black Monday, Thirty Years On: Revisiting The First Modern Global Financial Crisis," October 19, 2017, available at bca.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see BCA U.S. Equity Strategy Weekly Report, "Banks Hold The Key," October 24, 2017, available at uses.bcaresearch.com 3 Recent Wage Dynamics In Advanced Economies: Drivers And Implications. Chapter 2, IMF World Economic Outlook. October 2017. II. Three Demographic Megatrends Dear Client, This month's Special Report is written by my colleague, Peter Berezin, Chief Global Strategist. Peter highlights three key demographic trends that will shape financial markets in the coming decades. His non-consensus conclusions include the idea that demographic trends will be negative for both bonds and equities over the long haul, in part because the trends are inflationary. Moreover, continuing social fragmentation will not be good for business. Mark McClellan Megatrend #1: Population Aging. Aging has been deflationary over the past few decades, but will become inflationary over the coming years. Megatrend #2: Global Migration. International migration has the potential to lift millions out of poverty while boosting global productivity. However, if left unmanaged, it poses serious risks to economic stability. Megatrend #3: Social Fragmentation. Rising inequality, cultural self-segregation, and political polarization are imperilling democracy and threatening free-market institutions. On balance, these trends are likely to be negative for both bonds and equities over the long haul. In today's increasingly short-term oriented world, it is easy to lose track of megatrends that are slowly shifting the ground under investors' feet. In this report, we tackle three key social/demographic trends. Chart II-1Our Aging World Megatrend #1: Population Aging Fertility rates have fallen below replacement levels across much of the planet. This has resulted in aging populations and slower labor force growth (Chart II-1). In the standard neoclassical growth model, a decline in labor force growth pushes down the real neutral rate of interest, r*. This happens because slower labor force growth causes the capital stock to increase relative to the number of workers, resulting in a lower rate of return on capital.1 The problem with this model is that it treats the saving rate as fixed.2 In reality, the saving rate is likely to adjust to changes in the age composition of the workforce. Initially, as the median age of the population rises, aggregate savings will increase as more people move into their peak saving years (ages 30 to 50). This will put even further downward pressure on the neutral rate of interest. Eventually, however, savings will fall as these very same people enter retirement. This, in turn, will lead to a higher neutral rate of interest. If central banks drag their feet in raising policy rates in response to an increase in r*, monetary policy will end up being too stimulative. As economies overheat, inflation will pick up, leading to higher long-term nominal bond yields. Contrary to popular belief, spending actually increases later in life once health care costs are included in the tally (Chart II-2). And despite all the happy talk about how people will work much longer in the future, the unfortunate fact is that the percentage of American 65 year-olds who are unable to lead active lives because of health care problems has risen from 8.8% to 12.5% over the past 10 years (Chart II-3). Cognitive skills among 65 year-olds have also declined over this period. We are approaching the inflection point where demographic trends will morph from being deflationary to being inflationary. Globally, the ratio of workers-to-consumers - the so-called "support ratio" - has peaked after a forty-year ascent (Chart II-4). As the support ratio declines, global savings will fall. To say that global saving rates will decline is the same as saying that there will be more spending for every dollar of income. Since global income must sum to global GDP, this implies that global spending will rise relative to production. That is likely to be inflationary. Chart II-2Savings Over The Life Cycle Chart II-3Climbing Those Stairs Is ##br##Getting More And More Difficult Chart II-4The Ratio Of Workers To ##br##Consumers Has Peaked The projected evolution of support ratios varies across countries. The most dramatic change will happen in China. China's support ratio peaked a few years ago and will fall sharply during the coming decade. Nearly one billion Chinese workers entered the global labor force during the 1980s and 1990s as the country opened up to the rest of the world. According to the UN, China will lose over 400 million workers over the remainder of the century (Chart II-5). If the addition of millions of Chinese workers to the global labor force was deflationary in the past, their withdrawal will be inflationary in the future. The fabled "Chinese savings glut" will eventually dry up. Chart II-5China On Course To Lose More ##br##Than 400 Million Workers Rising female labor force participation rates have blunted the effect of population aging in Europe and Japan. This has allowed the share of the population that is employed to increase over the past few decades. However, as female participation stabilizes and more people enter retirement, both regions will also see a rapid decline in saving rates. This could lead to a deterioration in their current account balances, with potential negative implications for the yen and the euro. Population aging is generally bad news for equities. The slower expansion in the labor force will reduce the trend GDP growth. This will curb revenue growth, and by extension, earnings growth. To make matter worse, to the extent that lower savings rates lead to higher real interest rates, population aging could reduce the price-earnings multiple at which stocks trade. This could be further exacerbated by the need for households to run down their wealth as they age, which presumably would include the sale of equities. Megatrend #2: Global Migration Economist Michael Clemens once characterized the free movement of people across national boundaries as a "trillion-dollar bill" just waiting to be picked up from the sidewalk.3 Millions of workers toil away in poor countries where corruption is rife and opportunities for gainful employment are limited. Global productivity levels would rise if they could move to rich countries where they could better utilize their talents. Academic studies suggest that less restrictive immigration policies would do much more to raise global output than freer trade policies. In fact, several studies have concluded that the removal of all barriers to labor mobility would more than double global GDP (Table II-1). The problem is that many migrants today are poorly skilled. While they can produce more in rich countries than they can back home, they still tend to be less productive than the average native-born worker. This can be especially detrimental to less-skilled workers in rich countries who have to face greater competition - and ultimately, lower wages - for their labor. Chart II-6 shows that the share of U.S. income accruing to the top one percent of households has closely tracked the foreign-born share of the population. Table II-1Economic Benefits Of Open Borders Chart II-6Immigration Versus Income Distribution Low-skilled migration can also place significant strains on social safety nets. These concerns are especially pronounced in Europe. The employment rate among immigrants in a number of European countries is substantially lower than for the native-born population (Chart II-7). For example, in Sweden, the employment rate for immigrant men is about 10 percentage points lower than for native-born men. For women, the gap is 17 points. The OECD reckons that a typical 21-year old immigrant to Europe will contribute €87,000 less to public coffers in the form of lower taxes and higher welfare benefits than a non-immigrant of the same age (Chart II-8). Chart II-7Low Levels Of Immigrant Labor Participation In Parts Of Europe Chart II-8Immigration Is Straining Generous ##br##European Welfare States All of this would matter little if the children of today's immigrants converged towards the national average in terms of income and educational attainment, as has usually occurred with past immigration waves. However, the evidence that this is happening is mixed. While there is a huge amount of variation within specific immigrant communities, on average, some groups have fared better than others. The children of Asian immigrants to the U.S. have tended to excel in school, whereas college completion rates among third-generation-and-higher, self-identified Hispanics are still only half that of native-born non-Hispanic whites (Chart II-9). Across the OECD, second generation immigrant children tend to lag behind non-immigrant students, often by substantial margins (Chart II-10). Chart II-9Hispanic Educational Attainment Lags Behind Chart II-10Worries About Immigrant Assimilation Immigration policies that place emphasis on attracting skilled migrants would mitigate these concerns. While such policies have been adopted in a number of countries, they have often been opposed by right-leaning business groups that benefit from cheap and abundant labor and left-leaning political parties that want the votes that immigrants and their descendants provide. Humanitarian concerns also make it difficult to curtail migration, especially when it is coming from war-torn regions. Chart II-11The Projected Expansion ##br##In Sub-Saharan Population Europe's migration crisis has ebbed in recent months but could flare up at any time. In 2004, the United Nations estimated that sub-Saharan Africa's population will increase to 2 billion by the end of the century, up from one billion at present. In its 2017 revision, the UN doubled its projection to 4 billion. Nigeria's population is expected to rise to nearly 800 million by 2100; Congo's will soar to 370 million; Ethiopia's will hit 250 million (Chart II-11). And even that may be too conservative because the UN assumes that the average number of births per woman in sub-Saharan Africa will fall from 5.1 to 2.2 over this period. For investors, the possibility that migration flows could become disorderly raises significant risks. For one, low-skill migration could also cause fiscal balances to deteriorate, leading to higher interest rates. Moreover, as we discuss in greater detail below, it could propel more populist parties into power. This is a particularly significant worry for Europe, where populist parties have often pursued business-sceptic, anti-EU agendas. Megatrend #3: Social Fragmentation In his book "Bowling Alone," Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam documented the breakdown of social capital across America, famously exemplified by the decline in bowling leagues.4 There is no single explanation for why communal ties appear to be fraying. Those on the left cite rising income and wealth inequality. Those on the right blame the welfare state and government policies that prioritize multiculturalism over assimilation. Conservative commentators also argue that today's cultural elites are no longer interested in instilling the rest of society with middle-class values. As a result, behaviours that were once only associated with the underclass have gone mainstream.5 Technological trends are exacerbating social fragmentation. Instead of bringing people together, the internet has allowed like-minded people to self-segregate into echo chambers where members of the community simply reinforce what others already believe. It is thus no surprise that political polarization has grown by leaps and bounds (Chart II-12). When people can no longer see eye to eye, established institutions lose legitimacy. Chart II-13 shows that trust in the media has collapsed, especially among right-leaning voters. Perhaps most worrying, support for democracy itself has dwindled around the world (Chart II-14). Chart II-12U.S. Political Polarization: Growing Apart Chart II-13The Erosion Of Trust In Media It would be naïve to think that the public's rejection of the political establishment will not be mirrored in a loss of support for the business establishment. The Democrats "Better Deal" moves the party to the left on many economic issues. Nearly three-quarters of Democratic voters believe that corporations make "too much profit," up from about 60% in the 1990s (Chart II-15). Chart II-14Who Needs Democracy When You Have Tinder? Chart II-15People Versus Companies The share of Republican voters who think corporations are undertaxed has stayed stable in the low-40s, but this may not last much longer. Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the rest of the corporate establishment tend to lean liberal on social issues and conservative on economic ones - the exact opposite of a typical Trump voter. If Trump voters abandon corporate America, this will leave the U.S. without any major party actively pushing a pro-business agenda. That can't be good for profit margins. The fact that social fragmentation is on the rise casts doubt on much of the boilerplate, feel-good commentary written about the "sharing economy." For starters, the term is absurd. Uber drivers are not sharing their vehicles. They are using them to make money. Both passengers and drivers can see one another's ratings before they meet. This reduces the need for trust. As trust falls, crime rises. The U.S. homicide rate surged by 20% between 2014 and 2016 according to a recent FBI report.6 In Chicago, the murder rate jumped by 86%. In Baltimore, it spiked by 52%. Chart II-16 shows that violent crime in Baltimore has remained elevated ever since riots gripped the city in April 2015. The number of homicides in New York, whose residents tend to support more liberal policing standards for cities other than their own, has remained flat, but that is unlikely to stay the case if crime is rising elsewhere. The multi-century decline in European homicide rates also appears to have ended (Table II-2). Much has been written about how millennials are flocking to cities to enjoy the benefits of urban life. But this trend emerged during a period when urban crime rates were falling. If that era has ended, urban real estate prices could suffer tremendously. It is perhaps not surprising that the increase in crime rates starting in the 1960s was mirrored in rising inflation (Chart II-17). If governments cannot even maintain law and order, how can they be trusted to do what it takes to preserve the value of fiat money? The implication is that greater social instability in the future is likely to lead to lower bond prices and a higher equity risk premium. Chart II-16Do You Still Want To Move Downtown? Table II-2Crime Rates Are Creeping Higher In Europe Chart II-17Homicides And Inflation Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist Global Investment Strategy 2 Another problem with the neoclassical model is that it assumes perfectly flexible wages and prices. This ensures that the economy is always at full employment. Thus, if the saving rate rises, investment is assumed to increase to fully fill the void left by the decline in consumption. In the real world, the opposite tends to happen: When households reduce consumption, firms invest less, not more, in new capacity. One of the advantages of the traditional Keynesian framework is that it captures this reality. And interestingly, it also predicts that aging will be deflationary at first, but will eventually become inflationary. Initially, slower population growth reduces the need for firm to expand capacity, causing investment demand to fall. Aggregate savings also rises, as more people move into their peak saving years. Globally, savings must equal investment. If desired investment falls and desired savings rises, real rates will increase. At the margin, higher real rates will discourage investment and encourage saving, thus ensuring that the global savings-investment identity is satisfied. As savings ultimately begins to decline as more people retire, the equilibrium real rate of interest will rise again. 3 Michael A. Clemens, "Economics and Emigration: Trillion-Dollar Bills on the Sidewalk?" Journal of Economic Perspectives Vol. 25, no.3, pp. 83-106 (Summer 2011). 4 Robert D. Putnam, "Bowling Alone: The Collapse And Revival Of American Community," Simon and Schuster, 2001. 5 Charles Murray has been a leading proponent of this argument. Please see "Coming Apart: The State Of White America, 1960-2010," Three Rivers Press, 2013. 6 Federal Bureau of Investigation, "Crime In The United States 2016" (Accessed October 25, 2017). III. Indicators And Reference Charts Global equity markets partied in October on solid earnings and economic growth figures, and the rising chances of a tax cut in the U.S. among other bullish developments. The Nikkei has been particularly strong in local currency terms following the re-election of Abe. Our equity indicators remain upbeat on the whole, although the rally is looking stretched by some measures. The BCA monetary indicator is hovering at a benign level. Implied equity volatility is very low, investor sentiment is frothy and our Speculation Indicator is elevated. These suggest that a lot of good news is already discounted. Our valuation indicator is also closing in on the threshold of overvaluation at one standard deviation. Our technical indicator is rolling over, although it needs to fall below the zero line to send a 'sell' signal. On a constructive note, the solid rise in earnings-per-share is likely to continue in the near term, based on positive earnings surprises and the net revisions ratio. Moreover, our new Revealed Preference Indicator (RPI) continued on its bullish equity signal in September for the third consecutive month. We introduced the RPI in the July report. It combines the idea of market momentum with valuation and policy measures. It provides a powerful bullish signal if positive market momentum lines up with constructive signals from the policy and valuation measures. Conversely, if constructive market momentum is not supported by valuation and policy, investors should lean against the market trend. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators are also bullish on stocks in the U.S., Europe and Japan. These indicators track flows, and thus provide information on what investors are actually doing, as opposed to sentiment indexes that track how investors are feeling. The U.S. and European WTPs rose in October after a brief sideways move in previous months, suggesting that equity flows have turned more constructive. But the Japanese WTP is outshining the others. Given that the Japanese WTP is rising from a low level, it suggests that there is more 'dry powder' available to purchase Japanese stocks, especially relative to the U.S. market. We favor Japanese stocks relative to the other two markets in local currency terms, as highlighted in the Overview section. Oversold conditions for the U.S. dollar have now been absorbed based on our technical indicator, but there is plenty of upside for the currency before technical headwinds begin to bite. The greenback looks expensive based on PPP, but is less so on other measures. We are positive in the near term. Our composite technical indicator for U.S. Treasurys has moved above the zero line, but has not reached oversold territory. Bond valuation is close to fair value based on our long-standing valuation model. These factors suggest that yields have more upside potential before meeting resistance. Other models that specifically incorporate global economic factors suggest that the 10-year Treasury is still about 20 basis points on the expensive side. Stay below benchmark in duration. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4Revealed Preference Indicator Chart III-5U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-6U.S. Earnings Chart III-7Global Stock Market ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-8Global Stock Market ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-9U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-10U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-11Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1210-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-13U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-14Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-15Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-17U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-18U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-19Japanese Yen Technicals Chart III-20Euro Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-22Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-23Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Prices Chart III-26Commodity Sentiment Chart III-27Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-28U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-29U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-30U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-31U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-32U.S. Labor Market Chart III-33U.S. Consumption Chart III-34U.S. Housing Chart III-35U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-36U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-38Global Economic Snapshot: China Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst

Highlights Depressed bond yields do justify exponentially higher equity valuations provided bond yields stay well below 3%. But when bond yields are at ultra-low levels, the much higher equity valuations necessarily mean that both bond and equity markets go on to generate feeble 10-year returns. The mainstream investments that could produce impressive 10-year returns are now most likely to come from the currency and real estate asset classes. The glaring pricing anomaly right now is the interest rate expected in the euro area relative to that in the U.S. five years out. The record high spread between euro area and U.S. long-term interest rates is nothing more than a QE 'timing distortion'. Chart Of The WeekEuro Area Employment To Population Is Now At An All-Time High Feature As the ECB prepares to 'recalibrate' its bond purchases, the 9-year global QE story is approaching its denouement. This makes now the perfect moment to put this big story into its full context. The $10 trillion of bonds that the 'big four'1 central banks have bought is not far short of the size of the euro area economy (Chart I-2). Hence, it would be natural to believe that this massive buying in itself is behind the structural rally across the whole global fixed income complex. However, this belief would be wrong. The global bond market exceeds $100 trillion. Long-term bank loans amount to another $100 trillion. In the context of this $217 trillion2 global fixed income market, $10 trillion of QE is small change. For the $217 trillion global bond and bank loan complex, the much more significant driver of yields is the expected path of short-term interest rates. The important thing about QE is not the $10 trillion of central bank purchases per se, but what these purchases have signalled for the path of interest rate policy.3 QE Is The Action That Speaks Louder Than Words We will let ECB Chief Economist, Peter Praet explain:4 "There is a signalling channel inherent in asset purchases, which reinforces the credibility of forward guidance on policy rates. The credibility of promises to follow a certain course for policy rates in the future is enhanced by the asset purchases, as these purchases are a concrete demonstration of a desire to provide additional stimulus." Or to put it more bluntly, actions speak louder than words. QE is nothing more than actions that make credible the words that promise ultra-low interest rates for an extended period. It follows that as QE ends, the market impact depends almost entirely on what the end of QE implies for the path of interest rates (Chart I-3). Chart I-2The 9-Year Global QE Story ##br##Is Approaching Its Denouement Chart I-3The Expected Path of Interest ##br##Rates Determines Bond Yields Interestingly, the Federal Reserve has now explicitly broken the link between QE (unwinding) and its interest rate policy. In essence, the Fed is communicating that asset sales have no direct bearing on the path of interest rates. So they do not imply monetary tightening. But in the case of the ECB, its asset purchases and the path of interest rates are still closely entwined. So a reduced rate of asset purchases does imply a higher path of interest rates further out along the expectations curve. The question is: how much higher and how much further out? The Glaring Pricing Anomaly We expect a very tentative ECB to leave interest rate policy broadly unchanged for the next couple of years, perhaps to the end of Draghi's term as President in October 2019. But to us, the glaring pricing anomaly is the interest rate expected in the euro area relative to that in the U.S. five years out (or equivalently, the 10-year bond yield spread.) Absent the distortion from QE, the interest rate expected five years out is a reflection of structural fundamentals. For years, or even decades, the interest rates expected five years out in the euro area and the U.S. rarely separated because the structural fundamentals of the world's two largest economies looked very similar. But in 2013, a very sharp divergence started (Chart I-4 and Chart I-5). What happened in 2013? Did the euro area's structural fundamentals suddenly deteriorate vis-à-vis the U.S.? No, on the contrary, the euro area started a strong rebound from its debt crisis. Chart I-4The Expected Path Of Interest Rates Diverged In 2013... Chart I-5...Bond Yields Also Diverged In 2013. Why? The simple answer is that in May 2013 the Federal Reserve announced that it would exit its QE experiment by tapering its asset purchases. Meanwhile, the market was aware that the ECB's own QE experiment was still to come - and Mario Draghi duly announced it in the summer of 2014. Effectively, in the U.S. the interest rate expected five years out broke free from Fed QE's heavy anchor while in the euro area it got weighed down by ECB QE's heavy anchor. Fast forward to today. Absent the distortion from QE, is the record high spread between interest rates expected five years in the euro area and the U.S. still justified? Looking at the structural fundamentals, the answer is a very emphatic no. The euro area employment to population ratio is at an all-time high - meaning both a structural high and a cyclical high (Chart of the Week); real growth per head in the euro area has been exactly in line with that in the U.S. through the 19-year life of the euro (Chart I-6); and inflation rates in the two economies are near-identical (Chart I-7). Chart I-6Long-Term Productivity Growth Is The Same... Chart I-7...Inflation Is Near-Identical... Sceptics might counter that the euro area's impressive statistics have depended on ECB QE, but the evidence contradicts this. The trends were in place years before ECB QE. So objectively, there is little to separate the structural fundamentals of the euro area and the U.S. We conclude that the record high spread between interest rates expected five years out (or equivalently, the 10-year bond yield spread) is nothing more than a QE 'timing distortion' (Chart I-8). And the spread must compress in the coming years, which constitutes an excellent structural position. Chart I-8...Yet The Bond Yield Spread Is Near A Record Wide Bond investors should structurally underweight German bunds versus U.S. T-bonds. Investment Reductionism5 then implies that equity investors should structurally overweight euro area Financials versus U.S. Financials. QE: The Bittersweet Legacy QE has depressed bond yields by signalling an extended period of ultra-low interest rates. However, as we explained last week in The Mystery Of The Risk Premium... Finally Solved,6 when yields drop to ultra-low levels, bonds become much riskier investments. This is because the prospects for capital appreciation rapidly disappear, while the prospects for large-scale capital losses suddenly increase. But if bonds become riskier investments, it reduces the justification for demanding a 'risk premium' (an excess return) on equities. Thereby, when bond yields drop to ultra-low levels, the boost to bond valuations is linear, but the boost to equity valuations is exponential. Consider what happens to a bond price and an equity price when a 10-year bond yield declines by 2%. To generate the lower yield, today's bond price must rise by 2% compounded over ten years - about 20%. And the same applies to the equity price. Now consider what happens when the bond yield declines by 2% to an ultra-low level. Today's bond price must again rise by about 20%, but the equity price gets a double boost. If its annual risk premium also compresses by, say, 2% then the equity price must rise by 4% compounded over ten years - about 50%. So the boost to the equity valuation is non-linear. At a bond yield of 5%, a 2% decline boosts the equity valuation by 20%. But at a bond yield of 3%, a 2% decline boosts the equity valuation by 50%! This means that QE leaves a bittersweet legacy. The sweet part is that depressed bond yields do justify exponentially higher equity valuations provided bond yields stay well below 3%. The bitter part is that once bond yields reach ultra-low levels, the much higher equity valuations necessarily mean that both bond and equity markets go on to generate feeble 10-year returns. This has been the precise experience of both Japan and Switzerland, where bond yields reached ultra-low levels almost two decades ago (Chart I-9). Chart I-9When Bond Yields Reach Ultra-Low Levels, ##br##Equities Become Highly Valued And Generate 10-Year Excess Feeble Returns So what should long-term investors do? We will save the details for future reports, but we believe that the mainstream investments that could produce impressive 10-year returns are now most likely to come from the currency and real estate asset classes. Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com 1 The Federal Reserve, ECB, Bank of Japan and Bank of England. 2 Source: The Institute of International Finance (IIF) https://www.iif.com/publication/global-debt-monitor/global-debt-monitor-june-2017. 3 For example, if the market feared bond purchases would cause inflation and thereby imply a higher path of interest rates, QE would push up bond yields! 4 From a speech by Peter Praet on October 11 2017: Maintaining price stability with unconventional monetary policy measures. 5 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "The Law Of the Vital Few," published on September 14, 2017 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Published on October 19 2017 and available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Fractal Trading Model* This week, our model suggests that the short-term relationship between copper and tin has become overstretched. The recommended trade is short copper/long tin with a profit target/stop loss set at 5%. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment's fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-10 * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report "Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model," dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Fractal Trading Model* The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. Recommendations Equities Bond & Interest Rates Currency & Other Positions Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations

Highlights The potential for wrongheaded reform initiatives will be a key policy risk to monitor when judging the likely stability of the Chinese economy over the coming 6-12 months. Brash reform efforts without offsetting fiscal stimulus are unlikely, but this possibility bears monitoring. Chinese export growth will likely moderate over the coming year, but the absence of severe dislocations in the commodity and currency markets, like what occurred in 2015, will be an important factor supporting a stable deceleration in exports. Chinese stocks are outperforming the EM and global benchmarks, even after excluding the high-flying tech sector. Stay overweight. Feature China's 19th Party Congress has concluded, following yesterday's announcement of the new members of the Politburo Standing Committee. We will be providing investors will a full "postmortem" on the Party Congress and what it means for investors next week in a joint Special Report with our Geopolitical Strategy Service, but for now we have a few brief observations. The Congress has confirmed that President Xi has greatly increased his political capital, and that the implementation of his policy directives over the coming years will be greatly aided by this increase in influence. But the principle contradiction highlighted by Xi looms large for investors, as it remains unclear how he plans on managing the dual goal of further increasing living standards and shifting the country's growth model to one that is more environmentally and economically sustainable. Our view remains that brash reform efforts without offsetting fiscal stimulus are unlikely, as they would risk a major policy mistake that could undermine overall stability. But the risk of wrongheaded (and now largely unencumbered) reform initiatives from the President will be a key policy risk to monitor when judging the likely stability of the Chinese economy over the coming 6-12 months. Turning to this week's research topic, today's report is the first of two parts examining the key differences facing China today from what prevailed in mid-2015, when the Chinese economy operated below what investors and market participants considered to be a "stable" pace of growth. In part I we focus on trade, and provide answers to the following questions: What were the root causes of the extremely weak external demand environment that China faced in 2015, and should investors expect these conditions to return? Why has Chinese export growth disappointed over the past several years relative to what BCA's export model would have predicted? Are Chinese exports likely to accelerate or decelerate over the coming year, and does this outlook suggest that China's will experience a gradual or sharp deceleration in economic growth? Revisiting China's External Demand Environment In 2015 Before judging the outlook for China's export sector, it is important to revisit the dynamics of global trade since the global financial crisis. As we will illustrate below, the weak external demand environment faced by China in 2015 was a function of severe dislocations in the commodity and currency markets that are unlikely to occur again over the coming 6-12 months. While Chinese export growth will likely moderate over the coming year, the absence of these shocks is an important factor supporting a stable deceleration. Chart 1 presents the trend in global import volume over the past decade, as well as its emerging market (EM) and developed market (DM) subcomponents. From 2007 until late-2011, the coincident nature of global trade is clearly evident: EM and DM import volume growth rose and fell in lockstep with each other, with the former growing at a consistently higher rate than the latter over the period. Chart 1In 2015, China's Export Sector Suffered From A Synchronized Global Slowdown Starting in 2012, however, regional import volume growth trend began to decouple. DM import volume growth continued to decelerate in 2012 and 2013 following the end of the V-shaped post-recession recovery, largely driven by the negative economic impact of the euro area sovereign debt crisis. While euro area imports were the most affected by the crisis within the DM world, Japanese and U.S. import volume growth also eventually contracted (albeit only modestly in the case of the U.S.). Conversely, EM import volume accelerated materially during this period, boosted by material liquidity easing by Chinese policymakers. The impact of liquidity easing in China appeared very clearly in the total social financing data (excluding equity issuance), which, from mid-2012 to mid-2013, accelerated from 16 to 22%. From a global perspective, the rise in EM import volume growth from 2012 to 2013 successfully offset demand weakness in DM economies, which kept global import volume growth within a low but stable range of 1-3%. Growth in real global imports rose to the high-end of this range by mid-2014, as DM economies recovered from the end of the acute phase of the euro area crisis. The massive collapse in oil prices that began in June 2014 was clearly the trigger for a relapse in global trade from 2014 to early-2016 (which led to very weak export growth for China), but there is a particular aspect of U.S. import volume weakness during this period that is crucial to understand. Using conventional market narratives, a textbook reading of the combined U.S. dollar / oil shock of 2014 would have predicted a rise in real DM imports, which would have at least somewhat offset a decline in EM import demand (a reversal of the dynamics that were at play in 2012/2013). Lower oil prices represent a tax cut for net oil importing nations, and a higher dollar reduces the relative price (and thus increased the attractiveness) of goods imported into the U.S. Instead, however, real U.S. import growth fell in response to the dollar / oil shock, followed, with a lag, by weakness in euro area demand (Chart 2). Underestimating the importance of the oil & gas sector in the U.S. largely accounts for the failure of the textbook prediction: after having risen significantly during the expansion, real U.S. investment in mining exploration, shafts, and wells fell 63% from its peak, which caused an outright contraction in total real U.S. nonresidential fixed investment (Chart 3). The sharpness of the decline in the sector, coupled with the rise in the dollar, led to a broad-based slowdown in U.S. employment growth. Chart 2Lower Oil Prices And A Higher Dollar##br## Did Not Bolster DM Import Demand Chart 3A Collapse In U.S. Oil Productionr##br## Had A Significant Effect On Growth But Chart 4 highlights another important contributor to China's export weakness to the U.S. (and more generally) during the dollar/oil shock period: China's exports are not simply a play on consumer demand. The chart shows that U.S. capital goods imports from China have risen materially as a share of total goods imports, highlighting that the days of China exporting predominantly low value consumer goods are behind it. China's growing investment-oriented exports underscore why the sharp decline in oil prices failed to provide a net reflationary effect for the global economy from the dollar/oil shock, even if households and oil-consuming firms did in fact benefit from lower energy costs. Chart 4China's Exports Are Increasingly##br## Investment-Oriented Looking Forward Chart 5 highlights why China's export outlook over the coming year is unlikely to be buffeted from the sizeable commodity & currency market dislocations that began in 2014. Panel 1 illustrates that the global "oil bill" has fallen modestly below its long-term average from what had been the highest level since the late-1970s, implying that significant further downside for oil prices is likely limited. In fact, our Commodity & Energy Strategy service recently upgraded their oil price forecasts for 2018.1 In addition, the potential for a further sharp move higher in the U.S. dollar would also appear to have low odds, given that it has moved back to its long-term average versus major currencies and is at the high end of its range in broad trade-weighted terms (panel 2). Does this imply that China's export growth is set to stabilize at current levels, or even accelerate? At first blush, our export model would appear to support the latter conclusion, given that the model is currently predicting export growth on the order of 25%. But our model has consistently over-predicted Chinese export growth since mid-2011, and a breakdown of the causes of this gap help explain why a gradual deceleration in export growth is likely over the coming year. Using a method similar to DuPont analysis of Return on Equity, Chart 6 illustrates that China's export growth can be broken down into three component factors: Chart 5The 2015 Shock To China's Export Sector##br## Is Unlikely To Reoccur Chart 6Lower Global Import Intensity Is A Structural Anchor On China's Exports Global industrial production (IP) The import intensity of global IP, and Imports from China as a share of total global imports The chart shows that the gap between China's export growth and our model's prediction can largely be explained by the reversal of the decade-long rise in global import intensity, and more recently by a modest decline in China's share of global imports. Our measure of global import intensity is clearly impacted by fluctuations in global export prices (which are dominated by changes in commodity prices), but the end of rising global import intensity is also clear when imports are measured in real terms. A detailed examination of the causes of flat real global import intensity are beyond the scope of this report, but over the coming 6-12 months, we do not believe that either of the factors that have structurally depressed Chinese export growth over the past six years are likely to act as a major drag on China's export sector. Barring significant trade action from the Trump administration, real global import intensity in unlikely to change materially, and the recent decline in China's share of global imports appears to have been caused by prior strength in the RMB (Chart 7). The RMB has recently been strong against the dollar, but remains 8-9% below its 2015 peak in trade-weighted terms. As such, our analysis suggests that China's export outlook over the coming year will be largely determined by a single, cyclical factor: the trend in global industrial production, which should accelerate slightly over the coming months (Chart 8). While this would result in a moderation of Chinese export growth from current levels (as exports are currently growing faster than IP), the decline would be relatively modest in size and would not negatively impact Chinese domestic demand (panel 2). Chart 7The RMB-Driven Decline In China's Share ##br##Of Global Imports Is Over Chart 8A Modest Decline In Export Growth Is Likely,##br## But Nowhere Near Like 2015 Investment Conclusions We noted in our October 12 Weekly Report that the economic momentum of China's "mini-cycle" appears to have peaked earlier this year, and presented three possible scenarios for the coming year: 1) a re-acceleration of the economy and a continuation of the V-shaped rebound profile, 2) a benign, controlled deceleration and settling of growth into a stable growth range, and 3) an uncontrolled and sharp deceleration in the economy that threatens a return to the conditions that prevailed in early-2015 (or worse). The key takeaway for investors is that a modest decline in Chinese export growth to the current level of global IP growth is consistent with scenario 2, as it would be a far cry from the outright contraction of exports that occurred in 2015 and 2016. Importantly, a benign, controlled deceleration of Chinese economic growth should continue to support the relative performance of Chinese equities; Chart 9 shows that the MSCI China Free index is now in a relative uptrend vs. both emerging markets and the global benchmark, even after excluding this year's significant outperformance of the Chinese technology sector. As such, we continue to favor an overweight stance towards Chinese stocks relative to the EM benchmark, and within a "Greater China" equity universe.2 Chart 9China Is Outperforming, ##br##Even Excluding The Technology Sector Finally, a brief note on scheduling: We highlighted above that next week's report will be a joint Special Report with our Geopolitical Strategy Service, which will provide a summary "postmortem" on the Party Congress and what it means for investors. Part II of our examination of the Chinese economy today vs. mid-2015 will follow on November 9, which will focus on China's monetary policy stance. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Oil Forecast Lifted As Markets Tighten", dated October 19, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 In last week's joint Special Report with our Geopolitical Strategy Service (GPS), it should be noted that the investment conclusions section related to recommendations that have been made by the GPS team, rather than this publication. Specifically, China Investment Strategy's recommendation on Chinese equities continues to be an overweight stance on the MSCI China Free index vs the emerging markets benchmark, and was not adjusted to include only H-Shares as our GPS team has chosen to do. We apologize for any confusion that this may have caused. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations

Highlights China's ascendancy will increase U.S.-China tensions in the medium and long term; "Xi Jinping Thought" is China's rejection of Soviet-style collapse; Xi's new policies face very few domestic political constraints; Xi is playing down GDP targets and playing up centralization; Tax cuts are still coming to the U.S. Feature Global risk assets continue to rally despite an apparent loss of faith in world leaders. In Spain, the showdown between Catalonia and Madrid is escalating as Spanish lawmakers vote to withdraw aspects of self-rule from the wealthy northeastern province. In the U.K., the Brexit negotiations are floundering, causing the Labour Party to raise the alarm against a "no deal" exit from the European Union. In Brazil, the interim president is under legislative scrutiny for corruption; in South Africa, the ruling party is grasping at government employees' pension funds to keep a struggling state airliner afloat. However, policymakers are not always as incompetent as investors (and the financial media) like to think. In China, President Xi Jinping has turned himself into the highest authority since Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. And the country has sprung back from the 2015-16 deflationary spiral so well that financial authorities are tightening financial controls and contemplating interest rate hikes (Chart 1). In Japan, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has won a two-thirds supermajority in the House of Representatives for the second time, giving him a mandate to continue his "Abenomics" agenda (Chart 2). With unemployment already exceedingly low at 2.8%, Abe could make history. He could rouse the country out of both its deflationary and pacifist slumber in the face of the historic challenges posed by a rising China and multipolar world. Less grandiose, but still highly market-relevant, the U.S. Congress has drawn closer to approving a budget resolution for fiscal 2018 that would pave the way for tax legislation to hit President Donald Trump's desk by the end of the first quarter of next year. This development is in marked contrast to informal surveys of investors around the world, including at BCA's annual New York Conference last month. The market has hardly reacted to the positive news (Chart 3). Chart 1Real Deposit Rate Is Negative Chart 2Shinzo Abe Does It Again Chart 3Market Still Doubts Trump In this report, we focus on China and the United States. Our recent assessments of Spain and Japan are on track - the former is an overstated risk, the latter an opportunity now largely priced in.1 It is the "G2" that poses the biggest risk of negative surprises over the next 12 months. First Take On The Party Congress China's nineteenth National Party Congress will conclude just as we go to press. Our assessment of the line-up of the new Politburo and specific changes to the Communist Party's constitution will have to wait for a Special Report next week. We can still draw some preliminary conclusions, however.2 First, Xi Jinping's induction into the Communist Party's constitution, under the slogan "Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era," makes him second only to Chairman Mao as a philosophical guide in the party. This says as much about the spirit of the age as about Xi's (formidable) power. It is an era of "charismatic authority," in which populations are restless and political elites either adopt populist tactics (like Xi), or are populists themselves.3 The Communist Party wanted a new Mao and Xi obliged them. Why is this the case in China? The Communist Party has based its legitimacy on economic growth since Deng Xiaoping came to power in 1978. But economic growth is slowing as a result of irreversible, secular trends. The party needs a new source of legitimacy, and Xi has offered a "synthesis" of Mao and Deng: he promises to preserve the Communist regime above all, yet also to continue Deng's pragmatic use of the market to strengthen the fundamentally socialist economy. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Xi's focus remains on power, namely reinforcing China's ruling institutions and asserting its international influence.4 We will take the latter first, as it is the biggest source of change in the world and a key driver of market-relevant geopolitical risk. Multipolarity Chart 4U.S. Decline Vis-à-Vis China The most important takeaway from the party congress is that it perfectly captures our long-term investment theme of global multipolarity. This describes a world run by multiple independent powers as American power declines in relative terms.5 The erosion of U.S. global dominance is most striking in relativity to China (Chart 4).6 Xi has declared that it is time for China to take "center stage" in world affairs. He also modified an earlier goal to say that China will become a "leading global power" by 2050. China is unified under a single leader and a single party, its economy has been robust, and it is therefore feeling confident in its ability to take action in the global arena. The implications are disruptive over the long run: Assertive foreign policy will continue: China will continue with the bolder foreign policy it has demonstrated over the past ten years. China's military expenditures, which are widely believed to be larger than official statistics reveal, will continue to drive regional security dynamics (Chart 5).7 Maritime tensions still matter: China's "core interests" in separatist-prone regions like Tibet and Xinjiang have become more secure, whereas its interests in Taiwan and the South China Sea are less secure because of increasing pushback from the U.S. and its allies. The South China Sea is still a potential flashpoint as it governs the vital supply lines of China's major regional rivals and $4 trillion in trade (Diagram 1).8 Diagram 1The South China Sea: Still A Risk Economic statecraft is the new norm: China is using its economic heft to fill spaces left void by the United States. The U.S. is perceived across the region as relying increasingly on "hard power," ceding ground to China to create "soft power" relationships through trade and investment. Beijing is launching its own system of multilateral trade and finance that could someday operate as a sphere of influence in Asia outside of U.S.-led international norms - such as Xi's "Belt and Road Initiative," which was also enshrined in the Communist Party constitution (Chart 6). Moreover, Beijing is using its growing economic leverage to achieve political goals, having imposed informal sanctions on Japan, both Koreas, Vietnam, Taiwan and others in recent years.9 Chart 5China Raises Asian Security Fears Chart 6China's Belt And Road Club These trends were all reaffirmed at the party congress, confirming our view that U.S.-China frictions are a serious geopolitical risk. Fortunately, neither Xi nor China is a loose cannon. Most of these trends are developing over the long run. With Xi Jinping overseeing an extensive overhaul of the People's Liberation Army, there is less reason to suppose that the PLA will act aggressively independent of civilian leadership (as was a concern under the previous administration). One would also think that a transition across the armed forces is an inopportune time to instigate conflicts. Notably, the Xi administration has also tactically adopted a milder diplomatic approach since President Trump's coming to power with an arsenal of threats aimed at China. This approach is evident with Japan, India, and Southeast Asian neighbors. Trump's perceived belligerence gives China the ability to play a mediating role and promote trade and investment with other powers looking to hedge against the U.S. Finally, Beijing appears to have domestic unrest in check, at least for now. Public security disturbances have been elevated in the wake of the global financial crisis, but have declined since 2011 (Chart 7). This is a positive sign for markets because China will have greater ability to push domestic reforms - and less reason to be aggressive abroad - if unrest is subdued. Official statistics suggest that China spends about as much on public security as national defense, revealing a key vulnerability to the state (Chart 8). Chart 7Domestic Unrest Down, Though Not Out Chart 8Domestic Unrest A Risk To The State Bottom Line: The party congress has highlighted China's rising global influence. This ultimately creates higher geopolitical risk, especially in U.S.-China relations. China also has greater control over domestic factors that could instigate conflicts, at least for the time being. Thus the U.S.'s next moves will be critical. Reform And Opening Up The second major takeaway is that the Xi administration is still officially committed to the reform agenda laid out in the 2012 party congress, the 2013 Third Plenum, and the supply-side structural reforms announced in 2015. Xi's work report calling for "sustained and sound" growth is a nod to the need to reduce capital intensity and systemic risks. He also said that supply-side structural reform would be the "main task" for economic policy for the foreseeable future. His economic reform slogans also made it into the party's constitution. Significantly, there are no more GDP targets beyond 2020. Broadly, we have defined Xi's reform agenda as a combination of centralizing control, improving governance, and streamlining the economy.10 Centralization is not necessarily market-positive, but under the Xi administration it has coincided with efforts to improve governance (fighting corruption, reining in provincial freewheeling, and reducing pollution). This is a sign of growing policy responsiveness to public demands and as such is marginally positive. The clear takeaway from the congress is that the anti-corruption campaign will be institutionalized across the country through new "supervisory commissions." This campaign should improve the legitimacy of the party-state and the implementation of central government policies. We have always been skeptical of progress on structural economic reforms, but the party congress marks a new phase in the political cycle: Xi is in a better position than any Chinese leader since Deng Xiaoping to launch significant reforms. He has increased his political capital massively over the past few years, as illustrated by the dotted line in our "J-Curve of Structural Reform" (Diagram 2). Cyclically, the next opportunity for China to undertake bold reforms may not occur until 2027. Hence it is either now or never for reform. The policy focus is supposed to push along China's economic transition from investment- to consumption-led growth (Chart 9). Importantly, Xi declared that the "principle contradiction" in Chinese society has changed since the 1980s. The principle contradiction used to be that of a poor, economically and technologically "backward" country trying to meet the basic material needs of the population. Now the contradiction is that of an "imbalanced" and under-developed economy trying to provide people with "better lives." These goals can be put into perspective by comparison with South Korea, which reveals both how far China has come and how far it has to go (Chart 10). Xi's statement points to an overall shift in policy toward addressing imbalances and improving quality of life. Diagram 2The J-curve Of Structural Reform Chart 9Changing The Economic Model Chart 10From Basic Needs To 'Better Lives' To put a time frame on many of these reforms, Xi created a new long-term deadline of 2035 to become a fully "modernized" economy, which is smack in the middle of the country's previously declared two "centenary goals" of 2020 (middle income status) and 2050 (global prominence). The interim deadline includes a target for narrowing regional and income disparities. Wealth inequality in China has become extreme and ultimately poses a threat to the regime (Chart 11). Such a goal will require serious redistributionist policies as well as ongoing efforts to build a better social safety net. As expected, Xi reaffirmed China's embrace of globalization, claiming that the door of trade "will only open wider." The financial sector is likely to be at the forefront of any new opening measures - top financial officials claim that a package of reforms is forthcoming. The developed world has begun to doubt China's commitment to financial reform given the closing of the capital account last year and other negative trends, like the persistently low (and falling) share of foreign banks in domestic lending. Only recently have foreign banks begun lending again after withdrawing funds in preceding years (Chart 12). Foreign ownership of domestic equities, which is tightly controlled, has also fallen in importance (Chart 13). Chart 11Inequality: A Liability For The Party Chart 12Banks Shying Away From China Chart 13Foreign Investors Limited In China The centralization of power should speed up policy implementation, but it also raises risks. The important thing is whether we see hard evidence that Xi's "absolute power" is corrupting absolutely. This would present a new structural risk to the Chinese system, even if markets initially cheered. Why? Because an administrative (as opposed to propagandistic) turn in China in favor of a "cult of personality" as opposed to "collective leadership" would increase the odds of policy mistakes, set off factional struggle in the Communist Party, increase policy uncertainty for the foreseeable future, and jeopardize the smooth transition of power in 2022 ... or whenever "Chairman Xi" outwears his welcome. Therefore, the implementation of policy, the grooming of "heirs apparent," the position of the opposing faction in the party, and the upkeep of rules and norms will be important to monitor - not just after the party congress, but over the next five years. Bottom Line: Xi has reaffirmed formal structural economic goals like consumer-led growth and a commitment to globalization and has signaled that more reforms are in the works. Policy implementation will improve. Stay overweight H-shares within EM equities. However, excessive concentration of power in Xi himself is a serious political risk. It is only a positive in the long term if Xi uses his authority to build institutions rather than personalize them. Principal Contradictions China's declared goals are, of course, riddled with contradictions. As expected, Xi has tried to be everything to everyone. This leaves investors with a number of missing pieces to try to fit together. For example, the slogan indicating Xi's governing philosophy is a revision of Deng Xiaoping's market-oriented slogan, "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" (Table 1). Xi is announcing that China has entered a "New Era" that will redefine Deng's formulation. Thus, by quoting Deng, he is reaffirming China's need to continue reforming and opening up. But by simultaneously qualifying Deng, he is reasserting the primacy of the state.11 Table 1Xi Jinping Thought What matters are the concrete policies China actually enacts. Nowhere are the contradictions clearer than in the party's constant assurances that it will both intensify reforms and keep the economy stable. Beijing continues to stress that it will deleverage the financial sector, restructure industry, eliminate overcapacity, and fight smog, all without any negative impact to growth. Given the sharp deceleration in the growth of China's monetary aggregates, we expect a significant slowdown in the coming year.12 "Reform" will in large part consist of demonstrating a higher-than-usual tolerance for slower growth so as to impose market discipline. Authorities will, as always, inject further stimulus if necessary to avoid a hard landing. A key risk to global markets, as discussed last week, is that fiscal spending may not offset a crunch in credit growth next year, should one occur. This is increasingly the case because the composition of fiscal spending in China is shifting as the country focuses more heavily on social stability and economic transition. Education, social security, worker training and relocation, and other public services are simply not as capital intensive as building railroads, urban infrastructure, and houses (Chart 14). Moreover, a critical test of the reform-stimulus trade-off will be Beijing's tolerance for failing companies. Bankruptcies have risen over the past year in China, which suggests that market forces are being given wider scope and that the central government is laying down the legal framework to make bankruptcy more acceptable (Chart 15), a notable reform. This is a clear sign of "short-term pain, long-term gain," but it remains to be seen how far it will go. Chart 14China's Fiscal Spending Is Becoming Less Capital Intensive Chart 15Creative Destruction At Long Last? It is also unclear whether failures will be allowed among state-owned enterprises (SOEs), which are the least profitable and most indebted Chinese companies. The future of SOE reform is no clearer than before the congress: Xi promised both to restructure the sector and to enlarge and strengthen it. The principle is in alignment with the Jiang Zemin administration's maxim, "grasp the large, let go of the small," and does not mean that reform is doomed. More than a fourth of SOEs are under water and the government is already committed to cutting the number of centrally administered SOEs in half. There are now several pilot projects for allowing partial privatization, or creating state holding companies, that can be rolled out nationally. And there are a range of perfectly un-strategic sectors (retail, chemicals, real estate, electronics, et al) that have substantial state ownership that could be liquidated. Judging by listed Chinese firms, those that are deemed to be strategic will not likely see their state share diluted much beneath 80% of ownership; yet those that are designated for partial privatization and mixed ownership could see the state share dwindle to less than 10% of ownership (Table 2). This implies that sweeping changes could occur if the government prioritized SOE reform. (This is true despite the fact that the state's hand would still be obtrusive overall.) Table 2Plenty Of Room For Privatization Bottom Line: Deleveraging and bankruptcies are a key aspect of reform but pose headwinds to growth. The profile of China's fiscal spending is changing to become less capital intensive, which will mean less stimulus for China's aging industries if reforms are pursued. This underscores a real risk to Chinese growth, capex, and imports, and hence to EM. There is no clarity on SOE reform, but it would have far-reaching consequences if prioritized in Xi's second term, given his soaring political capital. Tax Blues In The USA: Are Tax Cuts Really Coming? On the other side of the Pacific, investors remain highly skeptical that tax reform is on the legislative menu (Chart 16). This is after both houses of Congress passed their version of the budget resolution, containing reconciliation instructions for tax reform. Once the House of Representatives passes the Senate version of the budget resolution - which we assume will be swift - the reconciliation process will kick off.13 The Senate version of the budget resolution instructs the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Ways and Means Committee to limit the increase in the budget deficit to no more than $1.5 trillion through 2027.14 The resolution also instructed the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) to consider "to the greatest extent practicable... the budgetary effects of changes in economic output, employment, capital stock, and other macroeconomic variables resulting from such major legislation." In plain English, this refers to "dynamic scoring," macroeconomic modeling that takes into account the revenue-raising potential of major tax cuts. BCA's Geopolitical Strategy has harped on "dynamic scoring" since last November. The tool is a favorite of Republican legislators when passing tax legislation. It allows them to cut taxes and then score the impact on the budget deficit holistically, taking into consideration the supposed pro-growth impact of the legislation. Democrats banned this practice when they took back the Senate in the Obama years, but the GOP promptly re-authorized it in January 2015. Fast forward a year later and two core conclusions of our November 2016 forecast on tax policy are now coming true.15 First, the tax bill will not be revenue neutral, except in the imagination of macroeconomic modeling pursued by Republican economists. The bill will be mildly stimulative, to the tune of $100-150 billion per year over the next decade. The numbers are modest, but given that the U.S. is close to full employment and wage pressures are certain to build up (Chart 17), any additional tax relief is bound to be stimulative for the economy. Chart 16High-Tax Firms Not Outperforming (Yet) Chart 17Inflation Coming Even Without Tax Cuts Second, Republican legislators are not fiscally conservative. The House budget resolution authorizing a $1.5 billion hole in the budget was passed with 18 Republicans dissenting, but 11 of them were from highly-taxed "blue states." Their contention with the bill was not that it would be profligate, but that it would do away with state and local tax deductions in order to pay for the likely $5-$6 trillion price tag. As such, they voted not to make tax cuts less, but rather more, profligate. Going forward, the real threat to the proposed tax bill is in the Senate, where Republicans hold only a slim 52-48 majority. This threat is a surprise, as 12 months ago the question was how a profligate bill would pass the supposedly conservative House. Three risks lurk in the Senate: Alabama: Judge Roy Moore, a highly conservative candidate for the December 12 special election, is holding onto a relatively slim lead against Democrat Doug Jones. A recent Fox News poll shows the two tied in public opinion. Even if the poll is unreliable, other polls suggest that Jones has narrowed the gap to single digits. This is remarkable because Alabama Republicans have defeated their Democrat opponents by an average of 36% in Senate races over the past decade.16 If Moore were to lose, the Republican majority in the Senate would fall to 51. This would leave room for only one defection in passing legislation. The Corker-Flake-McCain Axis: Senators Bob Corker (R - Tennessee), Jeff Flake (R - Arizona), and John McCain (R - Arizona) have all voted in favor of the Senate budget resolution authorizing reconciliation instructions for tax legislation. On that basis, there should be no problem. However, Corker and Flake have announced their retirement, in our view because they plan to challenge President Trump in the 2020 Republican primary. Furthermore, Corker has said in the past that he would not vote for a tax bill that is not revenue neutral. We think that Corker and Flake will ultimately vote for tax cuts, if only because their chances of successfully challenging Trump in 2020 will be higher if they stick to Republican orthodoxy. However, these three Senators are risks to our view as they have the freedom not to care about the 2018 midterms. God: The death of Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy on August 25, 2009 greatly changed the fortunes of President Barack Obama, who at the time was enjoying a 60-seat majority in the Senate.17 Democrats failed to move quickly on the Affordable Care Act, assuming that a Democrat would win the special election in staunchly liberal Massachusetts. (If the parallels with Alabama today seem eerie, it is because they are.) But the January 2010 election cost Democrats the 60th seat in a shocking upset. These things can happen again, especially given that the average age of a senator is 103.18 Any one of these factors could reduce the Republican majority in the Senate to 51, forcing President Trump to rely on vociferous critics McCain and Corker. The latter, by the way, is also a likely 2020 primary challenger against Trump. Could a Democrat come to the president's aid? The short answer is yes. The 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, the first of two Bush-era tax cuts, passed with 58 votes in favor, including 12 Democrats. Of the 12 that voted with Republicans, only three were from blue states, while the other nine were from red states that President Bush had carried in 2000. The 2003 tax-cut bill, Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, also passed with Democratic support with only 51 votes in favor. Senators Bayh (D - Indiana), Miller (D - Georgia), and Nelson (D - Nebraska), all crossed the aisle. Bayh was facing reelection in 2004, as was Nelson in 2006, in their respective red states, while Zell Miller of Georgia effectively ceased to be a Democrat and endorsed President George W. Bush reelection at the 2004 Republican National Convention. Ominously for today's efforts, John McCain voted against both versions. Given that he is unlikely to campaign again due to terminal cancer, and given his vociferous opposition to President Trump, we have to assume that he will vote against the tax bill as well. Which Democrats could potentially cross the aisle with this year's reconciliation bill? Table 3 lists the 2018 Senate races to watch, particularly the vulnerable Democrats campaigning in red states that President Trump carried in 2016. Particularly vulnerable are Senators Nelson (D - Florida), Donnelly (D - Indiana), McCaskill (D - Missouri), Tester (D - Montana), Heitkamp (D - North Dakota), Brown (D - Ohio), and Baldwin (D - Wisconsin). That makes seven potential votes for the Trump tax cut, plenty of "slack" for the Republicans in Senate to lose one or two votes on the tax bill. Table 32018 Senate Races To Watch As far as the timing of the bill is concerned, we are sticking with our updated view that the end of Q1 2018 is far more likely for passage of tax legislation than the end of 2017. There are simply too many things on the legislative agenda between now and the end of the year, including a potential government shutdown and an immigration fight. Bottom Line: The market remains unconvinced that Republicans can pass tax legislation through Congress. However, the tax process has played out thus far almost exactly as we expected last year (aside from starting later). Republicans have proposed a profligate tax bill and are using dynamic scoring to get it through Congress. Going forward, we think that GOP can afford to lose one or two votes, as it did in 2003 with the highly controversial Bush tax cuts. This is because there are up to seven Democratic Senators who can pick up the slack. Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Is King Dollar Back?" dated October 4, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and China Investment Strategy Special Report, "How To Read Xi Jinping's Party Congress Speech," dated October 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategic Outlook 2017: We Are All Geopolitical Strategists Now," dated December 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategy Outlook 2015 - Paradigm Shifts," dated January 21, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Sino-American Conflict: More Likely Than You Think, Part II," dated November 6, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Xi is also overhauling the armed forces to imitate modern American joint operations and combatant commands (as opposed to the army-centric Soviet system). 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The South China Sea: Smooth Sailing?" March 28, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Does It Pay To Pivot To China?" July 5, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 See note 4 above. 11 Whether Xi is mentioned specifically, and described as the founder of a school of "Thought," or a lesser "Theory," or something else, will be a notable watchword. 12 Please see note 2 above, "How To Read Xi Jinping's Party Congress Speech," and BCA Emerging Market Strategy Weekly Report, "China: Deflation Or Inflation?" October 4, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Reconciliation And The Markets - Warning: This Report May Put You To Sleep," dated May 31, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see S.Con.Res.25, available at congress.gov. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Constraints And Preferences Of The Trump Presidency," dated November 30, 2016, available at gps.bcareserach.com. 16 Current U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, whose retirement from the Senate has prompted the current special election, ran unopposed in 2014 and garnered 97.25% of the vote! 17 Democrats picked up eight seats in the Senate in the watershed 2008 election, boosting their majority to 57, with two Independents caucusing with the Democrats. Shortly after the election, Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Spector changed parties, giving Democrats the 60-seat, filibuster-proof, majority. 18 It is actually 62, but we wanted to make sure you were still reading. Geopolitical Calendar