Elections

Highlights De-globalization is accelerating. Europe is holding together, with populism in check. China power consolidation reflects extreme risks. Brexit is more likely, not less, after court ruling. Feature Chart I-1America Has Soured On Globalization The world woke up on Wednesday to President-elect Donald J. Trump. It will take time for the markets to digest the new regime in Washington D.C., but something tells us that it will not be business-as-usual over the next four years. We give our post-mortem assessment in the enclosed In Focus Special Report, starting on page 28. The divisive campaign reached epic lows in decorum and polarization, but both candidates did have one major thing in common: They shared a negative view of globalization, representing a paradigm shift in geopolitics and macroeconomics. Investors often take policymakers to be agents of political supply. Political rhetoric is taken seriously, analyzed, and its implications for various assets are discussed with confidence. But this approach gets the causality all wrong. Politicians are merely supplying what the political marketplace is demanding. In those terms, Donald Trump was not an agent of change. He was merely a product of his environment. So what is the American median voter demanding? Judging by the success of Donald Trump - and Senator Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary race - the answer is less free trade, more government spending, and a promise to keep entitlement spending at current, largely unsustainable levels. Americans empirically support globalization at a lower level than the average of advanced, emerging, or developing economies (Chart I-1). What is the problem with globalization? In our 2014 report titled "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," we argued that globalization was under assault due to three dynamics:1 Deflation is politically pernicious: Globalization was one of the greatest supply-side shocks in recent history and thus exerted a strong deflationary force (Chart I-2). A persistently low growth environment that flirts with deflation is unacceptable for the majority of the population in advanced economies. Citizens have already experienced a combination of wage suppression and debt escalation. And while globalization produced disinflationary forces on the price of labor and tradeable goods, it has done little to check the rising costs of education, health care, child care, and housing (Chart I-3), which cannot be outsourced to China or Mexico. Chart I-2Globalization Was A Major Supply-Side Shock Chart I-3You Can't Ship Daycare To China The death of the Debt Supercycle: The 2008 Great Recession shifted the demand curve inward. BCA coined the "debt supercycle" framework in the 1970s to characterize the overarching trend of rising debt in a world where political leaders, with the Great Depression and Second World War in the back of their mind, continually resorted to reflationary policies to overcome each new recession. However, the 2008 economic shock permanently shifted household preferences in the West, reducing demand by turning consumers into savers (Chart I-4A and Chart I-4B). This contributes to the global savings glut and reinforces the deflationary environment. Chart I-4AGlobal Demand Engine ... Chart I-4B...Is Not Coming Back Multipolarity: Global leadership by a dominant superpower can overcome ideological challenges and demand deficiencies by providing a consumer of last resort. In game-theory terms, such a global hegemon acts as an exogenous coordinator, turning a non-cooperative game into a cooperative one. But in today's world, geopolitical and economic power is becoming more diffuse. We know from history that intense competition between a number of leading nations imperils globalization (Chart I-5). This is particularly the case in a low-growth environment. Geopolitical and economic multipolarity increase market risk premiums. Chart I-5Multipolarity Imperils Globalization These factors imperiled globalization well before Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, and Nigel Farage came to dominate the news flow in 2016. The macroeconomic and geopolitical context guaranteed that anti-globalization rhetoric would prove successful at the ballot box. Chart I-6Sino-American Macroeconomic Symbiosis Ended##br## In 2008 Sino-American Symbiosis Is Over In addition to these structural challenges to globalization, the next U.S. administration will also have to handle the increasingly complex Sino-American relationship. The future of the post-Bretton Woods macroeconomic and geopolitical system will be decided by these two great powers. And we fear that both economic and geopolitical tensions will worsen.2 China and the U.S. are no longer in a symbiotic relationship. The close embrace between U.S. household leverage and Chinese export-led growth is over (Chart I-6). Today the Chinese economy is domestically driven, with government stimulus and skyrocketing leverage playing a much more important role than external demand. Chinese policymakers have a choice. They can double down on globalization and use competition and creative destruction to drive up productivity growth - moving the economy up the value chain. Or, they can use protectionism - particularly non-tariff barriers to trade - to defend their domestic market from competition.3 We expect that they will do the latter, especially in an environment where anti-globalization rhetoric is rising in the West. The problem with this choice, however, is that it breaks up the post-1979 quid-pro-quo between Washington and Beijing. The "quid" was the Chinese entry into global trade (including the WTO in 2001), which the U.S. supported; the "quo" was that Beijing would open up its economy as it became wealthy. Today, 45% of China's population is middle class, which makes China potentially the world's second largest market after the EU. If China decides not to share its middle class with the rest of the world, then the world will quickly move towards mercantilism.4 What should investors expect in a world that has less globalization, more populism, and rising Sino-American tensions? We think there are five structural investment themes afoot: Chart I-7Globalization And MNCs: A Tight Embrace Inflation is back: Globalization has been one of the most important pillars of a multi-decade deflationary era. If it is imperiled, political capital will swing from capitalists to the owners of labor. Sovereign bonds are not pricing in this paradigm shift, which is why investors should position themselves for the "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market."5 We are long German 10-year CPI swaps as a strategic play on this theme. USD strength: The market got the USD wrong. Trump is not bad for the greenback. More government spending and higher inflation will allow U.S. monetary policy to be tighter than that of its global peers. Furthermore, U.S. policymakers will not look to arrest the dollar bull market. "Main street" loves a strong dollar, particularly U.S. households and consumers. King Dollar will be the righteous agent of plebeian retribution against the patrician corporations used to getting their way on Capitol Hill. And finally, more geopolitical risk will mean more safe haven demand. RMB weakness: China needs to depreciate its currency in order to ease domestic monetary policy and is therefore constrained by its slowing and over-leveraged economy. But in doing so, it will export deflation and ensure that a trade war with the U.S. ensues. In addition, China's EM peers will suffer as their competitiveness vis-à-vis their main export market - China - declines. We expect that China will hasten its ongoing turn towards protectionism itself. This means that if investors want to take advantage of China's rise, they should buy Chinese companies, not the foreign firms looking to grab a share of China's middle-class market. Long defense stocks: Global multipolarity is correlated with armed conflict. We have played this theme by being long U.S. defense / short aerospace equities. Our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou, Chief Strategist of BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy, recommends investors initiate a structural overweight in the global defense index.6 Long SMEs / Short MNCs: A world with marginally less free trade, and marginally more populism, will favor domestically oriented sectors. Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the U.S., for example. Multinational corporations (MNCs) have particularly benefited from free trade and laissez faire economics. The relationship between globalization and S&P 500 operating earnings has been tight for the past 50 years (Chart I-7). Not anymore. In the new environment, investors will want to be long domestically-oriented sectors and economies against externally-oriented ones. These are structural themes supported by structural trends. We would have recommended these five investment themes irrespective of who won the U.S. election. In this Monthly Report, we focus on leadership races around the world. Our In Focus section gives a post-mortem on the U.S. presidential election. The rest of this Global Overview focuses on upcoming elections in Europe (as well as the December 4 Italian constitutional referendum) and the impending Chinese leadership rotation in 2017. We also give our two cents on recent developments related to Brexit in the U.K. Europe: Election Fever Continues Chart I-8Italian Referendum: Likely A 'No' The Netherlands, France, Germany, and potentially, Italy could all hold elections over the next 12 months, a recipe for market volatility. These four countries are part of the EMU-5 and account for 71% of the currency union's GDP and 66% of its population. Should investors expect a paradigm shift? We think the answer is yes, but surprisingly, not towards more Euroskepticism. Our view is that continental Europe - unlike its Anglo-Saxon peers, the U.K. and the U.S. - is actually moving marginally towards the center.7 The median voter in Europe is not becoming more Euroskeptic and even appears to support modest, pro-business, structural reforms! Wait... what? Indeed. Read on. Italy The constitutional referendum being held on December 4 remains too close to call, although we suspect that it will fail (Chart I-8). However, we doubt very much that the defeat of the government's position will initiate a sequence of events that takes Italy out of the euro area. As we argued in a recent Special Report titled "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," Italian policymakers are using Euroskepticism to extract concessions from Europe. But Italy is structurally constrained from exiting European institutions because of its bifurcated economy.8 Moreover, a failed referendum outcome is not a strategic risk to Europe: Euro support: Italians continue to support euro area membership, albeit at a lower level than in the past (Chart I-9). As such, the Euroskeptic Five Star Movement (M5S) has political reasons to become less opposed to euro area membership, as its anti-establishment peers have done in Greece, Portugal, and Spain. Bicameralism: If the constitutional referendum fails, then the Senate will remain a fully empowered chamber in the Italian Parliament. Given Italy's complicated electoral laws, M5S will be unable to capture both houses in Italy's notoriously bicameral legislative body, unless it does very well in the next election. But M5S has consistently trailed the incumbent, pro-establishment Democratic Party (PD) in the polls (Chart I-10). Sequence: As Diagram I-1 shows, the contingent probability of the December constitutional referendum leading to an Italian exit from the euro area is 1.2%. Chart I-9Italy & Euro: OK (For Now) Chart I-10Italy: Euroskeptics Peaking? Diagram I-1From Referendum To Referendum: Contingent Probability Of Italy ##br##Leaving The Euro Area Following The Constitutional Referendum Vote Investors should not translate our sanguine view into a positive view of Italy. As we outlined in the above-cited Special Report, we remain skeptical that Italy can improve its potential growth rate by boosting productivity. But there is a big leap between more-of-the-same in Italy and a euro area collapse. The Netherlands The anti-establishment and Euroskeptic Party for Freedom (PVV) is set to perform poorly in the upcoming March 15 Dutch election. Polls suggest that it will roughly repeat its 10% performance from the 2012 election (Chart I-11). This is extremely disappointing given its polling earlier in the year. PVV's support has collapsed recently, most likely the result of the immigration crisis abating (Chart I-12) and the Brexit referendum in June. Many Dutch may be interested in casting a protest vote against the establishment, but a large majority still support euro area membership (Chart I-13). As such, they are put off by the vociferous Euroskepticism represented by the PVV. Chart I-11The Netherlands: Euroskeptics Collapsing Chart I-12Read Our Chart: Migration Crisis Is Over Chart I-13The Netherlands & Euro: Love Affair The Netherlands is a very important euro area member state. Its economy is large enough that its views matter, despite its small population. Euroskepticism in the Netherlands is notable, but it does not mean that the country's leadership will contemplate a referendum on membership. More likely, the establishment will seek to counter the populist PVV by becoming stricter on immigration and looser on budget discipline. Investors can live with both. France The French election is a two-round affair that will be held on April 23 and May 7. The key question is who will win the November 20 primary of the center-right party, Les Républicains, formerly known as the Union for a Popular Movement. According to the latest polls, former Prime Minister (1995-1997) Alain Juppé is set to win the primary over former President Nicolas Sarkozy (Chart I-14). Who is Alain Juppé? The 70-year old has been the mayor of Bordeaux since 2006, but he is better remembered for the failed social welfare reforms (the Juppé Plan) that caused epic strikes in France back in 1995. He is pro-euro, pro-EU, and pro-economic reforms. In other words, he is everything that Brexit and Trump/Sanders/Corbyn are not. According to the latest polls, Juppé is a heavy favorite against the anti-establishment candidate Marine Le Pen (Chart I-15). This is unsurprising as Le Pen's popularity peaked in 2013, as we have been stressing to clients for years (Chart I-16). Chart I-14Please Google Alain Juppe... Chart I-15...The Next President Of France Chart I-16Le Pen's Popularity In A Secular Decline Why has Le Pen struggled to gain traction in an era of terrorism, migration crises, and the success of anti-establishment peers such as Brexiters and Donald Trump? There are two major reasons. First, she continues to oppose France's membership in the euro area, despite very large support levels for the common currency in the country (Chart I-17). Second, she is holding together a coalition of northern and southern National Front (FN) members. This coalition pins together a diverse group. Northern right-wing FN members are more akin to their Dutch peers, or the "alt-right" movement in the U.S. They are anti-globalization, anti-political correctness (PC), and anti-immigration - specifically, further immigration of Muslims to France. However, this northern FN faction is ambivalent on social issues such as homosexuality (in fact, many of Le Pen's closest advisors from the north of France are openly gay), and they oppose Islam from a position that Muslim immigrants are incompatible with French liberal values. The southern FN faction is far more traditionally conservative, drawing their roots from the old anti-Gaullist, staunchly Catholic right wing. When Le Pen loses the 2017 presidential election, it will spell doom for the National Front. The only thing holding the two factions together is her leadership. Therefore, not only is France likely to elect a pro-reform president from the political establishment, but also its anti-establishment, Euroskeptic movement may be facing an internal struggle. Germany The German federal election is expected to be held sometime after August 2017. Chancellor Angela Merkel faces a decline in popularity (Chart I-18) and a challenge from the populist Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), which performed well in two Lander (state) elections this year. Nonetheless, the migration crisis that rocked Merkel's hold on power has abated. As Chart I-12 shows, migrant flows into Europe peaked at 220,000 last October and began to plummet well before the EU-Turkey deal that the press continues to erroneously cite as the reason for the reduction in migrant flows. As we controversially explained at the height of the crisis, every migration crisis ultimately abates as border enforcement strengthens, liberal attitudes towards refugees wane, and the civil wars prompting the flow exhaust themselves.9 Germany's centrist parties maintain a massive lead over the upstart AfD and Die Linke, the left-wing successor of East Germany's Communist establishment (Chart I-19). However, AfD's successes in Mecklenburg West Pomerania and Berlin have prompted investors to ask whether it will garner greater national support in the general election. Chart I-17France & Euro: Loveless Marriage,##br## But Together For The Kids Chart I-18Merkel's Popularity Has Suffered,##br## But Stabilized Chart I-19There Is A##br## Lot Of Daylight... We doubt it. Both states are sort of oddballs in German politics. For example, Mecklenburg West Pomerania is known for a strong anti-establishment sentiment. AfD largely took votes away from the National Democratic Party (ultra-far-right, neo-Nazis) and Die Linke. These two parties won a combined 25% of the vote in 2011. In 2016, the combined anti-establishment vote, including AfD, was 33%. Clearly this is a notable gain for the non-centrist parties, but it is hardly a paradigm shift. In Berlin, the AfD gained a solid 14% of the vote, but the sensationalist media conveniently avoided mentioning that it came in fifth in the final count. By our "back-of-the-envelope" calculation, AfD managed to take only about 8% of the vote from establishment parties. The bulk of its success once again came from taking votes from other populist parties. For example, Berlin's Pirate Party - yes, "pirates" - took 8% of the vote in the last election and none in 2016. Nonetheless, we suspect that time may be running out for Angela Merkel. She has been in power since 2005 and many voters have lost confidence in her. Merkel may choose not to contest the election at the CDU party conference in early December, or she may step aside as the leader following the election. Why? Because polls suggest that Merkel's CDU will have to once again rely on a Grand Coalition with its center-left opponent, the SPD, to govern. Politically, this is a failure for Merkel as the Grand Coalition was always intended to be a one-term arrangement. If Merkel decides to retire, how will the ruling CDU choose its successor? The process is relatively closed off and dominated by the party elites. The Federal Executive Board of the CDU selects the candidates for chairperson and the party delegates must choose the leader with a majority. The outcome is largely preordained, and Merkel has typically won above 90% of the party congress delegate vote. The possibility of a chancellor from the CDU's Bavarian sister-party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), is also decided by the elites. Therefore, the likelihood of an anti-establishment candidate hijacking the CDU/CSU leadership is minimal. How will the markets react to Merkel's resignation? Investors are overstating Merkel's role as the "anchor" of euro area stability. She has, in fact, dithered multiple times throughout the crisis. In 2011, for example, Merkel delayed the decision on whether to set up a permanent euro area fiscal backstop mechanism due to upcoming Lander elections in Rhineland-Palatinate and Baden Württemberg. In addition, her likely successor will not mark a paradigm shift in terms of Germany's pro-euro outlook (Box I-1). Bottom Line: Investors may wake up in mid-2017 to find that the U.K. is firmly on its way out of the EU and that the U.S. is embroiled in deepening political polarization. Meanwhile, France and Spain will be led by reformist governments, Italy will remain in the euro area, and Germany will be mid-way through a rather boring electoral campaign featuring pro-euro establishment parties. What is keeping the European establishment in power? In early 2016, we argued that it was its large social welfare state. Unlike the laissez-faire economies of the U.S. and the U.K., European "socialism" has managed to redistribute the gains of globalization sufficiently to keep the populists at bay. As such, European voters are not flocking to populist alternatives, despite considerable challenges such as the migration crisis and terrorism. Populists are gaining votes in Europe nonetheless. To counter that trend, we should expect to see Europe's establishment parties turn more negative towards immigration, positive on fiscal activism, and more assertive towards security and defense policy. But on the key investment-relevant issue of euro area membership and European integration, we see the consensus remaining with the status quo. China: Xi Is A "Core" Leader... So What? Chinese President Xi Jinping's recent designation as the "core" of the Chinese leadership should be seen as a marginally market-positive event in an otherwise bleak outlook. Not because the president has a new title, but because of the underlying reality that he is consolidating power ahead of the 19th National Party Congress. Set for the fall of 2017, the Congress will feature a major rotation of top Communist Party leaders and mark the halfway point of his 10-year administration. The new title was not a surprise when it trickled out of the Chinese Communist Party's Sixth Plenary meeting on October 24-27. But the media took the opportunity once again to decry President Xi's "ever-expanding power."10 As our readers know, we do not think there has been a palace coup in China. That is, we do not think Xi has overthrown the "collective leadership" model, i.e. rule by the Politburo Standing Committee, established after the death of Chairman Mao.11 Instead, we think he is presiding over a major centralization phase in Chinese politics. Xi's status as the "core" feeds into the broader idea of re-centralization that we identified as a key theme for this administration when it began its term back in 2012.12 The Sixth Plenum reinforced this view in various ways:13 Xi is clearly in charge: A smattering of local party officials started calling him the core leader earlier this year, but now it has been endorsed in official documents at the highest level. Again, it is not the title itself that matters, but the fact that Xi compelled the whole party to give him the title. This distinguishes him from his two predecessors, Presidents Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin, and in this way he resembles his mighty predecessor Deng Xiaoping. Xi already developed a strong track record for re-centralizing the political system prior to receiving the new title.14 Collective leadership persists: Deng invented the idea of the "core" leader specifically as a way to assert the need for a top leader or chief executive without reverting to Maoist absolutism. The core leader is the supreme leader within a collective leadership system. This interpretation was expressly reaffirmed by the communique issued at the Sixth Plenum, which denounced ruling by a single person and praised the current system.15 Corruption purge has not split the party: The focus of the plenum was the Communist Party's rules for disciplining its own members. This specifically highlighted Xi's harsh anti-corruption campaign, which has netted numerous party officials, and has not yet concluded (Chart I-20). The fact that this campaign has continued longer than expected without prompting significant resistance shows that centralization is acceptable to the party (and anti-corruption is positive for the party's public image). Policy coherence could improve: A rash of rumors suggest that Xi will not only promote his allies but also tweak party rules and norms in order to ensure he retains a factional majority on the Politburo Standing Committee after 2017. This should be positive for policymaking since the cohort of leaders ready to rise up the ranks is weighted against his faction as a result of the previous administration's appointments. These developments would be negative if Xi avoids appointing successors next year and thus appears ready to cling to power beyond 2022.16 Unified government is a plus amid crisis: Deng initiated the "core leader" concept in the dark days after the Tiananmen massacre, when the party faced internal rifts and potential regime collapse. In other words, it is in times of crisis that the party needs to reaffirm that rule-by-committee still requires a final arbiter at the top. This latter point is the most relevant for investors. It suggests that China's party leadership perceives itself to be in the midst, or on the brink, of a crisis. Why should this be the case? There has been an improvement in China's economic situation in 2016 - stimulus efforts have stabilized the economy and growth momentum is picking up (Chart I-21). Economic relations with Asian nations are also improving. All of this information has supported the China bulls, who argue that China is not particularly overleveraged, still has a long way to go in terms of economic development, and needs to stimulate demand in order to outgrow any problems it faces from debt and overcapacity (Chart I-22). Chart I-20Anti-Corruption ##br##Campaign Reaccelerating Chart I-21Chinese Economy##br## Improved This Year Chart I-22Chinese Capacity Utilization: ##br##A Historical Perspective Nevertheless, the latest reflation efforts have peaked (Chart I-23), and there are clear warning signs for what lies ahead. The RMB continues to weaken, capital outflows may reaccelerate as a result, the yield curve is flattening, and economic policy uncertainty remains markedly elevated (Chart I-24). As such, the China bears argue that exorbitant credit growth cannot continue indefinitely (Chart I-25). When credit growth slows, the credit-reliant economy will slow too, and China will face a cascade of bad loans and insolvent companies and banks. Chart I-23Latest Mini-Stimulus##br## Is Over Chart I-24China:##br## Who Is Driving This Bus? Chart I-25China's Corporate And Household Credit: ##br##The Sky's The Limit? While economists can argue over the nature of things, politicians do not have that luxury: China's government must be prepared for the worst-case scenario. The China bears may be right even if their economic analysis proves overly pessimistic or poorly timed, because policymakers may eventually decide they must do more to tackle excessive leverage and overcapacity. Chart I-26Rebalancing Is Slowing Down An optimistic long-term assumption about Xi's consolidation of power has been that he eventually intends to use that power to pursue painful structural reforms, as outlined at the Third Plenum in 2013.17 However, the intervening three years have shown that he is pragmatic and does not want to impose aggressive reforms that would undercut an already weak and slowing economy (Chart I-26). Thus, deep reforms are only going to occur if they are forced upon the leaders as a result of an intense bout of instability, uncertainty, and market riots. The implication of this is that Xi is concentrating power in preparation for further crisis points that may be thrust upon his administration. For instance, if recent efforts to tamp down on property prices end up bursting the bubble, then eventually China could be plunged into socio-political (as well as financial) turmoil. By that time, the party would not be able to re-centralize and consolidate power carefully and gradually. It would either have loyal tools at its disposal already, or would lose precious time (and likely make mistakes) trying to assemble them. Thus Xi's moves to consolidate power are marginally market-positive in an overall negative climate. He is making himself and the Politburo Standing Committee better prepared to handle a crisis, which suggests that he believes that a crisis is either occurring or close at hand. In short, the Communist Party is girding for war; a war for regime stability if and when the massive credit risks materialize. What about the 19th National Party Congress, set to take place next fall? We will revisit this topic in the future, but for now the key point is this: It would require a surprise and/or a new political dynamic to prevent Xi from getting his way in forming the Politburo Standing Committee next year. While there is a mixed record of policy stimulus for the years preceding the Chinese midterm leadership reshuffle, we certainly do not expect aggressive structural reforms to occur before then (Chart I-27). Policy tightening in the real estate sector and SOE restructuring efforts will be gradual. Chart I-27Unimpressive Record Of Stimulus Before Five-Year Party Congresses Only around the time of the party congress will it be possible to find out whether Xi wants his administration to be remembered for anything other than power consolidation - such as ambitious reforms. One reform effort we are confident will continue amid rising centralization, however, is tougher government policy against pollution. Pollution threatens social stability, especially among the restless new middle class, and stimulus efforts perpetuate the heavily polluting industries. Environmental spending has been the biggest growth category in government spending under Premier Li Keqiang.18 To capitalize on the darkening short-term outlook for stocks and Xi's policy momentum, we suggest shorting Chinese utilities, whose profit margins and share prices trade inversely with rising environmental spending (Chart I-28). Bottom Line: We remain overweight China relative to EM: The government has resources and is unified. However, the long-term outlook is mixed. Investors should steer clear of Chinese risk assets in absolute terms. Short utilities as a play on rising environmental spending and regulation, and stay short the RMB. Brexit Update: The "Legion Memorial" Is Alive And Well Chart I-28Anti-Pollution Push Hurts Utilities The Brexit movement encountered its first apparent setback last week when the country's High Court ruled that parliament must vote on invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty to initiate the withdrawal from the European Union. We have always held a high-conviction view that parliament approval would ultimately be necessary, as we wrote in July.19 But, politically, it matters a great deal whether parliament votes before or after the exit negotiations. The High Court ruling is an obstacle to the government's Brexit plan because it could result in (1) the parliament's outright blocking Brexit, though this outcome is highly unlikely; (2) the parliament's insisting on a "soft Brexit" that leaves U.K.-EU relations substantially the same as before the referendum on matters like immigration and market access. However, the saga is nowhere near finished. The government is appealing the ruling, the Welsh assembly is contesting the appeal, and the Supreme Court will decide the matter in December. Until then, we expect U.K. markets to benefit marginally, ceteris paribus, from the belief that the odds of a soft Brexit are rising. Investors could be encouraged by the continuation of monetary stimulus and a new blast of fiscal stimulus, which we think will surprise to the upside on November 23 when the annual Autumn Statement is released by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The High Court-prompted rebound in U.K. assets will remain vulnerable for the following reasons: The Supreme Court has not yet ruled: It is not certain that the Supreme Court will uphold the High Court's insistence on a parliamentary role. Both views have legitimate arguments and the issue is not settled until the Supreme Court rules. Parliament's role is political, not merely legal: Assuming parliament gets to vote on whether to trigger the process of leaving the EU, the decision will depend on politics. For instance, it is highly unlikely that the Commons will flatly reject the popular referendum, and the House of Lords can at best delay it. Yes, parliament is sovereign, but that is because it represents the people. While the 1689 Glorious Revolution established the Bill of Rights and parliamentary supremacy, in as early as 1701 there was a crisis over whether parliament should flatly overrule popular will. At that time, the writer Daniel Defoe, representing "the people," delivered the so-called Legion Memorial directly to the Speaker of the Commons. It read: "Our name is Legion, for we are Many."20 Parliament backed down. The politics of the moment favor the government: Polling shows a stark divergence in popular opinion since the referendum in favor of the Tories (Chart I-29). This is a clear signal - on top of the referendum outcome and the sweeping Tory election win in 2015 - that the popular will favors leaving the European Union. It is also a clear signal that Prime Minister Theresa May has the mandate to do it her way. Her approval rating has waned a bit (Chart I-30), but she is still supported by nearly half the population. If the government fails to win parliamentary support on Brexit, it would likely lead to a vote of no confidence and early elections. Yet the current dynamics suggest an early election would return a Conservative majority with a clear mandate to vote for Brexit. Until those dynamics undergo a change, "Brexit means Brexit." Economics favor the government: One danger for the anti-Brexit coalition is that the Supreme Court may compel a parliamentary vote in the near future. The economy has not yet suffered much from Brexit, whatever it may do in future, so there is little motivation for widespread "Bregret," i.e. the desire to reverse course and stay in the EU. By contrast, in two years' time, the negative economic consequences and uncertainties of the actual exit plan, combined with ebbing popular enthusiasm, would likely give parliament a stronger position from which to soften or reverse Brexit. Although Article 50 is arguably irrevocable, it seems hard to believe that the EU would not find a way to allow the U.K. to stay in the union if its domestic politics shifted in favor of staying, since that is clearly in the EU's interest. The President of the European Council Donald Tusk has implied as much.21 Chart I-29Brexit Helped Tories, Hurt Labour Chart I-30Prime Minister May's Popularity Still Strong From the arguments above we can draw three conclusions. First, parliament will not simply repudiate the popular referendum. Second, if parliament must vote, the political context suggests it will vote on a bill that substantially favors the government's approach toward Brexit. If that happens, the High Court ruling this week will be only a pyrrhic victory for the Bremain camp. However, parliamentary involvement does imply a softer Brexit than otherwise, and it is possible that parliament could extract major concessions. Third, the High Court ruling makes Brexit more, not less, likely. This is because it is forcing parliamentarians to vote on Brexit so early in the process, when Brexit's negative consequences are yet not evident. What do the latest Brexit twists and turns portend for European and global growth? We do not see them as particularly damaging. The British turn toward greater fiscal spending adds yet another to the list of those countries supporting one of our key investment themes: "The Return of G," or government spending.22 As we predicted, Canada is overshooting its budget deficits, Japan is engaging in coordinated monetary and fiscal stimulus, and Italy is expanding spending and daring Germany and the European Council to stop it, especially in the face of badly needed earthquake reconstruction and the ongoing immigration crisis (Chart I-31). Chart I-31G7 Fiscal Thrust Is Going Up This leaves the United States and Germany as two outstanding questions. The U.S. election means that Trump will launch potentially large spending increases with a GOP-held Congress. As for Germany, the CDU/CSU appears to be shifting toward more government spending, but the direction will not be clear until the election in the fall of 2017. Bottom Line: The High Court ruling has made Brexit more rather than less likely. By forcing the parliament to make a ruling on Brexit before the economic damage is clear, the High Court has put parliamentarians in the difficult position of going against the public. We are closing our long FTSE 100 / short FTSE 250 Brexit hedge in the meantime. The market may, incorrectly, price a lower probability of Brexit, while domestic stimulus will aid the home-biased FTSE 250. Nonetheless, we remain short U.K. REITs to capitalize on the long-term uncertainty, as well as negative cyclical and structural factors that are affecting commercial real estate. We also expect the GBP/USD to remain relatively weak and vulnerable relative to the pre-Brexit period. We would expect the GBP/USD to retest its mid-October-low of 1.184 over the next two years. BOX I-1 Likely Successors To German Chancellor Angela Merkel If Merkel decides to retire, who are her potential successors? Wolfgang Schäuble, Finance Minister (CDU): The bane of the financial community, Schäuble is seen as the least market-friendly option due to his hardline position on bailouts and the euro area. In our view, this is an incorrect interpretation of Schäuble's heavy-handedness. He is by all accounts a genuine Europhile who believes in the integrationist project. At 74 years old, he comes from a generation of policymakers who consider European integration a national security issue for Germany. He has pursued a tough negotiating position in order to ensure that the German population does not sour on European integration. Nonetheless, we doubt that he will chose to take on the chancellorship if Merkel retires. He suffered an assassination attempt in 1990 that left him paralyzed and he has occasionally had to be hospitalized due to health complications left from this injury. As such, it is unlikely that he would replace Merkel, but he may stay on as Finance Minister and thus be as close to a "Vice President" role as Germany has. Ursula von der Leyen, Defense Minister (CDU): Most often cited as the likely replacement for Merkel, Leyen nonetheless is not seen favorably by most of the population. She is a strong advocate of further European integration and has supported the creation of a "United States of Europe." Leyen has gone so far as to say that the refugee crisis and the debt crisis are similar in that they will ultimately force Europe to integrate further. As a defense minister, she has promoted the creation of a robust EU army. She has also been a hardliner on Brexit, saying that the U.K. will not re-enter the EU in her lifetime. While the markets and pro-EU elites in Europe would love Leyen, the problem is that her Europhile profile may disqualify her from chancellorship at a time when most CDU politicians are focusing on the Euroskeptic challenge from the right. Thomas De Maizière, Interior Minster (CDU): Maizière is a former Defense Minister and a close confidant of Chancellor Merkel. He was her chief of staff from 2005 to 2009. Like Schäuble, he is somewhat of a hawk on euro area issues (he drove a hard bargain during negotiations to set up a fiscal backstop, the European Financial Stability Fund, in 2010) and as such could be a compromise candidate between the Europhiles and Eurohawks within the CDU ranks. However, he has also been implicated in scandals as Defense Minister and may be tainted by the immigration crisis due to his position as the Interior Minister. Julia Klöckner, Executive Committee Member, Deputy Chair (CDU): A CDU politician from Rhineland-Palatinate, Klöckner is a socially conservative protégé of Merkel. While she has taken a more right-wing stance on the immigration crisis, she has remained loyal to Merkel otherwise. She is a staunch Europhile who has portrayed the Euroskeptic AfD as "dangerous, sometimes racist." We think that she would be a very pro-market choice as she combines the market-irrelevant populism of anti-immigration rhetoric with market-relevant centrism of favoring further European integration. Hermann Gröhe, Minister of Health (CDU): Gröhe is a former CDU secretary general and very close to Merkel. He is a staunch supporter of the euro and European integration. Markets would have no problem with Grohe, although they may take some time to get to know who he is! Volker Bouffier, Minister President of Hesse (CDU): As Minister President of Hesse, home of Germany's financial center Frankfurt, Bouffier may be disqualified from leadership due to his apparent close links with Deutsche Bank. Nonetheless, he is a heavyweight within the CDU's leadership and a staunch Europhile. Fritz Von Zusammenbruch, Hardline Euroskeptic (CDU): This person does not exist! Section II: U.S. Election: Outcomes & Investment Implications Highlights Trump won by stealing votes from Democrats in the Midwest. His victory implies a national shift to the left on economic policy. Checks and balances on Trump are not substantial in the short term. U.S. political polarization will continue. Trump is good for the USD, bad for bonds, neutral for equities. Favor SMEs over MNCs. Close long alternative energy / short coal. Feature "Most Americans do not find themselves actually alienated from their fellow Americans or truly fearful if the other party wins power. Unlike in Bosnia, Northern Ireland or Rwanda, competition for power in the U.S. remains largely a debate between people who can work together once the election is over." — Newt Gingrich, January 2, 2001 Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (and a potential Secretary of State pick), was asked on NBC's Meet the Press two days before the U.S. election whether he still thought that "competition for power in the U.S. remains largely a debate between people who can work together once the election is over." Gingrich made the original statement in January 2001, merely weeks after one of the most contentious presidential elections in U.S. history was resolved by the Supreme Court. Gingrich's answer in 2016? "I think, tragically, we have drifted into an environment where ... it will be a continuing fight for who controls the country." Despite an extraordinary victory - a revolution really - by Donald J. Trump, the fact of the matter remains that the U.S. is a polarized country between Republican and Democratic voters. As of publication time of this report, Trump lost the popular vote to Secretary Hillary Clinton. His is a narrower victory than either the epic Richard Nixon win in 1968 or George W. Bush squeaker in 2000. Over the next two years, the only thing that matters for the markets is that the U.S. has a unified government behind a Republican president-elect and a GOP-controlled Congress. We discuss the investment implications of this scenario below and caution clients to not over-despair. On the other hand, we also see this election as more evidence that America remains a deeply polarized country where identity politics continue to play a key role. What concerns us is that these identity politics appear to transcend the country's many cultural, ethical, political, and economic commonalities. Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are fusing into almost ethnic-like groupings. To bring it back to Gingrich's quote at the top, that would suggest that the U.S. is no longer that much different from Bosnia or Northern Ireland.23 Election Post-Mortem Chart II-1Election Polls Usually##br## Miss By A Few Points Donald Trump has won an upset over Hillary Clinton, but his campaign was not as much of a long-shot as the consensus believed. U.S. presidential polls have frequently missed the final tally by +/- 3% of the vote, which was precisely the end result of the 2016 election (Chart II-1). Therefore, as we pointed out in our last missive on the election, Trump's victory was not a "wild mathematical oddity."24 Why Did Trump Win The White House? Where Trump really did beat expectations was in the Midwest, and Wisconsin in particular. He ended up outperforming the poll-of-polls by a near-incredible 10%!25 His victories in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania were well within the range of expectations. For example, the last poll-of-polls had Trump leading in both Florida (by a narrow 0.2%) and Ohio (by a solid 3.5%), whereas Clinton was up in Pennsylvania by the slightest of margins (just 1.9% lead). He ended up exceeding poll expectations in all three (by 2% in Florida, 6% in Ohio, and 3% in Pennsylvania), but not by the same wild margin as in Wisconsin. When all is said and done, Trump won the 2016 election by stealing votes away from the Democrats in the traditionally "blue" Midwest states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. This was a far more significant result than his resounding victories in Ohio (which Obama won in 2012) or Florida (where Obama won only narrowly in 2012). Our colleague Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist of the Global Investment Strategy, correctly forecast that Trump would be competitive in all three Midwest states back in September 2015! We highly encourage our clients to read his "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," as it is one of the best geopolitical calls made by BCA in recent history.26 As Peter had originally thought, Trump cleaned up the white, less-educated, male vote in all of the three crucial Midwest states. He won 68% of this vote in Michigan, 71% in Pennsylvania, and 69% in Wisconsin. To do so, Trump campaigned as an unorthodox Republican, appealing to the blue-collar white voter by blaming globalization for their job losses and low wages, and by refusing to accept Republican orthodoxy on fiscal austerity or entitlement spending. Instead, Trump promised to outspend Clinton and protect entitlements at their current levels. This mix of an outsider, anti-establishment, image combined with a left-of-center economic message allowed Trump to win an extraordinary number of former Obama voters. Exit polls showed that Obama had a positive image in all three Midwest states, including with Trump voters! For example, 30% of Trump voters in Michigan approved of the job Obama was doing as president, 25% in Pennsylvania, and 27% in Wisconsin. That's between a quarter and a third of eventual people who cast their vote for Trump. These are the voters that Republicans lost in 2012 because they nominated a former private equity "corporate raider" Mitt Romney as their candidate. Romney had famously argued in a 2008 New York Times op-ed that he would have "Let Detroit go bankrupt." Obama repeatedly attacked Romney during the 2011-2012 campaign on this point. Back in late 2011, we suspected that this message, and this message alone, would win President Obama his re-election.27 Why is the issue of the Midwest Obama voters so important? Because investors have to know precisely why Donald Trump won the election. It wasn't his messages on immigration, law and order, race relations, and especially not the tax cuts he added to his message late in the game. It was his left-of-center policy position on trade and fiscal spending. Trump is beholden to his voters on these policies, particularly in the Midwest states that won him the election. Final word on race. Donald Trump actually improved on Mitt Romney's performance with African-American and Hispanic voters (Table II-1). This was a surprise, given his often racially-charged rhetoric. Meanwhile, Trump failed to improve on the white voter turnout (as percent of overall electorate) or on Romney's performance with white voters in terms of the share of the vote. To be clear, Republicans are still in the proverbial hole with minority voters and are yet to match George Bush's performance in 2004. But with 70% of the U.S. electorate still white in 2016, this did not matter. Table II-1Exit Polls: Trump's Win Was Not Merely About Race Congress: No Gridlock Ahead Republicans exceeded their expectations in the Senate, losing only one seat (Illinois) to Democrats. This means that the GOP control of the Senate will remain quite comfortable and is likely to grow in the 2018 mid-term elections when the Democrats have to defend 25 of 33 seats. Of the 25 Senate seats they will defend, five are in hostile territory: North Dakota, West Virginia, Ohio, Montana, and Missouri. In addition, Florida is always a tough contest. Republicans, on the other hand, have only one Senate seat that will require defense in a Democrat-leaning state: Nevada (and in that case, it will be a Republican incumbent contesting the race). Their other seven seats are all in Republican voting states. As such, expect Republicans to hold on to the Senate well into the 2020 general election. In the House of Representatives, the GOP will retain its comfortable majority. The Tea Party affiliated caucuses (Tea Party Caucus and the House Freedom Caucus) performed well in the election. The Tea Party Caucus members won 35 seats out of 38 they contested and the House Freedom Caucus won 34 seats out of 37 it contested. The race to watch now is for the Speaker of the House position. Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the incumbent House, is likely to contest the election again and win. Even though his support for Donald Trump was lukewarm, we expect Republicans to unify the party behind Trump and Ryan. A challenge from the right could emerge, but we doubt it will materialize given Trump's victory. The campaign for the election will begin immediately, with Republicans selecting their candidate by December (the official election will be in the first week of January, but it is a formality as Republicans hold the majority). Bottom Line: Trump's victory was largely the product of former Obama voters in the Midwest switching to the GOP candidate. This happened because of Trump's unorthodox, left-of-center, message. Trump will have a friendly Congress to work with for the next four years. How friendly? That question will determine the investment significance of the Trump presidency. Investment Relevance Of A United Government Most clients we have spoken to over the past several months believe that Donald Trump will be constrained on economic policies by a right-leaning Congress. His more ambitious fiscal spending plans - such as the $550 billion infrastructure plan and $150 billion net defense spending plan - will therefore be either "dead on arrival" in Congress, or will be significantly watered down by the legislature. Focus will instead shift to tax cuts and traditional Republican policies. We could not disagree more. GOP is not fiscally conservative: There is no empirical evidence that the GOP is actually fiscally conservative. First, the track record of the Bush and Reagan administrations do not support the adage that Republicans keep fiscal spending in check when they are in power (Chart II-2). Second, Republican voters themselves only want "small government" when the Democrats are in charge of the White House (Chart II-3). When a Republican President is in charge, Republicans forget their "small government" leanings. Chart II-2Republicans Are##br## Not Fiscally Responsible Chart II-3Big Government Is Only ##br##A Problem For Opposition Presidents get their way: Over the past 28 years, each new president has generally succeeded in passing their signature items. Congress can block some but probably not all of president's plans. Clinton, Bush, and Obama each began with their own party controlling the legislature, which gave an early advantage that was later reversed in their second term. Clinton lost on healthcare, but achieved bipartisan welfare reform. For Obama, legislative obstructionism halted various initiatives, but his core objectives were either already met (healthcare), not reliant on Congress (foreign policy), or achieved through compromise after his reelection (expiration of Bush tax cuts for upper income levels). Median voter has moved to the left: Donald Trump won both the GOP primary and the general election by preaching an unorthodox, left-of-center sermon. He understood correctly that the American voter preferences on economic policies have moved away from Republican laissez-faire orthodoxies.28 Yes, he is also calling for significant lowering of both income and corporate tax rates. However, tax cuts were never a focal point of his campaign, and he only introduced the policy later in the race when he was trying to get traditional Republicans on board with his campaign. Newsflash: traditional Republicans did not get Trump over the hump, Obama voters in the Midwest did! Investors should make no mistake, the key pillars of Trump's campaign are de-globalization, higher fiscal spending, and protecting entitlements at current levels. And he will pursue all three with GOP allies in Congress. What are the investment implications of this policy mix? USD: More government spending, marginally less global trade, and pressure on multi-national corporations (MNCs) to scale back their global operations should be positive for inflation. If growth surprises to the upside due to fiscal spending, it will allow the Fed to hike more than the current 57 bps expected by the market by the end of 2018. Given easy monetary stance of central banks around the world, and lack of significant fiscal stimulus elsewhere, economic growth surprise in the U.S. should be positive for the dollar in the long term. At the moment, the market is reacting to the Trump victory with ambivalence on the USD. In fact, the dollar suffered as Trump's probability of victory rose in late October. We believe that this is a temporary reaction. We see both Trump's fiscal and trade policies as bullish. BCA's currency strategist Mathieu Savary believes that the dollar could therefore move in a bifurcated fashion in the near term. On the one hand, the dollar could rise against EM currencies and commodity producers, but suffer - or remain flat - against DM currencies such as the EUR, CHF, and JPY.29 Bonds: More inflation and growth should also mean that the bond selloff continues. In addition, if our view on globalization is correct, then the deflationary effects of the last three decades should begin to reverse over the next several years. BCA thesis that we are at the "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market" should therefore remain cogent.30 As one of our "Trump hedges," our colleague Rob Robis, Chief Strategist of the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy, suggested a 2-year / 30-year Treasury curve steepener. This hedge is now up 18.7 bps and we suggest clients continue to hold it. Fed policy: Trump's statements about monetary policy have been inconsistent. Early on in his campaign he described himself as "a low interest rate guy", but he has more recently become critical of current Federal Reserve policy - and Fed Chair Janet Yellen in particular - claiming that while higher interest rates are justified, the Fed is keeping them low for "political reasons." What seems certain is that Janet Yellen will be replaced as Fed Chair when her term expires in February 2018. Yellen is unlikely to resign of her own volition before then and it would be legally difficult for the President to remove a sitting Fed Chair prior to the end of her term. But Trump will get the opportunity to re-shape the composition of the Fed's Board of Governors as soon as he is sworn in. There are currently two empty seats on the Board need to be filled and given that many of Trump's economic advisers have "hard money" leanings, it is very likely that both appointments will go to inflation hawks. Equities: In terms of equities, Trump will be a source of uncertainty for U.S. stocks as the market deals with the unknown of his presidency. In addition, markets tend to not like united government in the U.S. as it raises the specter of big policy moves (Table II-2). However, Trump should be positive for sectors that sold off in anticipation of a Clinton victory, such as healthcare and financials. We also suspect that he will continue the outperformance of defense stocks, although that would have been the case with Clinton as well. Table II-2Election: Industry Implications In the long term, Trump's proposal for major corporate tax cuts should be good for U.S. equities. However, we are not entirely sure that this is the case. First, the effective corporate tax rate in the U.S. is already at its multi-decade lows (Chart II-4). As such, any corporate tax reform that lowers the marginal rate will not really affect the effective rate. Why does this matter? Because major corporations already have low effective tax rates. Any lowering of the marginal rate will therefore benefit the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and the domestic oriented S&P 500 corporations. If corporate tax reform also includes closing loopholes that benefit the major multi-national corporations (MNCs), then Trump's policy will not necessarily benefit all firms in the U.S. equally. Chart II-4How Low Can It Go? Investors have to keep in mind that Trump has not run a pro-corporate campaign. He has accused American manufacturing firms of taking jobs outside the U.S. and tech companies of skirting taxes. It is not clear to us that his corporate tax reform will therefore necessarily be a boon for the stock market. In the long term, we like to play Trump's populist message by favoring America's SMEs over MNCs. If we are ultimately correct on the USD and growth, then export-oriented S&P 500 companies should suffer in the face of a USD bull market and marginally less globalization. Meanwhile, lowering of the marginal corporate tax rate will benefit the SMEs that do not get the benefit of K-street lobbyist negotiated tax loopholes. Global Assets: The global asset to watch over the next several weeks is the USD/RMB cross. China is forced by domestic economic conditions to continue to slowly depreciate its currency. We have expected this since 2015, which is why we have shorted the RMB via 12-month non-deliverable forwards (NDF). Risk to global assets, particularly EM currencies and equities, would be that Beijing decides to depreciate the RMB before Trump is inaugurated on January 20. This could re-visit the late 2015 panic over China, particularly the narrative that it is exporting deflation. Our view is that even if China does not undertake such actions over the next two months, Sino-American tensions are set to escalate. It is much easier for Trump to fulfill his de-globalization policies with China - a geopolitical rival with which the U.S. has no free trade agreement - than with NAFTA trade partners Canada and Mexico. This will only deepen geopolitical tensions between the two major global powers, which has been our secular view since 2011. Finally, a quick note on the Mexican peso. The Mexican peso has already collapsed half of its value in the past 18 months and we believe the trade is overdone. Investors have used the currency cross as a way to articulate Trump's victory probability. It is no longer cogent. We believe that the U.S. will focus on trade relations with China under a Trump presidency, rather than NAFTA trade partners. Our Emerging Markets Strategy believes that it is time to consider going long MXN versus other EM currencies, such as ZAR and BRL. Investors should also watch carefully the Cabinet appointments that Trump makes over the next two months. Since Carter's administration, cabinet announcements have occurred in early to mid-December. Almost all of these appointments were confirmed on Inauguration Day (usually January 20 of the year after election, including in 2017) or shortly thereafter. Only one major nomination since Carter was disapproved. These appointments will tell us how willing Trump is to reach to traditional Republicans who have served on previous administrations. We suspect that he will go with picks that will execute his fiscal, trade, and tax policies. Bottom Line: After the dust settles over the next several weeks, we suspect that Trump will signal that he intends to pursue his fiscal, trade, immigration, and tax policies. These will be, in the long term, positive for the USD, negative for bonds (including Munis, which will lose their tax-break appeal if income taxes are reduced), and likely neutral for equities. Within the equity space, Trump will be positive for U.S. SMEs and negative for MNCs. This means being long S&P 600 over S&P 100. Lastly, close our long alternative energy / short coal trade for a loss of -26.8%. Constraints: Don't Bet On Them Domestically, the American president can take significant action without congressional support through executive directives. Lincoln raised an army and navy by proclamation and freed the slaves; Franklin Roosevelt interned the Japanese; Truman tried to seize steel factories to keep production up during the Korean War. Truman's case is almost the only one of a major executive order being rebuffed by the Supreme Court. The Reagan and Clinton administrations have shown that a president thwarted by a divided or adverse congress will often use executive directives to achieve policy aims and satisfy particular interest groups and sectors. Though the number of executive orders has gone down in recent administrations (Chart II-5), the economic significance has increased along with the size and penetration of the bureaucracy (Chart II-6). The economic impact of executive orders is always debatable, but the key point is that the president's word tends to carry the day.31 Chart II-5Rule By Decree Chart II-6Executive Branch Is Growing Trade is a major area where Trump would have considerable sway. He has repeatedly signaled his intention to restrict American openness to international trade. The U.S. president can revoke international treaties solely on their own authority. Congressionally approved agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) cannot be revoked by the president, but Trump could obstruct its ongoing implementation.32 He would also have considerable powers to levy tariffs, as Nixon showed with his 10% "surcharge" on most imports in 1971.33 Bottom Line: Presidential authority is formidable in the areas Trump has made the focus of his campaign: immigration and trade. Without a two-thirds majority in Congress to override him, or an activist federal court, Trump would be able to enact significant policies simply by issuing orders to his subordinates in the executive branch. Long-Term Implications: Polarization In The U.S. Does the Republican control of Congress and the White House signal that polarization in America will subside? We began this analysis by focusing on the investment implications when Republicans control the three houses of the American government. But long-term implications of polarization will not dissipate. Investors may overstate the importance of a Republican-controlled government and thus understate the relevance of continued polarization. We doubt that Donald Trump is a uniting figure who can transcend America's polarized politics, especially given his weak popular mandate (he lost the popular vote as Bush did in 2000) and the sub-50% vote share. And, our favorite chart of the year remains the same: both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have entered the history books as the most disliked presidential candidates ever on the day of the election (Chart II-7). Chart II-7Clinton And Trump Are Making (The Wrong Kind Of) History According to empirical work by political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, polarization in Congress is at its highest level since World War II (Chart II-8). Their research shows that the liberal-conservative dimension explains approximately 93% of all roll-call voting choices and that the two parties are drifting further apart on this crucial dimension.34 Chart II-8The Widening Ideological Gulf In The U.S. Congress Meanwhile, a 2014 Pew Research study has shown that Republicans and Democrats are moving further to the right and left, respectively. Chart II-9 shows the distribution of Republicans and Democrats on a 10-item scale of political values across the last three decades. In addition, "very unfavorable" views of the opposing party have skyrocketed since 2004 (Chart II-10), with 45% of Republicans and 41% of Democrats now seeing the other party as a "threat to the nation's well-being"! Chart II-9U.S. Political Polarization: Growing Apart Chart II-10Live And Let Die Much ink has been spilled trying to explain the mounting polarization in America.35 Our view remains that politics in a democracy operates on its own supply-demand dynamic. If there was no demand for polarized politics, especially at the congressional level, American politicians would not be so eager to supply it. We believe that five main factors - in our subjective order of importance - explain polarization in the U.S. today: Income Inequality and Immobility The increase in political polarization parallels rising income inequality in the U.S. (Chart II-11). The U.S. is a clear and distant outlier on both factors compared to its OECD peers (Chart II-12). However, Americans are not being divided neatly along income levels. This is because Republicans and Democrats disagree on how to fix income inequality. For Donald Trump voters, the solutions are to put up barriers to free trade and immigration while reducing income taxes for all income levels. For Hillary Clinton voters, it means more taxes on the wealthy and large corporations, while putting up some trade barriers and expanding entitlements. This means that the correlation between polarization and income inequality is misleading as there is no causality. Rather, rising income inequality, especially when combined with a low-growth environment, shifts the political narrative from the "politics of plenty" towards "politics of scarcity." It hardens interest and identity groups and makes them less generous towards the "other." Chart II-11Inequality Breeds Polarization Chart II-12Opportunity And Income: Americans Are Outliers Generational Warfare The political age gap is increasing (Chart II-13). This remains the case following the 2016 election, with 55% Millennials (18-29 year olds) having voted for Hillary Clinton. The problem for older voters, who tend to identify far more with the Republican Party, is that the Millennials are already the largest voting bloc in America (Chart II-14). And as Millennial voters start increasing their turnout, and as Baby Boomers naturally decline, the urgency to vote for Republican policymakers' increases. Chart II-13The Age Gap In American Politics Chart II-14Millennials Are The Biggest Bloc Geographical Segregation Noted political scientist Robert Putnam first cautioned that increasing geographic segregation into clusters of like-minded communities was leading to rising polarization.36 This explains, in large part, how liberal elites have completely missed the rise of Donald Trump. Left-leaning Americans tend to live in a left-leaning community. They share their morning cup-of-Joe with Liberals and rarely mix with the plebs supporting Trump. And of course vice-versa. University of Toronto professors Richard Florida and Charlotta Mellander have more recently shown in their "Segregated City" research that "America's cities and metropolitan areas have cleaved into clusters of wealth, college education, and highly-paid knowledge-based occupations."37 Their research shows that American neighborhoods are increasingly made up of people of the same income level, across all metropolitan areas. Florida and Mellander also show that educational and occupational segregation follows economic segregation. Meanwhile, the same research shows that Canada's most segregated metropolitan area, Montreal, would be the 227th most segregated city if it were in the U.S.! This form of geographic social distance fosters increasing polarization by allowing voters to remain aloof of their fellow Americans, their plight, needs, and concerns. The extreme urban-rural divide of the 2016 election confirms this thesis. Immigration Much as with income inequality, there is a close correlation between political polarization and immigration. The U.S. is on its way to becoming a minority-majority country, with the percent of the white population expected to dip below 50% in 2045 (Chart II-15). Hispanic and Asian populations are expected to continue rising for the rest of the century. For many Americans facing the pernicious effects of low-growth, high debt, and elevated income inequality, the rising impact of immigration is anathema. Not only is the country changing its ethnic and cultural make-up, but the incoming immigrants tend to be less educated and thus lower-income than the median American. They therefore favor - or will favor, when they can vote - redistributive policies. Many Americans feel - fairly or unfairly - that the costs of these policies will have to be shouldered by white middle-class taxpayers, who are not wealthy enough to be indifferent to tax increases, and may be unskillful enough to face competition from immigrants. There is also a security component to the rising concern about immigration. Although Muslims are only 1% of the U.S. population, many voters perceive radical Islam to be a vital security threat to the nation. As such, immigration and radical Islamic terrorism are seen as close bedfellows. Media Polarization The 2016 election has been particularly devastating for mainstream media. According to the latest Gallup poll, only 32% of Americans trust the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly." This is the lowest level in Gallup polling history. The decline is particularly concentrated among Independent and Republican respondents (Chart II-16). With mainstream media falling out of favor for many Americans, voters are turning towards social media and the Internet. Facebook is now as important for political news coverage as local TV for Americans who get their news from the Internet (Chart II-17). Chart II-15Racial Composition Is Changing Chart II-16A War Of Words Chart II-17New Sources Of News Not Always Credible The problem with getting your news coverage from Facebook is that it often means getting news coverage from "fake" sources. A recent experiment by BuzzFeed showed that three big right-wing Facebook pages published false or misleading information 38% of the time while three large left-wing pages did so in nearly 20% of posts.38 The Internet allows voters to self-select what ideological lens colors their daily intake of information and it transcends geography. Two American families, living next to each other in the same neighborhood, can literally perceive reality from completely different perspectives by customizing their sources of information. Chart II-18Gerrymandering Reduces Competitive Seats In addition to these five factors, one should also reaffirm the role of redistricting, or "gerrymandering." Over the last two decades, both the Democrats and Republicans (but mainly the latter) have redrawn geographical boundaries to create "ideologically pure" electoral districts. Of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, only about 56 are truly competitive (Chart II-18). This improves job security for incumbent politicians and legislative-seat security for the party; but it also discourages legislators from reaching across the ideological aisle in order to ensure re-election. Instead, the main electoral challenge now comes from the member's own party during the primary election. For Republicans, this means that the challenge is most often coming from a candidate that is further to the right. Incumbent GOP politicians in Congress therefore have an incentive to maintain highly conservative records lest a challenge from the far-right emerges in a primary election. Given that the frequency of elections is high in the House of Representatives (every two years), legislators cannot take even a short break from partisanship. Redistricting deepens polarization, therefore, by changing the political calculus for legislators facing ideologically pure electorates in their home districts. Bottom Line: Polarization in the U.S. is a product of structural factors that are here to stay. Trump's narrow victory will in no way change that. But How Much Worse? Chart II-19Party Is The Chief Source Of Identity Political polarization is not new. Older readers will remember 1968, when social unrest over the Vietnam War was at its height. Richard Nixon barely got over the finish line that year, beating Vice-President Hubert Humphrey by around 500,000 votes.39 Another contested election in a contested era. Our concern is that the Republican and Democrat "labels" - or perhaps conservative and liberal labels - appear to be ossifying. For example, Pew Research showed in 2012 that the difference between Americans on 48 values is the greatest between Republicans and Democrats. This has not always been the case, as Chart II-19 shows. We suspect that the data would be even starker today, especially after the divisive 2016 campaign that has bordered on hysterical. This means that "Republican" and "Democrat" labels have become real and almost "sectarian" in nature. In fact, one's values are now determined more by one's party identification than race, education, income, religiosity, or gender! This is incredible, given America's history of racial and religious divisions. Why is this happening? We suspect that the shift in urgency and tone is motivated at least in part by the changing demographics of America. Two demographic groups that identify the most with the Republican Party - Baby Boomers and rural or suburban white voters - are in a structural decline (the first in absolute terms and the second in relative terms). Both see the writing on the political wall. Given America's democratic system of government, their declining numbers (or, in the case of suburban whites, declining majorities) will mean significant future policy decisions that go against their preferences. America is set to become more left-leaning, favor more redistribution, and become less culturally homogenous. Not only are Millennials more socially liberal and economically left-leaning, but they are also "browner" than the rest of the U.S. As we pointed out early this year, 2016 was an election that the GOP could reasonably attempt to win by appealing exclusively to white and older voters. The "White Hype" strategy was mathematically cogent ... at least in 2016.40 It will get a lot more difficult to pursue this strategy in 2020 and beyond. Not impossible, but difficult. We suspect that conservative voters know this. As such, there was an urgency this year to lock-in structural changes to key policies before it is too late. Donald Trump may have been a flawed messenger for many voters, but it did not matter. The clock is ticking for a large segment of America and therefore Trump was an acceptable vehicle of their fears and anger. Bottom Line: Polarization in the U.S. is likely to increase. Two key Republican/conservative constituencies - Baby Boomers and rural or suburban white voters - are backed into the corner by demographic trends. But it also means that a left counter-revolution is just around the corner. And we doubt that the Democratic Party will chose as centrist of a candidate the next time around. Final Thoughts: What Have We Learned 1. Economics trump PC: Civil rights remain a major category of the American public's policy concerns. However, the Democratic Party's prioritization of social issues on the margins of the civil rights debate has not galvanized voters in the face of persistent negative attitudes about the economy. More specifically, the surge in cheap credit since 2000 that covered up the steady decline of wages as a share of GDP has ended, leaving households exposed to deleveraging and reduced purchasing power (Chart II-20). American households have lost patience with the slow, grinding pace of economic recovery, they reject the debt consequences of low inflation with deflationary tail risks, and they resent disappointed expectations in terms of job security and quality. Concerns about certain social preferences - as opposed to basic rights - pale in comparison to these economic grievances. Chart II-20Credit No Longer Hides Stagnant Income 2. Polls are OK, but beware the quant models that use them: On two grave political decisions this year, in two advanced markets with the "best" quality of polling, political modeling turned out to be grossly erroneous. To be fair, the polls themselves prior to both Brexit and the U.S. election were within a margin of error. However, quantitative models relying on these polls were overconfident, leading investors to ignore the risks of a non-consensus outcome. As we warned in mid-October - with Clinton ahead with a robust lead - the problem with quantitative political models is that they rely on polling data for their input.41 To iron-out the noise of an occasional bad poll, political analysts aggregate the polls to create a "poll-of-polls." But combining polls is mathematically the same as combining bad mortgages into securities. The philosophy behind the methodology is that each individual object (mortgage or poll) may be flawed, but if you get enough of them together, the problems will all average out and you have a very low risk of something bad happening. Well, something bad did happen. The quantitative models were massively wrong! We tried to avoid this problem by heavily modifying our polls-based-model with structural factors. Many of these structural variables - economic context, political momentum, Obama's approval rating - actually did not favor Clinton. Our model therefore consistently gave Donald Trump between 35-45% probability of winning the election, on average three and four times higher than other popular quant models. This caused us to warn clients that our view on the election was extremely cautious and recommend hedges. In fact, Donald Trump had 41% chance of winning the race on election night, according to the last iteration of our model, a very high probability.42 3. Professor Lichtman was right: Political science professor Allan Lichtman has once again accurately called the election - for the ninth time. The result on Nov. 8 strongly supports his life's work that presidential elections in the United States are popular referendums on the incumbent party of the last four years. Structural factors undid the Democrats (Table II-3), and none of the campaign rhetoric, cross-country barnstorming, or "horse race" polling mattered a whit. The Republicans had momentum from previous midterm elections, Clinton had suffered a strong challenge in her primary, the Obama administration's achievements over the past four years were negligible (the Affordable Care Act passed in his first term). These factors, along with the political cycle itself, favored the Republicans. Trump's lack of charisma did not negate the structural support for a change of ruling party. Investors should take note: no amount of mathematical horsepower, big data, or Silicon Valley acumen was able to beat the qualitative, informed, contemplative work of a single historian. Table II-3Lichtman's Thirteen Keys To The White House* 4. Non-linearity of politics: Lichtman's method calls attention to the danger of linear assumptions and quantitative modeling in attempting the art of political prediction. Big data and quantitative econometric and polling models have notched up key failures this year. They cannot make subjective judgments regarding whether a president has had a major foreign policy success or failure or a major policy innovation - on all three of those counts, the Democrats failed from 2012-16. There really is no way to quantify political risk because human and social organizations often experience paradigm shifts that are characterized by non-linearity. Newtonian Laws will always work on planet earth and as such we are not concerned about what will happen to us if we board an airplane. Laws of physics will not simply stop working while we are mid-air. However, social interactions and political narratives do experience paradigm shifts. We have identified several since 2011: geopolitical multipolarity, de-globalization, end of laissez-faire consensus, end of Chimerica, and global loss of confidence in elites and institutions.43 5. No country is immune to decaying institutions: The United States has, with few exceptions, the oldest written constitution among major states, and it ensures checks and balances. But recent decades have shown that the executive branch has expanded its power at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches. Moreover, executives have responded to major crisis - like the September 11 attacks and the 2008 financial crisis - with policy responses that were formulated haphazardly, ideologically divisive, and difficult to implement: the Iraq War and the Affordable Care Act. The result is that the jarring events that have blindsided America over the past sixteen years have resulted in wasted political capital and deeper polarization. The failure of institutions has opened the way for political parties to pursue short-term gains at the expense of their "partners" across the aisle, and to bend and manipulate procedural rules to achieve ends that cannot be achieved through consensus and compromise. 6. U.S. is shifting leftward when it comes to markets: Inequality and social immobility have, with Trump's election, entered the conservative agenda, after having long sat on the liberals' list of concerns. The shift in white blue-collar Midwestern voters toward Trump reflects the fact that voters are non-partisan in demanding what they want: they want to retain their existing rights, privileges, and entitlements, and to expand their wages and social protections. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization - All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 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. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taking Stock Of China's Reforms," dated May 13, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Mercantilism Is Back," dated February 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Global Alpha Sector Strategy Special Report, "Brothers In Arms," dated October 28, 2016, available at gss.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Europe's Divine Comedy: Italian Inferno," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Great Migration - Europe, Refuges, And Investment Implications," dated September 23, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 10 The BBC is exemplary of the mainstream Western press on this point. Please see Stephen McDonell, "The Ever-Growing Power Of China's Xi Jinping," BBC News, China Blog, dated October 29, 2016, available at www.bbc.com. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Five Myths About Chinese Politics," dated August 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "China: Two Factions, One Party - Part II," dated September 12, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 13 Please see the "Eighteenth Communist Party Of China Central Committee Sixth Plenary Session Communique," dated October 27, 2016, available at cpc.people.com.cn. 14 Jiang Zemin, China's ruler from roughly 1993 to 2002, was also referred to as the "core" leader, but he received this moniker from Deng Xiaoping. Xi is following in Deng's footsteps by declaring himself to be the core and winning support from the party. As for his centralizing efforts, prior to being named the "core leader," Xi had already waged a sweeping crackdown on political opponents and dissidents. He had used his position as head of the party, the state bureaucracy, and the armed forces to reshuffle personnel in these bodies extensively. He had already created new organizational bodies, including the National Security Commission, and initiated plans to restructure the military to emphasize joint-operations under regional battle commands. A weak leader would not have advanced so quickly. 15 Deng named Mao the "core" of the first generation of leaders, but it was evident that he sought a different leadership model. 16 Specifically, Xi could prevent the preferment of successors for 2022, he could reduce the size of the Politburo Standing Committee further to five members, or he could modify or make exceptions to the informal rule that top officials must not be promoted if they are 68 or older. Please see Minxin Pei, "A Looming Power Struggle For China?" dated October 28, 2016, available at www.cfr.org. 17 Please see "Communique of the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China," dated January 15, 2014 [adopted November 12, 2013], available at www.china.org.cn. 18 Please see "China: The Socialist Put And Rising Government Leverage," in BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Brexit Update: Does Brexit Really Mean Brexit?" dated July 15, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. For the High Court ruling, please see the U.K. Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, "R (Miller) -V- Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union," dated November 3, 2016, available at www.judiciary.gov.uk. 20 At that time a Tory majority in the House of Commons had enraged the populace by imprisoning a group of petitioners from Kent. Both the Kentish Petition and the Legion Memorial demanded that parliament heed the will of the populace. 21 Presumably, the European Council could vote unanimously under Article 50 to extend the negotiation period for a very long time. 22 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Nuthin' But A G Thang," dated August 12, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 23 Except that it is better armed. 24 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "U.S. Election: Trump's Arrested Development," dated November 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 25 However, Wisconsin polling was rather poor as most pollsters assumed that it was a shoe-in for Democrats. One problem with polling in Midwest states is that they were, other than Pennsylvania and Ohio, assumed to be safe Democratic states. Note for example the extremely tight result in Minnesota and the absolute dearth of polling out of that state throughout the last several months. 26 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 27 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. General Elections And Scenarios: Implications," dated July 11, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 28 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 29 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It," dated November 4, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 30 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 31 Only a two-thirds majority of Congress, or a ruling by a federal court, can undo an executive action, and that is exceedingly rare. The real check on executive orders is the rotation of office: a president can undo with the stroke of a pen whatever his predecessor enacted. Congress has the power of the purse, but it is sporadic in its oversight and has challenged less than 5% of executive orders, even though those orders often re-direct the way the executive branch uses funds Congress has allocated. More often, Congress votes to codify executive orders rather than nullify them. 32 Trump is not alone in calling for renegotiating or even abandoning NAFTA. Clinton called for renegotiation in 2008, and Senator Bernie Sanders has done so in 2016. 33 In Proclamation 4074, dated August 15, 1971, Nixon suspended all previous presidential proclamations implementing trade agreements insofar as was required to impose a new 10% surcharge on all dutiable goods entering the United States. He justified it in domestic law by invoking the president's authority and previous congressional acts authorizing the president to act on behalf of Congress with regard to trade agreement negotiation and implementation (including tariff levels). He justified the proclamation in international law by referring to international allowances during balance-of-payments emergencies. 34 The "primary dimension" of Chart II-8 is represented by the x-axis and is the liberal-conservative spectrum on the basic role of the government in the economy. The "second dimension" (y-axis) depends on the era and is picking up regional differences on a number of social issues such as the civil rights movement (which famously split Democrats between northern Liberals and southern Dixiecrats). 35 We have penned two such efforts ourselves. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Polarization In America: Transient Or Structural Risk?," dated October 9, 2013, and "A House Divided Cannot Stand: America's Polarization," dated July 11, 2012," available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 36 Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone. New York: Simon and Schuster. 37 Please see Martin Prosperity Institute, "Segregated City," dated February 23, 2015, available at martinprosperity.org. 38 Please see BuzzFeedNews, "Hyperpartisan Facebook Pages Are Publishing False And Misleading Information At An Alarming Rate," dated October 20, 2016, available at buzzfeed.com. 39 Nonetheless, due to the third-party candidate George Wallace carrying the then traditionally-Democratic South, Nixon managed to win the Electoral College in a landslide. 40 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 41 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "You've Been Trumped!," dated October 21, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 42 For comparison, Steph Curry, the greatest three-point shooter in basketball history, and a two-time NBA MVP, has a career three-point shooting average of 44%. With that average, he is encouraged to take every three-pointer he can by his team. In other words, despite being less than 50%, this is a very high percentage. 43 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategy Outlook 2015 - Paradigm Shifts," dated January 21, 2015, and "Strategy Outlook 2016 - Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Section III: Geopolitical Calendar

Special Report

Highlights Trump won by stealing votes from Democrats in the Midwest. His victory implies a national shift to the left on economic policy. Checks and balances on Trump are not substantial in the short term. U.S. political polarization will continue. Trump is good for the USD, bad for bonds, neutral for equities. Favor SMEs over MNCs. Close long alternative energy / short coal. Feature "Most Americans do not find themselves actually alienated from their fellow Americans or truly fearful if the other party wins power. Unlike in Bosnia, Northern Ireland or Rwanda, competition for power in the U.S. remains largely a debate between people who can work together once the election is over." -- Newt Gingrich, January 2, 2001 Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (and a potential Secretary of State pick), was asked on NBC's Meet the Press two days before the U.S. election whether he still thought that "competition for power in the U.S. remains largely a debate between people who can work together once the election is over." Gingrich made the original statement in January 2001, merely weeks after one of the most contentious presidential elections in U.S. history was resolved by the Supreme Court. Gingrich's answer in 2016? "I think, tragically, we have drifted into an environment where ... it will be a continuing fight for who controls the country." Despite an extraordinary victory - a revolution really - by Donald J. Trump, the fact of the matter remains that the U.S. is a polarized country between Republican and Democratic voters. As of publication time of this report, Trump lost the popular vote to Secretary Hillary Clinton. His is a narrower victory than either the epic Richard Nixon win in 1968 or George W. Bush squeaker in 2000. Over the next two years, the only thing that matters for the markets is that the U.S. has a unified government behind a Republican president-elect and a GOP-controlled Congress. We discuss the investment implications of this scenario below and caution clients to not over-despair. On the other hand, we also see this election as more evidence that America remains a deeply polarized country where identity politics continue to play a key role. What concerns us is that these identity politics appear to transcend the country's many cultural, ethical, political, and economic commonalities. Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. are fusing into almost ethnic-like groupings. To bring it back to Gingrich's quote at the top, that would suggest that the U.S. is no longer that much different from Bosnia or Northern Ireland.1 Election Post-Mortem Chart II-1Election Polls Usually ##br##Miss By A Few Points Donald Trump has won an upset over Hillary Clinton, but his campaign was not as much of a long-shot as the consensus believed. U.S. presidential polls have frequently missed the final tally by +/- 3% of the vote, which was precisely the end result of the 2016 election (Chart II-1). Therefore, as we pointed out in our last missive on the election, Trump's victory was not a "wild mathematical oddity."2 Why Did Trump Win The White House? Where Trump really did beat expectations was in the Midwest, and Wisconsin in particular. He ended up outperforming the poll-of-polls by a near-incredible 10%!3 His victories in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania were well within the range of expectations. For example, the last poll-of-polls had Trump leading in both Florida (by a narrow 0.2%) and Ohio (by a solid 3.5%), whereas Clinton was up in Pennsylvania by the slightest of margins (just 1.9% lead). He ended up exceeding poll expectations in all three (by 2% in Florida, 6% in Ohio, and 3% in Pennsylvania), but not by the same wild margin as in Wisconsin. When all is said and done, Trump won the 2016 election by stealing votes away from the Democrats in the traditionally "blue" Midwest states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. This was a far more significant result than his resounding victories in Ohio (which Obama won in 2012) or Florida (where Obama won only narrowly in 2012). Our colleague Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist of the Global Investment Strategy, correctly forecast that Trump would be competitive in all three Midwest states back in September 2015! We highly encourage our clients to read his "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," as it is one of the best geopolitical calls made by BCA in recent history.4 As Peter had originally thought, Trump cleaned up the white, less-educated, male vote in all of the three crucial Midwest states. He won 68% of this vote in Michigan, 71% in Pennsylvania, and 69% in Wisconsin. To do so, Trump campaigned as an unorthodox Republican, appealing to the blue-collar white voter by blaming globalization for their job losses and low wages, and by refusing to accept Republican orthodoxy on fiscal austerity or entitlement spending. Instead, Trump promised to outspend Clinton and protect entitlements at their current levels. This mix of an outsider, anti-establishment, image combined with a left-of-center economic message allowed Trump to win an extraordinary number of former Obama voters. Exit polls showed that Obama had a positive image in all three Midwest states, including with Trump voters! For example, 30% of Trump voters in Michigan approved of the job Obama was doing as president, 25% in Pennsylvania, and 27% in Wisconsin. That's between a quarter and a third of eventual people who cast their vote for Trump. These are the voters that Republicans lost in 2012 because they nominated a former private equity "corporate raider" Mitt Romney as their candidate. Romney had famously argued in a 2008 New York Times op-ed that he would have "Let Detroit go bankrupt." Obama repeatedly attacked Romney during the 2011-2012 campaign on this point. Back in late 2011, we suspected that this message, and this message alone, would win President Obama his re-election.5 Why is the issue of the Midwest Obama voters so important? Because investors have to know precisely why Donald Trump won the election. It wasn't his messages on immigration, law and order, race relations, and especially not the tax cuts he added to his message late in the game. It was his left-of-center policy position on trade and fiscal spending. Trump is beholden to his voters on these policies, particularly in the Midwest states that won him the election. Final word on race. Donald Trump actually improved on Mitt Romney's performance with African-American and Hispanic voters (Table II-1). This was a surprise, given his often racially-charged rhetoric. Meanwhile, Trump failed to improve on the white voter turnout (as percent of overall electorate) or on Romney's performance with white voters in terms of the share of the vote. To be clear, Republicans are still in the proverbial hole with minority voters and are yet to match George Bush's performance in 2004. But with 70% of the U.S. electorate still white in 2016, this did not matter. Table II-1Exit Polls: Trump's Win Was Not Merely About Race Congress: No Gridlock Ahead Republicans exceeded their expectations in the Senate, losing only one seat (Illinois) to Democrats. This means that the GOP control of the Senate will remain quite comfortable and is likely to grow in the 2018 mid-term elections when the Democrats have to defend 25 of 33 seats. Of the 25 Senate seats they will defend, five are in hostile territory: North Dakota, West Virginia, Ohio, Montana, and Missouri. In addition, Florida is always a tough contest. Republicans, on the other hand, have only one Senate seat that will require defense in a Democrat-leaning state: Nevada (and in that case, it will be a Republican incumbent contesting the race). Their other seven seats are all in Republican voting states. As such, expect Republicans to hold on to the Senate well into the 2020 general election. In the House of Representatives, the GOP will retain its comfortable majority. The Tea Party affiliated caucuses (Tea Party Caucus and the House Freedom Caucus) performed well in the election. The Tea Party Caucus members won 35 seats out of 38 they contested and the House Freedom Caucus won 34 seats out of 37 it contested. The race to watch now is for the Speaker of the House position. Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the incumbent House, is likely to contest the election again and win. Even though his support for Donald Trump was lukewarm, we expect Republicans to unify the party behind Trump and Ryan. A challenge from the right could emerge, but we doubt it will materialize given Trump's victory. The campaign for the election will begin immediately, with Republicans selecting their candidate by December (the official election will be in the first week of January, but it is a formality as Republicans hold the majority). Bottom Line: Trump's victory was largely the product of former Obama voters in the Midwest switching to the GOP candidate. This happened because of Trump's unorthodox, left-of-center, message. Trump will have a friendly Congress to work with for the next four years. How friendly? That question will determine the investment significance of the Trump presidency. Investment Relevance Of A United Government Most clients we have spoken to over the past several months believe that Donald Trump will be constrained on economic policies by a right-leaning Congress. His more ambitious fiscal spending plans - such as the $550 billion infrastructure plan and $150 billion net defense spending plan - will therefore be either "dead on arrival" in Congress, or will be significantly watered down by the legislature. Focus will instead shift to tax cuts and traditional Republican policies. We could not disagree more. GOP is not fiscally conservative: There is no empirical evidence that the GOP is actually fiscally conservative. First, the track record of the Bush and Reagan administrations do not support the adage that Republicans keep fiscal spending in check when they are in power (Chart II-2). Second, Republican voters themselves only want "small government" when the Democrats are in charge of the White House (Chart II-3). When a Republican President is in charge, Republicans forget their "small government" leanings. Chart II-2Republicans Are Not ##br##Fiscally Responsible Chart II-3Big Government Is Only ##br##A Problem For Opposition Presidents get their way: Over the past 28 years, each new president has generally succeeded in passing their signature items. Congress can block some but probably not all of president's plans. Clinton, Bush, and Obama each began with their own party controlling the legislature, which gave an early advantage that was later reversed in their second term. Clinton lost on healthcare, but achieved bipartisan welfare reform. For Obama, legislative obstructionism halted various initiatives, but his core objectives were either already met (healthcare), not reliant on Congress (foreign policy), or achieved through compromise after his reelection (expiration of Bush tax cuts for upper income levels). Median voter has moved to the left: Donald Trump won both the GOP primary and the general election by preaching an unorthodox, left-of-center sermon. He understood correctly that the American voter preferences on economic policies have moved away from Republican laissez-faire orthodoxies.6 Yes, he is also calling for significant lowering of both income and corporate tax rates. However, tax cuts were never a focal point of his campaign, and he only introduced the policy later in the race when he was trying to get traditional Republicans on board with his campaign. Newsflash: traditional Republicans did not get Trump over the hump, Obama voters in the Midwest did! Investors should make no mistake, the key pillars of Trump's campaign are de-globalization, higher fiscal spending, and protecting entitlements at current levels. And he will pursue all three with GOP allies in Congress. What are the investment implications of this policy mix? USD: More government spending, marginally less global trade, and pressure on multi-national corporations (MNCs) to scale back their global operations should be positive for inflation. If growth surprises to the upside due to fiscal spending, it will allow the Fed to hike more than the current 57 bps expected by the market by the end of 2018. Given easy monetary stance of central banks around the world, and lack of significant fiscal stimulus elsewhere, economic growth surprise in the U.S. should be positive for the dollar in the long term. At the moment, the market is reacting to the Trump victory with ambivalence on the USD. In fact, the dollar suffered as Trump's probability of victory rose in late October. We believe that this is a temporary reaction. We see both Trump's fiscal and trade policies as bullish. BCA's currency strategist Mathieu Savary believes that the dollar could therefore move in a bifurcated fashion in the near term. On the one hand, the dollar could rise against EM currencies and commodity producers, but suffer - or remain flat - against DM currencies such as the EUR, CHF, and JPY.7 Bonds: More inflation and growth should also mean that the bond selloff continues. In addition, if our view on globalization is correct, then the deflationary effects of the last three decades should begin to reverse over the next several years. BCA thesis that we are at the "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market" should therefore remain cogent.8 As one of our "Trump hedges," our colleague Rob Robis, Chief Strategist of the BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy, suggested a 2-year / 30-year Treasury curve steepener. This hedge is now up 18.7 bps and we suggest clients continue to hold it. Fed policy: Trump's statements about monetary policy have been inconsistent. Early on in his campaign he described himself as "a low interest rate guy", but he has more recently become critical of current Federal Reserve policy - and Fed Chair Janet Yellen in particular - claiming that while higher interest rates are justified, the Fed is keeping them low for "political reasons." What seems certain is that Janet Yellen will be replaced as Fed Chair when her term expires in February 2018. Yellen is unlikely to resign of her own volition before then and it would be legally difficult for the President to remove a sitting Fed Chair prior to the end of her term. But Trump will get the opportunity to re-shape the composition of the Fed's Board of Governors as soon as he is sworn in. There are currently two empty seats on the Board need to be filled and given that many of Trump's economic advisers have "hard money" leanings, it is very likely that both appointments will go to inflation hawks. Equities: In terms of equities, Trump will be a source of uncertainty for U.S. stocks as the market deals with the unknown of his presidency. In addition, markets tend to not like united government in the U.S. as it raises the specter of big policy moves (Table II-2). However, Trump should be positive for sectors that sold off in anticipation of a Clinton victory, such as healthcare and financials. We also suspect that he will continue the outperformance of defense stocks, although that would have been the case with Clinton as well. Table II-2Election: Industry Implications In the long term, Trump's proposal for major corporate tax cuts should be good for U.S. equities. However, we are not entirely sure that this is the case. First, the effective corporate tax rate in the U.S. is already at its multi-decade lows (Chart II-4). As such, any corporate tax reform that lowers the marginal rate will not really affect the effective rate. Why does this matter? Because major corporations already have low effective tax rates. Any lowering of the marginal rate will therefore benefit the small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and the domestic oriented S&P 500 corporations. If corporate tax reform also includes closing loopholes that benefit the major multi-national corporations (MNCs), then Trump's policy will not necessarily benefit all firms in the U.S. equally. Chart II-4How Low Can It Go? Investors have to keep in mind that Trump has not run a pro-corporate campaign. He has accused American manufacturing firms of taking jobs outside the U.S. and tech companies of skirting taxes. It is not clear to us that his corporate tax reform will therefore necessarily be a boon for the stock market. In the long term, we like to play Trump's populist message by favoring America's SMEs over MNCs. If we are ultimately correct on the USD and growth, then export-oriented S&P 500 companies should suffer in the face of a USD bull market and marginally less globalization. Meanwhile, lowering of the marginal corporate tax rate will benefit the SMEs that do not get the benefit of K-street lobbyist negotiated tax loopholes. Global Assets: The global asset to watch over the next several weeks is the USD/RMB cross. China is forced by domestic economic conditions to continue to slowly depreciate its currency. We have expected this since 2015, which is why we have shorted the RMB via 12-month non-deliverable forwards (NDF). Risk to global assets, particularly EM currencies and equities, would be that Beijing decides to depreciate the RMB before Trump is inaugurated on January 20. This could re-visit the late 2015 panic over China, particularly the narrative that it is exporting deflation. Our view is that even if China does not undertake such actions over the next two months, Sino-American tensions are set to escalate. It is much easier for Trump to fulfill his de-globalization policies with China - a geopolitical rival with which the U.S. has no free trade agreement - than with NAFTA trade partners Canada and Mexico. This will only deepen geopolitical tensions between the two major global powers, which has been our secular view since 2011. Finally, a quick note on the Mexican peso. The Mexican peso has already collapsed half of its value in the past 18 months and we believe the trade is overdone. Investors have used the currency cross as a way to articulate Trump's victory probability. It is no longer cogent. We believe that the U.S. will focus on trade relations with China under a Trump presidency, rather than NAFTA trade partners. Our Emerging Markets Strategy believes that it is time to consider going long MXN versus other EM currencies, such as ZAR and BRL. Investors should also watch carefully the Cabinet appointments that Trump makes over the next two months. Since Carter's administration, cabinet announcements have occurred in early to mid-December. Almost all of these appointments were confirmed on Inauguration Day (usually January 20 of the year after election, including in 2017) or shortly thereafter. Only one major nomination since Carter was disapproved. These appointments will tell us how willing Trump is to reach to traditional Republicans who have served on previous administrations. We suspect that he will go with picks that will execute his fiscal, trade, and tax policies. Bottom Line: After the dust settles over the next several weeks, we suspect that Trump will signal that he intends to pursue his fiscal, trade, immigration, and tax policies. These will be, in the long term, positive for the USD, negative for bonds (including Munis, which will lose their tax-break appeal if income taxes are reduced), and likely neutral for equities. Within the equity space, Trump will be positive for U.S. SMEs and negative for MNCs. This means being long S&P 600 over S&P 100. Lastly, close our long alternative energy / short coal trade for a loss of -26.8%. Constraints: Don't Bet On Them Domestically, the American president can take significant action without congressional support through executive directives. Lincoln raised an army and navy by proclamation and freed the slaves; Franklin Roosevelt interned the Japanese; Truman tried to seize steel factories to keep production up during the Korean War. Truman's case is almost the only one of a major executive order being rebuffed by the Supreme Court. The Reagan and Clinton administrations have shown that a president thwarted by a divided or adverse congress will often use executive directives to achieve policy aims and satisfy particular interest groups and sectors. Though the number of executive orders has gone down in recent administrations (Chart II-5), the economic significance has increased along with the size and penetration of the bureaucracy (Chart II-6). The economic impact of executive orders is always debatable, but the key point is that the president's word tends to carry the day.9 Chart II-5Rule By Decree Chart II-6Executive Branch Is Growing Trade is a major area where Trump would have considerable sway. He has repeatedly signaled his intention to restrict American openness to international trade. The U.S. president can revoke international treaties solely on their own authority. Congressionally approved agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) cannot be revoked by the president, but Trump could obstruct its ongoing implementation.10 He would also have considerable powers to levy tariffs, as Nixon showed with his 10% "surcharge" on most imports in 1971.11 Bottom Line: Presidential authority is formidable in the areas Trump has made the focus of his campaign: immigration and trade. Without a two-thirds majority in Congress to override him, or an activist federal court, Trump would be able to enact significant policies simply by issuing orders to his subordinates in the executive branch. Long-Term Implications: Polarization In The U.S. Does the Republican control of Congress and the White House signal that polarization in America will subside? We began this analysis by focusing on the investment implications when Republicans control the three houses of the American government. But long-term implications of polarization will not dissipate. Investors may overstate the importance of a Republican-controlled government and thus understate the relevance of continued polarization. We doubt that Donald Trump is a uniting figure who can transcend America's polarized politics, especially given his weak popular mandate (he lost the popular vote as Bush did in 2000) and the sub-50% vote share. And, our favorite chart of the year remains the same: both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have entered the history books as the most disliked presidential candidates ever on the day of the election (Chart II-7). Chart II-7Clinton And Trump Are Making (The Wrong Kind Of) History According to empirical work by political scientists Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal, polarization in Congress is at its highest level since World War II (Chart II-8). Their research shows that the liberal-conservative dimension explains approximately 93% of all roll-call voting choices and that the two parties are drifting further apart on this crucial dimension.12 Chart II-8The Widening Ideological Gulf In The U.S. Congress Meanwhile, a 2014 Pew Research study has shown that Republicans and Democrats are moving further to the right and left, respectively. Chart II-9 shows the distribution of Republicans and Democrats on a 10-item scale of political values across the last three decades. In addition, "very unfavorable" views of the opposing party have skyrocketed since 2004 (Chart II-10), with 45% of Republicans and 41% of Democrats now seeing the other party as a "threat to the nation's well-being"! Chart II-9U.S. Political Polarization: Growing Apart Chart II-10Live And Let Die Much ink has been spilled trying to explain the mounting polarization in America.13 Our view remains that politics in a democracy operates on its own supply-demand dynamic. If there was no demand for polarized politics, especially at the congressional level, American politicians would not be so eager to supply it. We believe that five main factors - in our subjective order of importance - explain polarization in the U.S. today: Income Inequality And Immobility The increase in political polarization parallels rising income inequality in the U.S. (Chart II-11). The U.S. is a clear and distant outlier on both factors compared to its OECD peers (Chart II-12). However, Americans are not being divided neatly along income levels. This is because Republicans and Democrats disagree on how to fix income inequality. For Donald Trump voters, the solutions are to put up barriers to free trade and immigration while reducing income taxes for all income levels. For Hillary Clinton voters, it means more taxes on the wealthy and large corporations, while putting up some trade barriers and expanding entitlements. This means that the correlation between polarization and income inequality is misleading as there is no causality. Rather, rising income inequality, especially when combined with a low-growth environment, shifts the political narrative from the "politics of plenty" towards "politics of scarcity." It hardens interest and identity groups and makes them less generous towards the "other." Chart II-11Inequality Breeds Polarization Chart II-12Opportunity And Income: Americans Are Outliers Generational Warfare The political age gap is increasing (Chart II-13). This remains the case following the 2016 election, with 55% Millennials (18-29 year olds) having voted for Hillary Clinton. The problem for older voters, who tend to identify far more with the Republican Party, is that the Millennials are already the largest voting bloc in America (Chart II-14). And as Millennial voters start increasing their turnout, and as Baby Boomers naturally decline, the urgency to vote for Republican policymakers' increases. Chart II-13The Age Gap In American Politics Chart II-14Millennials Are The Biggest Bloc Geographical Segregation Noted political scientist Robert Putnam first cautioned that increasing geographic segregation into clusters of like-minded communities was leading to rising polarization.14 This explains, in large part, how liberal elites have completely missed the rise of Donald Trump. Left-leaning Americans tend to live in a left-leaning community. They share their morning cup-of-Joe with Liberals and rarely mix with the plebs supporting Trump. And of course vice-versa. University of Toronto professors Richard Florida and Charlotta Mellander have more recently shown in their "Segregated City" research that "America's cities and metropolitan areas have cleaved into clusters of wealth, college education, and highly-paid knowledge-based occupations."15 Their research shows that American neighborhoods are increasingly made up of people of the same income level, across all metropolitan areas. Florida and Mellander also show that educational and occupational segregation follows economic segregation. Meanwhile, the same research shows that Canada's most segregated metropolitan area, Montreal, would be the 227th most segregated city if it were in the U.S.! This form of geographic social distance fosters increasing polarization by allowing voters to remain aloof of their fellow Americans, their plight, needs, and concerns. The extreme urban-rural divide of the 2016 election confirms this thesis. Immigration Chart II-15Racial Composition Is Changing Much as with income inequality, there is a close correlation between political polarization and immigration. The U.S. is on its way to becoming a minority-majority country, with the percent of the white population expected to dip below 50% in 2045 (Chart II-15). Hispanic and Asian populations are expected to continue rising for the rest of the century. For many Americans facing the pernicious effects of low-growth, high debt, and elevated income inequality, the rising impact of immigration is anathema. Not only is the country changing its ethnic and cultural make-up, but the incoming immigrants tend to be less educated and thus lower-income than the median American. They therefore favor - or will favor, when they can vote - redistributive policies. Many Americans feel - fairly or unfairly - that the costs of these policies will have to be shouldered by white middle-class taxpayers, who are not wealthy enough to be indifferent to tax increases, and may be unskillful enough to face competition from immigrants. There is also a security component to the rising concern about immigration. Although Muslims are only 1% of the U.S. population, many voters perceive radical Islam to be a vital security threat to the nation. As such, immigration and radical Islamic terrorism are seen as close bedfellows. Media Polarization The 2016 election has been particularly devastating for mainstream media. According to the latest Gallup poll, only 32% of Americans trust the mass media "to report the news fully, accurately and fairly." This is the lowest level in Gallup polling history. The decline is particularly concentrated among Independent and Republican respondents (Chart II-16). With mainstream media falling out of favor for many Americans, voters are turning towards social media and the Internet. Facebook is now as important for political news coverage as local TV for Americans who get their news from the Internet (Chart II-17). Chart II-16A War Of Words Chart II-17New Sources Of News Not Always Credible The problem with getting your news coverage from Facebook is that it often means getting news coverage from "fake" sources. A recent experiment by BuzzFeed showed that three big right-wing Facebook pages published false or misleading information 38% of the time while three large left-wing pages did so in nearly 20% of posts.16 The Internet allows voters to self-select what ideological lens colors their daily intake of information and it transcends geography. Two American families, living next to each other in the same neighborhood, can literally perceive reality from completely different perspectives by customizing their sources of information. Chart II-18Gerrymandering ##br##Reduces Competitive Seats In addition to these five factors, one should also reaffirm the role of redistricting, or "gerrymandering." Over the last two decades, both the Democrats and Republicans (but mainly the latter) have redrawn geographical boundaries to create "ideologically pure" electoral districts. Of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, only about 56 are truly competitive (Chart II-18). This improves job security for incumbent politicians and legislative-seat security for the party; but it also discourages legislators from reaching across the ideological aisle in order to ensure re-election. Instead, the main electoral challenge now comes from the member's own party during the primary election. For Republicans, this means that the challenge is most often coming from a candidate that is further to the right. Incumbent GOP politicians in Congress therefore have an incentive to maintain highly conservative records lest a challenge from the far-right emerges in a primary election. Given that the frequency of elections is high in the House of Representatives (every two years), legislators cannot take even a short break from partisanship. Redistricting deepens polarization, therefore, by changing the political calculus for legislators facing ideologically pure electorates in their home districts. Bottom Line: Polarization in the U.S. is a product of structural factors that are here to stay. Trump's narrow victory will in no way change that. But How Much Worse? Political polarization is not new. Older readers will remember 1968, when social unrest over the Vietnam War was at its height. Richard Nixon barely got over the finish line that year, beating Vice-President Hubert Humphrey by around 500,000 votes.17 Another contested election in a contested era. Chart II-19Party Is The Chief Source Of Identity Our concern is that the Republican and Democrat "labels" - or perhaps conservative and liberal labels - appear to be ossifying. For example, Pew Research showed in 2012 that the difference between Americans on 48 values is the greatest between Republicans and Democrats. This has not always been the case, as Chart II-19 shows. We suspect that the data would be even starker today, especially after the divisive 2016 campaign that has bordered on hysterical. This means that "Republican" and "Democrat" labels have become real and almost "sectarian" in nature. In fact, one's values are now determined more by one's party identification than race, education, income, religiosity, or gender! This is incredible, given America's history of racial and religious divisions. Why is this happening? We suspect that the shift in urgency and tone is motivated at least in part by the changing demographics of America. Two demographic groups that identify the most with the Republican Party - Baby Boomers and rural or suburban white voters - are in a structural decline (the first in absolute terms and the second in relative terms). Both see the writing on the political wall. Given America's democratic system of government, their declining numbers (or, in the case of suburban whites, declining majorities) will mean significant future policy decisions that go against their preferences. America is set to become more left-leaning, favor more redistribution, and become less culturally homogenous. Not only are Millennials more socially liberal and economically left-leaning, but they are also "browner" than the rest of the U.S. As we pointed out early this year, 2016 was an election that the GOP could reasonably attempt to win by appealing exclusively to white and older voters. The "White Hype" strategy was mathematically cogent ... at least in 2016.18 It will get a lot more difficult to pursue this strategy in 2020 and beyond. Not impossible, but difficult. We suspect that conservative voters know this. As such, there was an urgency this year to lock-in structural changes to key policies before it is too late. Donald Trump may have been a flawed messenger for many voters, but it did not matter. The clock is ticking for a large segment of America and therefore Trump was an acceptable vehicle of their fears and anger. Bottom Line: Polarization in the U.S. is likely to increase. Two key Republican/conservative constituencies - Baby Boomers and rural or suburban white voters - are backed into the corner by demographic trends. But it also means that a left counter-revolution is just around the corner. And we doubt that the Democratic Party will chose as centrist of a candidate the next time around. Final Thoughts: What Have We Learned Chart II-20Credit No Longer Hides Stagnant Income 1. Economics trump PC: Civil rights remain a major category of the American public's policy concerns. However, the Democratic Party's prioritization of social issues on the margins of the civil rights debate has not galvanized voters in the face of persistent negative attitudes about the economy. More specifically, the surge in cheap credit since 2000 that covered up the steady decline of wages as a share of GDP has ended, leaving households exposed to deleveraging and reduced purchasing power (Chart II-20). American households have lost patience with the slow, grinding pace of economic recovery, they reject the debt consequences of low inflation with deflationary tail risks, and they resent disappointed expectations in terms of job security and quality. Concerns about certain social preferences - as opposed to basic rights - pale in comparison to these economic grievances. 2. Polls are OK, but beware the quant models that use them: On two grave political decisions this year, in two advanced markets with the "best" quality of polling, political modeling turned out to be grossly erroneous. To be fair, the polls themselves prior to both Brexit and the U.S. election were within a margin of error. However, quantitative models relying on these polls were overconfident, leading investors to ignore the risks of a non-consensus outcome. As we warned in mid-October - with Clinton ahead with a robust lead - the problem with quantitative political models is that they rely on polling data for their input.19 To iron-out the noise of an occasional bad poll, political analysts aggregate the polls to create a "poll-of-polls." But combining polls is mathematically the same as combining bad mortgages into securities. The philosophy behind the methodology is that each individual object (mortgage or poll) may be flawed, but if you get enough of them together, the problems will all average out and you have a very low risk of something bad happening. Well, something bad did happen. The quantitative models were massively wrong! We tried to avoid this problem by heavily modifying our polls-based-model with structural factors. Many of these structural variables - economic context, political momentum, Obama's approval rating - actually did not favor Clinton. Our model therefore consistently gave Donald Trump between 35-45% probability of winning the election, on average three and four times higher than other popular quant models. This caused us to warn clients that our view on the election was extremely cautious and recommend hedges. In fact, Donald Trump had 41% chance of winning the race on election night, according to the last iteration of our model, a very high probability.20 3. Professor Lichtman was right: Political science professor Allan Lichtman has once again accurately called the election - for the ninth time. The result on Nov. 8 strongly supports his life's work that presidential elections in the United States are popular referendums on the incumbent party of the last four years. Structural factors undid the Democrats (Table II-3), and none of the campaign rhetoric, cross-country barnstorming, or "horse race" polling mattered a whit. The Republicans had momentum from previous midterm elections, Clinton had suffered a strong challenge in her primary, the Obama administration's achievements over the past four years were negligible (the Affordable Care Act passed in his first term). These factors, along with the political cycle itself, favored the Republicans. Trump's lack of charisma did not negate the structural support for a change of ruling party. Investors should take note: no amount of mathematical horsepower, big data, or Silicon Valley acumen was able to beat the qualitative, informed, contemplative work of a single historian. Table II-3Lichtman's Thirteen Keys To The White House* 4. Non-linearity of politics: Lichtman's method calls attention to the danger of linear assumptions and quantitative modeling in attempting the art of political prediction. Big data and quantitative econometric and polling models have notched up key failures this year. They cannot make subjective judgments regarding whether a president has had a major foreign policy success or failure or a major policy innovation - on all three of those counts, the Democrats failed from 2012-16. There really is no way to quantify political risk because human and social organizations often experience paradigm shifts that are characterized by non-linearity. Newtonian Laws will always work on planet earth and as such we are not concerned about what will happen to us if we board an airplane. Laws of physics will not simply stop working while we are mid-air. However, social interactions and political narratives do experience paradigm shifts. We have identified several since 2011: geopolitical multipolarity, de-globalization, end of laissez-faire consensus, end of Chimerica, and global loss of confidence in elites and institutions.21 5. No country is immune to decaying institutions: The United States has, with few exceptions, the oldest written constitution among major states, and it ensures checks and balances. But recent decades have shown that the executive branch has expanded its power at the expense of the legislative and judicial branches. Moreover, executives have responded to major crisis - like the September 11 attacks and the 2008 financial crisis - with policy responses that were formulated haphazardly, ideologically divisive, and difficult to implement: the Iraq War and the Affordable Care Act. The result is that the jarring events that have blindsided America over the past sixteen years have resulted in wasted political capital and deeper polarization. The failure of institutions has opened the way for political parties to pursue short-term gains at the expense of their "partners" across the aisle, and to bend and manipulate procedural rules to achieve ends that cannot be achieved through consensus and compromise. 6. U.S. is shifting leftward when it comes to markets: Inequality and social immobility have, with Trump's election, entered the conservative agenda, after having long sat on the liberals' list of concerns. The shift in white blue-collar Midwestern voters toward Trump reflects the fact that voters are non-partisan in demanding what they want: they want to retain their existing rights, privileges, and entitlements, and to expand their wages and social protections. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Except that it is better armed. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Client Note, "U.S. Election: Trump's Arrested Development," dated November 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 However, Wisconsin polling was rather poor as most pollsters assumed that it was a shoe-in for Democrats. One problem with polling in Midwest states is that they were, other than Pennsylvania and Ohio, assumed to be safe Democratic states. Note for example the extremely tight result in Minnesota and the absolute dearth of polling out of that state throughout the last several months. 4 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. General Elections And Scenarios: Implications," dated July 11, 2012, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Foreign Exchange Strategy Weekly Report, "When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It," dated November 4, 2016, available at fes.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "End Of The 35-Year Bond Bull Market," dated July 5, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 9 Only a two-thirds majority of Congress, or a ruling by a federal court, can undo an executive action, and that is exceedingly rare. The real check on executive orders is the rotation of office: a president can undo with the stroke of a pen whatever his predecessor enacted. Congress has the power of the purse, but it is sporadic in its oversight and has challenged less than 5% of executive orders, even though those orders often re-direct the way the executive branch uses funds Congress has allocated. More often, Congress votes to codify executive orders rather than nullify them. 10 Trump is not alone in calling for renegotiating or even abandoning NAFTA. Clinton called for renegotiation in 2008, and Senator Bernie Sanders has done so in 2016. 11 In Proclamation 4074, dated August 15, 1971, Nixon suspended all previous presidential proclamations implementing trade agreements insofar as was required to impose a new 10% surcharge on all dutiable goods entering the United States. He justified it in domestic law by invoking the president's authority and previous congressional acts authorizing the president to act on behalf of Congress with regard to trade agreement negotiation and implementation (including tariff levels). He justified the proclamation in international law by referring to international allowances during balance-of-payments emergencies. 12 The "primary dimension" of Chart II-8 is represented by the x-axis and is the liberal-conservative spectrum on the basic role of the government in the economy. The "second dimension" (y-axis) depends on the era and is picking up regional differences on a number of social issues such as the civil rights movement (which famously split Democrats between northern Liberals and southern Dixiecrats). 13 We have penned two such efforts ourselves. Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Polarization In America: Transient Or Structural Risk?," dated October 9, 2013, and "A House Divided Cannot Stand: America's Polarization," dated July 11, 2012," available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone. New York: Simon and Schuster. 15 Please see Martin Prosperity Institute, "Segregated City," dated February 23, 2015, available at martinprosperity.org. 16 Please see BuzzFeedNews, "Hyperpartisan Facebook Pages Are Publishing False And Misleading Information At An Alarming Rate," dated October 20, 2016, available at buzzfeed.com. 17 Nonetheless, due to the third-party candidate George Wallace carrying the then traditionally-Democratic South, Nixon managed to win the Electoral College in a landslide. 18 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 19 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "You've Been Trumped!," dated October 21, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 20 For comparison, Steph Curry, the greatest three-point shooter in basketball history, and a two-time NBA MVP, has a career three-point shooting average of 44%. With that average, he is encouraged to take every three-pointer he can by his team. In other words, despite being less than 50%, this is a very high percentage. 21 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "Strategy Outlook 2015 - Paradigm Shifts," dated January 21, 2015, and "Strategy Outlook 2016 - Multipolarity & Markets," dated December 9, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Highlights Donald Trump's momentum in the national polls has been arrested; Colorado, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Florida are key states and Clinton is up in all of them; We are forecasting a narrow Clinton victory; Trump needs Electoral College to be tied, or polls to be wrong, to win; Re-initiate our "Clinton hedge": long S&P 500 / short gold. Feature The momentum behind Donald Trump's polls has hit a wall over the weekend (Chart 1). In four-way polling, Clinton's lead is now 3.3%. This is still massively down from 7.1% in mid-October. However, her lead has stabilized and has been at 2% for a week. Chart 1Trump Deals With A Wall Of His Own When it comes to state polls (four-way poll-of-polls from RealClearPolitics.com), Clinton sports a near, or above, 4% lead in Maine, Michigan, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Trump's momentum in all of these swing-states has been arrested or fully reversed. Trump's momentum continues in Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, North Carolina, and Ohio, where he is leading. Truly undecided swing states are: Colorado (Clinton lead of 2.9%), Pennsylvania (Clinton lead of 2.4%), Florida (Clinton lead below 1%), and New Hampshire (Clinton lead below 1%). However, Trump's momentum has clearly stopped in Colorado and Pennsylvania, whereas the momentum of both Clinton and Trump appears to have stalled in Florida. The state-of-play Electoral College Map 1 therefore remains very close. According to the latest polling, and our "rules-of-the-map" below, Trump has 237 Electoral College votes.1 Hillary Clinton narrowly leads with 239 votes. She has a lead in all four swing states. She has led Colorado for most of the election and Pennsylvania for the entirety of the election. Map 1Electoral College Map: The State Of Play On November 8 To construct the above Electoral College Map 1, we were highly favorable to Trump. Our rules were: A) Democratic Leaning States: Clinton has to have a +3.5% lead in order to have swing states awarded to her as "Democratic Leaning." B) Republican Leaning States: We awarded Trump any swing state where he has any lead in the polls, even the most minimal (such as Maine's Second Congressional District). C) Potential Swing States: If Clinton's lead is less than 3.5%, that state is considered a "Potential Swing State." This is because we are hedging for any mistakes in the polls due to "shy Trump" voters (voters who are uncomfortable confirming their true preference). Chart 2Hispanic Voters Could Be Difference Makers Early voting data favors the Democrats. Women appear to be voting in large numbers across the country. Furthermore, Hispanic turnout could reach a record high this year. In Arizona, 13% of early voters were Hispanic, compared to 11% in 2011.2 In Florida, a November 1 figure of early voting showed that Hispanics made up 14.1% of the early vote, up from 9.6% in 2012.3 And in Texas, 18.8% of early voters had "Spanish surnames," up 20% on the 2012 figure.4 Hispanic turnouts were also up in Georgia and North Carolina. Hispanic voters are unlikely to make a difference in Texas and Georgia, but the overall trend ought to concern Trump's campaign as Hispanic voters could make a difference in Colorado, Florida, and Nevada. Hispanic voters have the lowest turnout among the different demographic groups and thus also the largest potential to increase their participation (Chart 2). Our quantitative model continues to call the election for Clinton, albeit by less of a margin than in mid-October.5 The latest iteration - on November 8 - of the model gives Clinton 60.9% probability of winning the election. The model gives her better than 75% probability to win 247 Electoral College votes (Chart 3). Trump only has 180 Electoral College votes in the same category. We are quite confident in our model, given that it always gave Trump a solid probability of winning the election. Unlike other models available to clients at FiveThirtyEight.com or NYTimes.com, our model has not had any wild gyrations. It always gave Trump at least a 34.5% chance and thus did not have to adjust violently to "catch up to reality" following the FBI's announcement that it was looking into more emails related to the Clinton email probe. Chart 32016 U.S. Presidential Election: GPS Polls-Plus Model Full Results Bottom Line: Clinton is a low-conviction favorite to win the election. She leads all four swing states. Furthermore, we are generously awarding Trump states where he has the most minimal of leads in the polls. If he underperforms in any of the states that we noted are "Republican Leaning," he will lose the election. But Can Trump Still Win? Chart 4Election Polls Usually Miss By A Few Points Yes. Trump can win and it would not be a wild mathematical oddity if he did. As we pointed out before, national polls have underperformed by 3% in the past, Clinton's four-way lead in the poll-of-polls is just above 3% (Chart 4). In addition, there may be "shy Trump" voters who refuse to speak the truth when it comes to giving their election preferences to pollsters.6 On the other hand, the recent rally in Trump's polling reveals that many of these "shy Trump" voters have been emboldened by the recently re-opened FBI investigation into Clinton's emails to reveal their true preference. The extremely sharp rally would suggest that these voters were leaning towards Trump all along and that the FBI revelation was a cathartic event that allowed them to "speak their mind," so to say. What should worry Trump is that the momentum has now ended. This could mean that the "shy Trump" voter phenomenon is no longer as cogent. Or, at least, that the probability that the polls are still underestimating Trump may now be much lower. As mentioned, early voting data - the turnout among Hispanics and women in particular - suggests that the polls could be underestimating Clinton's support, especially in a state like Nevada where Trump is now in the lead according to the polls, but where early voting suggests that the Democratic Party "ground game" is going to give the state to Clinton. Bottom Line: Trump can still win. We are comfortable with our quantitative model's probability of a Trump victory at 39.1%, fairly high. As such, our view that Clinton is the favorite is a low conviction view. Can There Be A Tie? The Electoral College Map suggests that a tie is possible. If Clinton wins the Maine Second Congressional District and Trump wins New Hampshire, then both will be tied at 240 Electoral College (EC) votes. If Trump then wins Florida's 29 EC votes, a state where Clinton's lead is extremely narrow, he will have 269 EC votes. Meanwhile, if Clinton wins the other two states where her lead is more robust - Colorado and Pennsylvania - then she would have 269 EC votes as well. A tie will favor Trump for two reasons: The House of Representatives would break the Electoral College tie by casting one vote per state delegation. This means that representatives of each state would have to decide among themselves how they would choose the next president. Given the Republican majority in the House and among the states, Trump would likely prevail as president with 66% of the House vote. Faithless Electors will hurt both candidates. It is possible that an Electoral College member or "elector" could refuse to cast his or her ballot for the candidate chosen by popular vote in that elector's state. Already an elector in Washington State, likely to be pledged to Clinton given the state's liberal leaning, has pledged himself to be a "faithless elector" and thus not give her the vote. In addition, we would not be surprised if a win is contested by either candidate due to very narrow margin of victory in one or more states. As such, investors should prepare for potential continued market volatility beyond November 8. Investment Implications We are closing our sector-based Trump hedge of being long biotech / short S&P 500 exporters for a 0.71% loss. In addition, investors should close the long 10-year Treasury hedge as well. However, we will keep our currency hedge (long USD / short SEK, currently up 0.68%) and fixed-income hedge (2-year / 30-year Treasury curve steepener, currently up 3.8 bps). In addition, our volatility hedge was stopped out yesterday. Given our view that Clinton will eke out a narrow win, we are also re-opening our Clinton hedge of being long S&P 500 / short gold, but with a tight stop-loss of 2.5%. To our American friends, colleagues, and clients, happy Election Day! Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com 1 We give Donald Trump the one Electoral College vote from the Maine Second Congressional District, a generous gift given that he is only up by 0.5% there and that Barack Obama won the district by 11.2% in 2008 and 8.5% in 2012. Nonetheless, Maine awards two Electoral College votes by Congressional Districts and Trump is leading by a narrow margin in one of them. 2 Please see The Arizona Republic, "Arizona leads nation in early-voting surge by Latinos," dated November 3, 2016, available at azcentral.com. 3 Please see CNN, "Early voting data in 3 key states show spike in Latino turnout," dated November 5, 2016, available at cnn.com. 4 Please see Austin-American Statesman, "Texas Latino turnout up sharply in early voting surge, analysis shows," dated November 4, 2016, available at mystatesman.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Final Forecast & Implications," dated October 12, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy and Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "You've Been Trumped!" dated October 21, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Highlights Today, we are sending out a previously scheduled Special Report, highlighting our thoughts on the how to assess the impact of China on global bond markets. This is an important topic that we hope you will find of great interest. We will not be offended, however, if that report sits in your inboxes for a day or two while the world awaits the results of today's U.S. Presidential election. Feature Global financial markets have been subject to extraordinary volatility over the past couple of weeks as the election campaign has drawn to a close. Investors have had to deal with the steady inflow of shifting poll results, overbearing media punditry, surprising FBI letters and wild conspiracy theories, all while trying to price the risks associated with two of the most polarizing presidential candidates in U.S. history. The recent narrowing of Hillary Clinton's lead in the polls has forced investors to seriously consider the possibility of a President Donald J. Trump, with all the change from the status quo that he represents. Given how markets have reacted to Trump closing the gap with Clinton - falling equity prices, higher volatility, lower bond yields and a weaker U.S. dollar - a Trump win could trigger a true risk-off market rout, with global investors wanting to avoid been burned by another political surprise after Brexit. Our colleagues at BCA Geopolitical Strategy still view a narrow Clinton victory as the most likely outcome, with admittedly lower conviction levels than usual for such an important election. Such is the problem of making predictions when polls are within margins of error. However, given the well-understood realities of the U.S. Electoral College map and the still-uphill climb needed for Trump to win, the result that would catch investors most off-guard would be The Donald pulling off the upset. From our perspective at BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy, a Clinton victory would keep the global economy on its current positive growth track in the near-term. This would shift bond investors' focus back over to the Fed and a likely December rate hike. However, a risk-off market move after a Trump win would represent the biggest risk to our current portfolio recommendations: We are positioned for rising global bond yields via an overall below-benchmark duration stance, given our view that we are in a cyclical growth upturn that is also pushing global inflation higher (more details on China's contribution to that can be found in the Special Report sent out today). In terms of regional bond allocation, we are favoring the areas with the lowest inflation rates and most credible dovish central banks, via an above-benchmark tilt in core Europe and a neutral stance on Japan and Canada. We are underweight the countries where central bankers are either in the process of raising rates (the U.S.) or will soon face a decision to tighten policy in the face of strong growth and rising inflation pressures (the U.K., Australia). We are also underweight Peripheral European debt (Italy, Spain, Portugal) versus Germany due to our concerns over decelerating growth in the Periphery combined with the ongoing stresses on Euro Area banks. We are overweight inflation protection (via linkers and CPI swaps) in the U.S. and U.K. where we see the greatest potential for rising inflation expectations. Within global credit markets, we are maintaining a defensive stance via underweights in U.S., Euro Area and Emerging Markets High-Yield (which are all overvalued and overlevered). Within Investment Grade corporates, we are only maintaining a neutral stance in the U.S. and above-benchmark tilts in the Euro Area and U.K. We are also neutral on Emerging Market hard currency debt, both sovereigns and corporates. In the event that Trump pulls out the win tonight, we would expect our overall below-benchmark duration call to suffer if bond yields declines in a risk-off move. However, our "break-even" level on that call allows some cushion to stick with the underweight, as we initiated the recommendation back in July when the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield was just below 1.60%. A return to those levels would be a 25bp decline from yesterday's closing level of 1.83%, which would be a massive move if it happened in a short period of time immediately after Trump was declared the winner. Yet if such large move in yields were to occur, it would almost certainly be in the context of a rout in global equity markets. Our underweight stance on high-yield corporates and Peripheral Europe would perform very well there. Our generally cautious stance on higher-quality corporates and Emerging Markets would likely cause minor hits only via our overweights in Europe, but with those markets supported by the ongoing central bank buying by the ECB and Bank of England, the losses should be relatively well-contained. There is also a risk that our overweights in inflation protection in the U.S. and U.K. would underperform, especially if the market rout turns into a lasting shock to global growth and inflation expectations. That will be difficult to determine in the immediate aftermath of a Trump win. Summing it all up, there are enough offsetting positions within our recommended portfolio to not suggest any changes into tonight's election. Let us hope that the election result is decisive enough that a winner can be declared tonight and this period of U.S. political uncertainty can end, whoever wins. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com Recommendations Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product

Highlights Bond yields have room to move higher in the near run, but a move above 2% would represent a buying opportunity. U.S. elections are too close to call. Even if Trump wins, we caution that federal fiscal spending programs will have to work hard to offset the ongoing drag from sluggish state and local spending. Economic and inflation data will not stand in the way of a Fed rate hike in December. But heightened market volatility associated with the elections could still derail their plans. Feature October was a tough month for Treasuries, as the 10-year climbed 25 basis points since October 1. The sell-off puts Treasury yields closely in line with our bond strategists' estimate of fair value. This week, we review the factors that argue for or against a further rise in bond yields. Our conclusion is that the Treasury sell-off is likely to continue in the near run. Yields above 2% would represent a buying opportunity. The primary bearish driver for Treasuries in the next two months is the Fed. As we discuss below, recent economic data has been decent enough to meet the Fed's threshold for a rate hike and inflation indicators are moving towards the Fed's 2% target. Indeed, the FOMC statement released last Wednesday sent a mildly hawkish signal by highlighting that growth has improved, while both inflation expectations and realized inflation are tracking higher. The statement very much keeps a December rate hike in play, but it does not elevate the odds. In the FOMC meeting just prior to last year's rate hike, the Fed specifically mentioned the "next meeting" as a possibility for a rate increase. The Fed did not go as far this time around1 as policymakers are no doubt wary of spooking the markets when uncertainty is running high ahead of the U.S. election. Whether the Fed actually pulls the trigger in December will continue to hinge on the incoming economic data and the behavior of the markets following the election, but our base case remains that the Fed will follow through with a rate hike. The market is currently priced for a 65% chance of a rate move before the end of the year. This is roughly the same as the probability of a 2015 rate hike at this time last year (Chart 1). As long as the economic data remain reasonably firm, as we expect, then rate hike probabilities should follow last year's path and move to 100% by the December 13-14 FOMC meeting. Last year, the revision in the rate hike probability from November-December corresponded with a 35 bps rise in the 10-year Treasury. Chart 1Room For Expectations To Move Higher Since last year, the Fed has drastically downgraded its long-term rate projections. Recall that ahead of the December 2015 FOMC meeting, the Fed projected that the Fed funds rate would reach 1.4% in 2016. Since then, the Fed has revised downward its interest rate forecast to two rate hikes in 2017. Assuming the Fed does not revise these forecasts, it is unlikely that Treasuries respond as negatively as they did in 2015. Moreover, as we noted above, at 1.8% today, Treasuries are already roughly at fair value. During last year's sell-off, bond yields were starting from a substantially overbought level. This argues for a somewhat more muted reaction to a Fed rate hike, although we still expect yields could move higher. Beyond December, i.e. once the rate hike is priced in, our base case is that yields trend sideways for a time. The Fed's forecast for growth in 2017 is 2.0%, which would represent an increase of 0.5% from the first three quarters of 2016. If economic growth meets the Fed's expectation of 2%, then it is reasonable to expect that policymakers would increase twice next year, i.e. in line with their current forecasts. As shown in Chart 1, the Treasury market is not yet priced for this outcome: market participants currently assign only 80% odds to one rate hike by the end of 2017. The message is that the Fed, even with a reasonable (for the first time in years!) forecast for growth, will end up being a source of upward pressure on bond yields beyond 2017. There is nonetheless an important mitigating factor for bond yields: the U.S. dollar. A stronger currency represents a tightening of financial conditions that acts to depress expectations of future economic growth. This can spell trouble for risk assets and also lower the market-implied odds of future rate hikes. Indeed, a central bank can tighten monetary conditions, but does not have control over how much of the tightening comes via interest rates and how much through currency appreciation. In the current environment, the Fed knows that the process of normalizing interest rates will trigger bouts of volatility, because its actions will be exaggerated by movements in the currency. The bottom line is that we expect the Fed to tighten in December, followed by two more quarter-point hikes in 2017. Given that the bond market is not yet priced for this, the recent sell-off in bond yields will continue, perhaps to as high as 2%. Thereafter, we would expect Treasuries to trade in a fairly narrow range, with 2% representing the higher end of the band. A Coin Toss Election In the very near term, the U.S. elections pose an important risk to the view expressed above. For the past several months, market odds of a Trump Presidency have been positively correlated with the uncertainty index and negatively correlated with Treasury yields (Chart 2 and Chart 3). On the eve of the election, the race is once again too close to call. Our expectation has been that any flight-to-quality related to a Trump victory will be short-lived. However, with equity market multiples stretched and the earnings outlook still leaving much to be desired, equity markets are ripe for a correction. Chart 2Bond Market Tracks Uncertainty Chart 3Trump And Uncertainty In our September 26 Weekly Report, we warned that investors may be assigning too low odds of a Trump Presidential win. We posited that if the polls remained tight, the potential for further volatility was high. We followed up in mid-October, advising clients how to implement portfolio insurance against downside market risks, and specifically against a Trump election win. One recommended vehicle for insurance that we highlighted was the U.S. dollar, which is part of our Protector Portfolio (Chart 4 and Chart 5). We believe the currency will rally due to the combination of coming fiscal expansion and risk aversion flows on the back of a Trump win. True, this strategy has not held up in recent days, as the U.S. dollar has softened while Trump improves in the polls and risk assets have corrected. Still, the dollar's reputation as a safe-haven currency is well-deserved. It has consistently outperformed during times of crisis - even when the U.S. itself was the source, as most recently demonstrated during the summer 2011 budget impasse. Chart 4Protector Portfolio Components Chart 5Protector Portfolio Returns In a recent report,2 our geopolitical strategists outline several things to watch for on November 8, the day of the election, and in its immediate aftermath. The immediate developments most relevant for investors are anything that prolongs the period of uncertainty regarding voting. For example, the 2000 election is a reminder that the results may not be clear immediately. Although the 2000 election was held on November 7, the official result was not declared until November 26; Al Gore did not concede until December 12. This time, any number of things could delay declaring a winner, including a tie in the electoral college, or a "faithless elector," i.e. an electoral college member that does not cast his/her ballot for the candidate chosen by popular vote, and therefore causes the Supreme Court to intervene. A delay in declaring the election result would increase uncertainty and therefore be negative for risk assets. Longer term, the margin of victory has become important for policy. It is now clear that a Clinton win, if it were to happen, will be a narrow one. According to our Geopolitical Strategy team, it is almost guaranteed at this point that the chances of a Democratic sweep in the House of Representatives are zero. This is a positive development for the market as a Democratic sweep would mean a slew of anti-business regulation out of Congress. Nonetheless, a narrow win - with sub-50% of the vote - would give Hillary Clinton an extremely weak mandate. The probability of a compromise between the White House and GOP in Congress is therefore declining and puts in jeopardy any possibility of modest fiscal stimulus under a Clinton White House, or of corporate tax reforms. The likelihood of more fiscal spending in 2017 has become common lore among investors. Thus, a disappointment on that front would be negative for risk assets. Post-Election Government Spending Throughout the twists and turns of the U.S. election campaign, one higher conviction view that has endured at BCA is that popular sentiment is shifting away from fiscal austerity and that 2017 would feature more ambitious spending programs. That would be quite welcome, given that real government consumption and investment - at all levels of government - has been a drag on growth during most of the recovery since the Great Recession. Ongoing weakness at the Federal level is due to restraint in defense expenditure, while state and local spending has been weak due to a significant downtrend in tax revenues. It is notable that the decline in state tax revenues is not confined to oil-producing states. A recent report by the Rockefeller Institute compiled state tax revenue forecasts for 2017 and concludes that the decline in tax revenues from all sources (sales, income and corporate) will be slow to recover next year.3 Remember that states can only spend what they take in outside of infrastructure spending. If state and local governments can manage to cut the drag on real GDP to 0%, that would still leave a major onus for government spending on the federal government. Assuming the contribution to real GDP from state and local spending is zero, it would require a 6% annual growth in federal spending to return total government spending as a contribution to GDP back to its historic average of 0.4% (Chart 6). As Chart 7 shows, fiscal spending of that magnitude rarely occurs outside of recession. Chart 6(Part 1) How Much Fiscal Spending? Chart 7(Part 2) How Much Fiscal Spending? Importantly, how much long-term effect a fiscal boost will deliver depends on how well fiscal multipliers - which measure how much a dollar of increased government spending or reduced taxes raises output - are working. Indeed, the magnitude of fiscal multipliers continues to be a massive source of disagreement in policy circles. Recent work by the IMF suggests that the multiplier, in some economies and under certain interest rate settings, could be as high as four: for each dollar the U.S. government spends, it will generate another $4 dollars of GDP!4 Other academics put the fiscal multiplier at less than 0.5. The wide range of forecasts is due to several factors, but there are nonetheless some generally held principles: Fiscal stimulus tends to be more effective when the output gap is large: when output is well below its potential, the monetary policy response to an increase in spending is likely to be limited. In other words, fiscal multipliers are larger in recessions than in expansions.5 The type of fiscal stimulus matters, a lot. Table 1 shows a range of CBO estimates for different types of government activity. For example, income tax cuts on high income earners tend to have a low multiplier effect (well below 1), while direct spending by government, e.g. infrastructure outlays, tends to have a much higher multiplier (above 1). Multiplier effects tend to last no more than eight quarters when output is close to potential. Fiscal stimulus tends to have a more impressive impact, although short-lived (four quarters) when the output gap is large. Table 2 shows the CBO-estimated effect of an increase in demand over eight quarters under two different economic scenarios. The first is when monetary policy is constrained, and the second is when monetary policy responds to the increase in demand from government stimulus. Our guess is that we are currently somewhere in between the two economic scenarios presented: there is still an output gap and monetary policy is already off the zero bound. Thus, the fiscal multiplier is likely a little above than one, meaning that government spending does not "crowd out" private spending. Table 1Ranges For U.S. Fiscal Multipliers Table 2The Effect Of A $1 Increase In Aggregate Demand Over Eight Quarters Overall, government expenditures will contribute positively to GDP next year, though the amount of fiscal expansion is dependent on the political configuration in Washington after the elections. Similarly, the impact of any spending will depend on what form new fiscal measures takes. CBO research suggests that the fiscal multiplier will be slightly above 1. Business Sentiment: Neither Euphoria Nor Misery Without further participation from the government sector, the economy is likely to achieve above 2% real GDP growth. A more optimistic scenario could unfold if capex improves substantially and/or a Trump win significantly opens the fiscal taps. Recent private sector data shows that businesses are continuing on a mild expansion path. The ISM surveys of business confidence were little changed in October - sentiment among manufacturers is broadly unchanged, while respondents from the service sector were slightly less optimistic than the previous month (Chart 8). Still, the major indices remain above their boom/bust lines and respondents' comments suggest neither euphoria nor misery. Meanwhile, payrolls increased by 161,000 in October. Although this was slightly below the consensus forecast of 175,000, there was a cumulative 44,000 in upward revisions to the prior two months. Elsewhere, wages accelerated more than expected and average hourly earnings rose 0.4% m/m, pushing the annual growth rate to a new cyclical high of 2.8% (Chart 9). Chart 8ISM Surveys Are Steady Chart 9Wage Growth Is Perking Up To paraphrase from this week's FOMC statement, the employment report provides some further evidence that the U.S. economy is progressing towards the Fed's dual mandate. In itself, it reinforces the case for the Fed raise interest rates in December. It seems now that the only thing that could derail the Fed is an election surprise and related heightened market volatility. Lenka Martinek, Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy lenka@bcaresearch.com 1 https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/press/monetary/20151028a.htm 2 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Report "It Ain't Over 'Till The Fat Man Sings," dated November 1, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com 3 http://www.rockinst.org/pdf/government_finance/state_revenue_report/2016-09-21-SRR_104_final.pdf 4 https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/wp1493.pdf 5 "How Powerful Are Fiscal Multipliers In Recessions? Alan Auerbach and Yuriy Gorodnichenko, NBER Reporter 2015, http://www.nber.org/reporter/2015number2/auerbach.html

Special Report

Highlights The U.S. presidential election is now too close to call. Hillary Clinton has a 61.6% chance of winning, according to our quant model. But Trump's real chances are approaching 50%, given momentum. Trump still trails in Virginia and Colorado, the two key swing states. A narrow Clinton win revives the fear of gridlock with a GOP-controlled House. Hedge against Trump by going long USD/SEK, long biotech stocks / short S&P 500 exporters, and long U.S. Treasurys. Feature After penning our latest missive on the U.S. election, "You've Been Trumped!" for our sister publication the Global Investment Strategy, a client complained that giving Trump 34.5% probability of winning the election was "laughable."1 To be fair to the client, our odds of a Trump victory were on average three times higher than that of other quantitative models.2 BCA's Geopolitical Strategy is not a stranger to receiving hate mail. Nor are we strangers to giving higher odds than the consensus to unexpected political events (see: Brexit).3 Since our October 21 report, Trump has narrowed Clinton's lead in the polls from 6.2% to 2.2%. Chart 1 shows that polls are retreating into their now-familiar oscillating pattern. In addition, FBI Director James Comey disclosed to Congress on October 28 that the law enforcement agency was reopening its investigation into Clinton's email practices while secretary of state. Chart 1Trump As The 'Comeback Kid' Needless to say, we are quite comfortable with the 38.4% Trump odds that our "polls-plus" model is forecasting.4 The reason it gives Trump such strong odds is because we do not only rely on the polls to make our forecast. Polls are a (poor) snapshot of reality, but predicting the future is about more than just "traveling with events." Forecasting requires a strong net assessment of structural factors through which one filters the incoming data, whether they be new polls or "October surprises." In this note, we revisit our quantitative model, review our qualitative "White Hype" model, and update our forecast. We suggest that clients hedge for a Trump victory. Quant Model: Trump Remains A Strong Candidate Our net assessment remains that this election is a much closer affair than the media narrative would have it. The FBI revelation is only important because it highlights that Hillary Clinton is a structurally weak candidate who is susceptible to "October surprises." This is best exemplified by Chart 2, which we have repeatedly published and shown to clients in meetings. It is simply difficult to take polls seriously when they are asking voters to choose between a "fire" and a "frying pan." Chart 2Clinton And Trump: The Least Charismatic Candidates Ever To be clear, Secretary Clinton has several structural advantages: The Democratic party has a strong Electoral College lead over the GOP, a lead that Donald Trump has to overcome by winning a slew of large states that Mitt Romney lost in 2012; Hillary Clinton is polling well with minorities and women, both constituencies that preferred her to Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary; Clinton is not a five-year-old trapped in the body of a 70-year-old. On the other hand, the "plus" in our polls-plus model reveals some structural weakness in the Clinton campaign: Two-Term Curse: It is notoriously very difficult for the incumbent party to retain the presidency after a successful multiple-turn run. Since the start of the twentieth century, this has happened only four times: William Taft (1908), Herbert Hoover (1928), Harry S. Truman (1948), and George H. W. Bush (1988). Only the last two examples are relevant in the modern context, and they happened in the wake of the monumentally popular presidencies of FDR and Ronald Reagan.5 We code for this factor in our model. Third Party: Our model also accounts for the presence of prominent third party candidates. At face value, this ought to hurt both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump equally. However, Libertarian Gary Johnson has seen a dramatic drop in support, from nearly 10% in September to roughly just 5% today. The expanding correlation between Trump and Johnson's polling breaks negative in mid-October, suggesting that some Johnson fans are jumping the Mary Jane bus and getting on the Trump bandwagon (Chart 3). Meanwhile, Stein continues to take approximately 2% of the vote away from Clinton, which could make a difference in a close election in key swing states. Obama: Finally, we also code for the incumbent president's approval rating. While Obama's 52.5% is a solid number, it is not an "out of the ballpark" figure. Bill Clinton held a 58% approval rating in October 2000 as did Dwight Eisenhower in October 1960. Both saw their anointed successors lose in extremely tight races. Our model also relies on voting patterns and economic variables to "correct" the polling numbers for political cycles. First, we use each state's previous election results, going back to 1980, to gauge voter predisposition. We also include a momentum variable which measures the change in the differential between the two previous elections. In addition to the actual election data, we constructed two dichotomous variables to account for voter polarization and the presence of a strong third party. These structural forces favor the Republican challenger. Second, we use changes in state and national economic conditions prior to the elections to capture the macroeconomic context. These include national GDP, oil prices, and state-level disposable income. Since the economy has definitely seen improvement in the last four years of Obama's presidency, the data give the edge to the Democrats. Chart 3Third-Party Voters##br## Shifting To Trump Table 1Probabilities Of Victory:##br## GPS Polls-Plus Model Our model gives 60% weight to the probabilities derived from state polling and 40% to our structural econometric model. At the moment, the model is giving Clinton a 61.6% chance of winning the election (Table 1). Chart 4 shows that Clinton has 260 electoral votes in states where she has more than a 70% chance of winning. These are strong figures for Clinton, but they still give Trump around 38.4% chance of winning the election. We think it is closer to 50% and we discuss below why. Chart 42016 U.S. Presidential Election: GPS Polls-Plus Model Full Results Bottom Line: Given our quantitative model, we give Clinton a very slight edge to win the election. But the actual election is likely too close to call at this point. As we pointed out in our latest missive, a 3% lead in the polls for Clinton would not be enough to give us any confidence in our forecast due to the potential for polls to underappreciate Trump's support. Are Polls Wrong? The risk that polls are "wrong" remains considerable. Voters could be lying about supporting Trump because of various social stigmas related to it. For that reason, we suspect that any Clinton lead of less than 3% turns this election into "too close to call" and any lead of less than 5% leaves us with only a "low conviction" view that Clinton will win. We did not pick these numbers randomly; recent U.S. elections reveal that polls can miss results by as much as 3% (Chart 5). Our concern about the quality of polling is not random. It is informed by three factors: Undecideds: At this point in the election cycle, one would expect only 6% of voters to remain undecideds. However, this year, that figure stands at 9% (Chart 6). Now, this is likely because both candidates are deeply unfavorable, as Chart 2 illustrates. However, it could be because many voters are responding to pollsters with the "undecided" answer instead of saying that they support the controversial and politically incorrect candidate Donald Trump. In other words, the large number of undecideds could be where the "shy Trump voters" are hiding and ought to worry Clinton supporters a lot. Chart 5Election Polls Usually Miss By A Few Points Chart 6More Undecided Voters This Time Around Libertarian Collapse: Our theory about the undecideds could already be playing out with the Johnson voters. As we pointed out above, Johnson's support has halved in just one month. Most of his support appears to have gone to Donald Trump, but some could be bolstering Clinton's support levels in the "Mountain West" states of Colorado and New Mexico. Johnson's support may be inflated by voters who are embarrassed to say that they support Trump yet may end up voting for him. Poll Oscillation: We modified Chart 1 into Chart 7 by adding some "chart chat" to indicate when Trump made controversial - read: stupid - comments about Hispanics, Muslims, or women, which prompted a huge outcry from the media and society in general. Each event caused Trump's support to fall by an average of 4.9% from peak to trough. What would have happened to his polls had he not made such comments? Or, in other words, what is the true Trump support trajectory ex-controversial comments? Thus Chart 7 shows our back-of-the-envelope "technical" analysis of Trump's support. The reason polls are constantly oscillating may be that, with each egregious comment, Trump's real fans become "shy fans" and decline to select him during polling. But his true level of support may be very much on par with Hillary Clinton. Chart 7Trump's Surprising Resilience Bottom Line: There is some anecdotal evidence that Trump's support is underestimated by the polls. Hillary Clinton has to carry a +3% lead in the polls on November 8 for us to have any confidence in our quantitative model's predictions that she is indeed the favorite to win. This is no longer the case. Qualitative Model: "White Hype" Is Still Not Enough Our qualitative model relies on testing Trump's electoral strategy - boosting the share of the white vote accruing to the GOP - in the real world. We concluded in March that Trump did have a path to victory, albeit a very narrow one.6 Our colleague Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist of the BCA Global Investment Strategy, did so as early as September of last year.7 Our research showed that Trump's strategy is mathematically viable, at least in 2016 when the white share of the total population remains large enough. We specifically showed that Trump would only need to increase white voters' support by 1.7% and 2.9% in Florida and Ohio, respectively, to flip those states. We also pointed out that getting a 5.7% swing in Iowa could be feasible. Chart 8 shows the result of our qualitative work on the White Hype model. It illustrates that while Florida and Ohio are well within Trump's grasp, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin would require a very large swing of white voters in Trump's favor: 13.9%, 7.8%, and 8.1% respectively. Chart 8Trump Needs X Percent Of White Voters To Switch To The GOP We used the figures from Chart 8 to create Trump's "ideal Electoral College map." Map 1 shows how our White Hype model grafts onto the Electoral College. Even if we give Trump Ohio, Florida, Iowa, and North Carolina (the latter because Mitt Romney won it in 2012), Trump still needs 11 Electoral College votes to win the election. Map 1Trump's Ideal Electoral College Map Where could he get those 11 votes? The answer is Virginia (13) or a combination of Colorado (9) and either Nevada (6) or New Hampshire (4). In other words, Virginia and Colorado are critical to Trump's chances of winning the election and he remains behind Clinton by 5.2% and 4% in the two respectively. In addition, while Trump has narrowed his lead on Clinton nationally, we have only noticed significant narrowing of the state polls in Florida, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Michigan. In Michigan and New Hampshire, however, Clinton's lead remains 6.3% and 5.6%. Meanwhile, the narrowing has been either minor or non-existent in Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin (Chart 9). In each of these states, Clinton's lead is either around or above 5%. Unless the FBI investigation or some other surprise changes the dynamic, Trump's recent rally appears to be concentrated in states that are either GOP strongholds, are predicted to go to Trump by our "White Hype" model in Map 1, or are out of his reach anyway (like Michigan). Chart 9Trump's Comeback In The Swing States Bottom Line: State-by-state analysis of the polls shows that our White Hype model remains a cogent guide for this election. Trump can win both Ohio and Florida and he may still lose the election. This is because his White Hype electoral strategy works in those two critical states, but appears insufficient to overcome the Democrat advantage in white voters in the Midwest (Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin). Ultimately, we stick to our call from March: this election will come down to Virginia and Colorado, two states where Clinton's lead remains 5.2% and 4% respectively. That said, Trump has momentum nationally and in swing states. Investment Implications: Hedging A Trump Victory Our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou of the BCA Global Alpha Sector Strategy pointed out in September 30 missive that volatility typically spikes in October of each U.S. presidential election.8 Charts 10 and 11, as well as Table 2, summarize the findings of his research that looked at the last seven presidential cycles going back to 1988. We agree and suspect that this year's election could see even more volatility in November given the narrowing in the polls and the ongoing FBI investigation into Clinton's email scandal. Chart 10October Surprises The Markets, 1988-96 Chart 11October Surprises The Markets, 2000-12 Table 2VIX Spikes The Month Before The U.S. Election We recommend that our clients read Anastasios research first, and then put on his volatility hedge by buying a VIX 20-25 bullish call spread for November 16th expiry (capturing the election result), and to sell a 13 strike November 16th VIX put in order to bring down the cash outflow. The total cost for this hedge is $0.80/contract with a maximum gain capped at $5/contract, as of intra-day trading at the time of writing November 1. There is downside risk with selling the put option, but Anastasios points out that the VIX is unlikely to fall below 10, thus the risk to the downside is losing the $0.80/contract plus $2.68/contract assuming the VIX collapses to the 2014 closing low. In addition, we would hedge for a Trump victory by initiating the following trades: Currencies: Mathieu Savary, Chief Strategist of BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy, recommends that we hedge a Trump win via a long USD/SEK trade. As our colleague Peter Berezin has posited before, the USD will rally if Trump wins due to the combination of coming fiscal expansion and risk aversion flows.9 Meanwhile, SEK would be hurt due to the realization by investors that globalization is at an end, given that Sweden is a small, highly open, economy. Trump's trade policies will be a nail in the coffin of globalization, proving our "Apex of Globalization" theme.10 Additionally, investors may want to do the obvious and short "NAFTA currencies" versus the USD. Sectors: Our favorite way to hedge a Trump victory via U.S. sectors would be to go long biotech / short S&P 500 exporters.11 Biotech would rally on the news that the risk of Clinton's regulatory action against pharmaceutical industry has dissipated. Meanwhile, major U.S. multinational exporters would be hurt by the twin effects of USD's likely appreciation and our "Apex of Globalization" theme, which would be supercharged following a Trump victory. Clients could alter this hedge by replacing biotech with financials, given that a Trump victory would allay investors' fears of further regulation against the financial industry. Fixed Income: BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy strategist, Ryan Swift, believes that a simple "buy-Treasurys" hedge is the best way to deal with the risk-off of a Trump presidency. A more long-term idea would be to underweight municipal bonds in a bond portfolio. A Trump tax-cutting administration would de-value the tax advantage in municipal bonds.12 Another hedge - this one courtesy of Rob Robis, Chief Strategist of BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy - may be to consider a 2-year/30-year Treasury curve steepener. If the USD were to appreciate following a Trump victory, the Fed may think twice about a December rate hike, especially if the stock market sells off at the same time. The front end of the Treasury curve would rally in that environment. Meanwhile, the long end may react to the prospect of big deficit-financed fiscal expansion that Trump has promised, thus steepening the curve. The initial risk-off move after a Trump win may push the entire yield curve lower, but the bond market may quickly begin to price in the potential medium-term fiscal ramifications of a Trump presidency. What To Watch For On November 8? There are three things investors should watch on November 8, the day of the election, and in its immediate aftermath: Final results: In 2012, the statistical result was projected by the news networks around 11:30pm EST Nov. 6, according to the New York Times. Romney's concession speech occurred just after midnight on November 7. In the 2008 election, the result was projected by CNN as early as 7pm EST on election day (November 4), but that was due to the fact that the Obama win over Senator John McCain was a landslide. Obviously the 2000 election is a reminder that the results may not be clear immediately. The result in Florida was announced by 8pm EST on election day in favor of Gore, but the counting in the wee hours of the morning favored Bush. Gore conceded privately to Bush, then the tally went back to Gore, who withdrew his concession, and finally Bush was given the final tally several days later. The official result was not declared until November 26; Gore did not concede until December 12. The electoral college will vote on December 19, so states will have to resolve any recounts or disputes by December 13. Congress counts and certifies the result on January 6. Margin of victory: It is now clear that a Clinton win, if it were to happen, will be a narrow one. It is almost guaranteed at this point that the chances of a Democratic sweep in the House of Representatives is at zero. This is a positive development for the market as a Democratic sweep would mean a slew of anti-business regulation out of Congress. Nonetheless, a narrow Clinton win - with sub-50% of the vote - would give Hillary Clinton an extremely weak mandate. On top of the numbers, she will clearly have to deal with an unprecedented amount of investigations while in office. The chances of a compromise between the White House and GOP in Congress is therefore declining. Our "best-case scenario" of a Clinton-Paul Ryan compromise is therefore also very low. This will put in jeopardy any possibility of modest fiscal stimulus under a Clinton White House, or of corporate tax reforms. The gridlock that will emerge from Congress under a Clinton presidency may, therefore, not be so sanguine after all. A Tie? What happens if the Electoral College vote is tied, or if by a fluke neither candidate wins a majority? There is a non-negligible probability that both Trump and Clinton could end up with 269 votes - i.e. one vote short of the 270 absolute majority required to win the White House. After all, Al Gore lost the 2000 election by only five electoral votes. How is the U.S. president chosen in that case? The House of Representatives convenes, allots one vote to each state (whose representatives must decide among themselves), and chooses the next president by a majority of the states. The presidential candidates in this case would be chosen from the top three recipients of electoral college votes.13 Here is the kicker: the vice-president would be chosen by the Senate from the top two candidates, meaning that Trump or Clinton would serve as the other's vice-president! Given the Republican majority in the House and among the states, Trump would likely prevail as president with 66% of the House vote, leaving Clinton to become vice-president. The United States would finally do what should always be done with squabbling children - force them to play on the same team! Faithless Electors: Another possibility is that an Electoral College member or "elector" could refuse to cast his or her ballot for the candidate chosen by popular vote in that elector's state. Electors are chosen by the political parties and are presumed to be staunch loyalists, but sometimes they deviate or make mistakes. Hardly more than half the states have passed laws to prevent or punish these so-called "faithless electors." No such elector has ever changed the outcome of a presidential race, but in an extremely tight race, abstentions, mistakes, or conscientious objection in the Electoral College could occur. The Supreme Court would have to settle any ensuing challenges, and would normally be expected to reassert the elector's independence to vote for any eligible candidate. Of course, the Supreme Court is currently undermanned at eight justices. If they were to split along ideological lines, any constitutional issues emanating from this election would remain gridlocked for a time, which would be a period of extreme uncertainty. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com David Boucher, Editor/Strategist davidb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "You've Been Trumped!" dated October 21, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see FiveThirtyEight, "Who Will Win The Presidency?" dated October 31, 2016, available at fivethirtyeight.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Final Forecast & Implications," dated October 12, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Of the four examples, only Bush Sr. in 1988 and Truman in 1948 are really relevant today. First, the Theodore Roosevelt transition to William Taft happened more than 100 years ago. Second, Hoover took over from eight years of Republican rule when the economy was at a peak, which is hard to compare with the post-financial crisis environments after 1929 and 2008. Thus the only relevant victories for the incumbent party following a multi-term presidency occurred after the reigns of two iconic presidents: Ronald Reagan and Frank D. Roosevelt, two of the greatest American presidents. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Quarterly Review And Outlook," dated September 30, 2016, available at gss.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three (New) Controversial Calls," dated September 30, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization: All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 The S&P 500 globally-exposed industry groups index is derived by BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy. 12 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy, "Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle," dated October 18, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 13 Technically, then, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, the likeliest third-place candidate, would be eligible to become president under the House of Representative vote. Politically, however, it would be nearly impossible to orchestrate. The deadline for the House to decide this "contingent election" would be January 20, at which point the vice-president, elected by the Senate, would serve as acting president until the House resolved the issue. If the House and Senate have not chosen a president and vice-president by January 20, a new law must be passed to decide the outcome. Oh the humanity! Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election Primer: Let's Get Ready To Truuuumble," dated February 29, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Highlights The U.S. presidential election is now too close to call. Hillary Clinton has a 61.6% chance of winning, according to our quant model. But Trump's real chances are approaching 50%, given momentum. Trump still trails in Virginia and Colorado, the two key swing states. A narrow Clinton win revives the fear of gridlock with a GOP-controlled House. Hedge against Trump by going long USD/SEK, long biotech stocks / short S&P 500 exporters, and long U.S. Treasurys. Feature After penning our latest missive on the U.S. election, "You've Been Trumped!" for our sister publication the Global Investment Strategy, a client complained that giving Trump 34.5% probability of winning the election was "laughable."1 To be fair to the client, our odds of a Trump victory were on average three times higher than that of other quantitative models.2 BCA's Geopolitical Strategy is not a stranger to receiving hate mail. Nor are we strangers to giving higher odds than the consensus to unexpected political events (see: Brexit).3 Since our October 21 report, Trump has narrowed Clinton's lead in the polls from 6.2% to 2.2%. Chart 1 shows that polls are retreating into their now-familiar oscillating pattern. In addition, FBI Director James Comey disclosed to Congress on October 28 that the law enforcement agency was reopening its investigation into Clinton's email practices while secretary of state. Chart 1Trump As The 'Comeback Kid' Needless to say, we are quite comfortable with the 38.4% Trump odds that our "polls-plus" model is forecasting.4 The reason it gives Trump such strong odds is because we do not only rely on the polls to make our forecast. Polls are a (poor) snapshot of reality, but predicting the future is about more than just "traveling with events." Forecasting requires a strong net assessment of structural factors through which one filters the incoming data, whether they be new polls or "October surprises." In this note, we revisit our quantitative model, review our qualitative "White Hype" model, and update our forecast. We suggest that clients hedge for a Trump victory. Quant Model: Trump Remains A Strong Candidate Our net assessment remains that this election is a much closer affair than the media narrative would have it. The FBI revelation is only important because it highlights that Hillary Clinton is a structurally weak candidate who is susceptible to "October surprises." This is best exemplified by Chart 2, which we have repeatedly published and shown to clients in meetings. It is simply difficult to take polls seriously when they are asking voters to choose between a "fire" and a "frying pan." Chart 2Clinton And Trump: The Least Charismatic Candidates Ever To be clear, Secretary Clinton has several structural advantages: The Democratic party has a strong Electoral College lead over the GOP, a lead that Donald Trump has to overcome by winning a slew of large states that Mitt Romney lost in 2012; Hillary Clinton is polling well with minorities and women, both constituencies that preferred her to Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary; Clinton is not a five-year-old trapped in the body of a 70-year-old. On the other hand, the "plus" in our polls-plus model reveals some structural weakness in the Clinton campaign: Two-Term Curse: It is notoriously very difficult for the incumbent party to retain the presidency after a successful multiple-turn run. Since the start of the twentieth century, this has happened only four times: William Taft (1908), Herbert Hoover (1928), Harry S. Truman (1948), and George H. W. Bush (1988). Only the last two examples are relevant in the modern context, and they happened in the wake of the monumentally popular presidencies of FDR and Ronald Reagan.5 We code for this factor in our model. Third Party: Our model also accounts for the presence of prominent third party candidates. At face value, this ought to hurt both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump equally. However, Libertarian Gary Johnson has seen a dramatic drop in support, from nearly 10% in September to roughly just 5% today. The expanding correlation between Trump and Johnson's polling breaks negative in mid-October, suggesting that some Johnson fans are jumping the Mary Jane bus and getting on the Trump bandwagon (Chart 3). Meanwhile, Stein continues to take approximately 2% of the vote away from Clinton, which could make a difference in a close election in key swing states. Obama: Finally, we also code for the incumbent president's approval rating. While Obama's 52.5% is a solid number, it is not an "out of the ballpark" figure. Bill Clinton held a 58% approval rating in October 2000 as did Dwight Eisenhower in October 1960. Both saw their anointed successors lose in extremely tight races. Our model also relies on voting patterns and economic variables to "correct" the polling numbers for political cycles. First, we use each state's previous election results, going back to 1980, to gauge voter predisposition. We also include a momentum variable which measures the change in the differential between the two previous elections. In addition to the actual election data, we constructed two dichotomous variables to account for voter polarization and the presence of a strong third party. These structural forces favor the Republican challenger. Second, we use changes in state and national economic conditions prior to the elections to capture the macroeconomic context. These include national GDP, oil prices, and state-level disposable income. Since the economy has definitely seen improvement in the last four years of Obama's presidency, the data give the edge to the Democrats. Chart 3Third-Party Voters##br## Shifting To Trump Table 1Probabilities Of Victory:##br## GPS Polls-Plus Model Our model gives 60% weight to the probabilities derived from state polling and 40% to our structural econometric model. At the moment, the model is giving Clinton a 61.6% chance of winning the election (Table 1). Chart 4 shows that Clinton has 260 electoral votes in states where she has more than a 70% chance of winning. These are strong figures for Clinton, but they still give Trump around 38.4% chance of winning the election. We think it is closer to 50% and we discuss below why. Chart 42016 U.S. Presidential Election: GPS Polls-Plus Model Full Results Bottom Line: Given our quantitative model, we give Clinton a very slight edge to win the election. But the actual election is likely too close to call at this point. As we pointed out in our latest missive, a 3% lead in the polls for Clinton would not be enough to give us any confidence in our forecast due to the potential for polls to underappreciate Trump's support. Are Polls Wrong? The risk that polls are "wrong" remains considerable. Voters could be lying about supporting Trump because of various social stigmas related to it. For that reason, we suspect that any Clinton lead of less than 3% turns this election into "too close to call" and any lead of less than 5% leaves us with only a "low conviction" view that Clinton will win. We did not pick these numbers randomly; recent U.S. elections reveal that polls can miss results by as much as 3% (Chart 5). Our concern about the quality of polling is not random. It is informed by three factors: Undecideds: At this point in the election cycle, one would expect only 6% of voters to remain undecideds. However, this year, that figure stands at 9% (Chart 6). Now, this is likely because both candidates are deeply unfavorable, as Chart 2 illustrates. However, it could be because many voters are responding to pollsters with the "undecided" answer instead of saying that they support the controversial and politically incorrect candidate Donald Trump. In other words, the large number of undecideds could be where the "shy Trump voters" are hiding and ought to worry Clinton supporters a lot. Chart 5Election Polls Usually Miss By A Few Points Chart 6More Undecided Voters This Time Around Libertarian Collapse: Our theory about the undecideds could already be playing out with the Johnson voters. As we pointed out above, Johnson's support has halved in just one month. Most of his support appears to have gone to Donald Trump, but some could be bolstering Clinton's support levels in the "Mountain West" states of Colorado and New Mexico. Johnson's support may be inflated by voters who are embarrassed to say that they support Trump yet may end up voting for him. Poll Oscillation: We modified Chart 1 into Chart 7 by adding some "chart chat" to indicate when Trump made controversial - read: stupid - comments about Hispanics, Muslims, or women, which prompted a huge outcry from the media and society in general. Each event caused Trump's support to fall by an average of 4.9% from peak to trough. What would have happened to his polls had he not made such comments? Or, in other words, what is the true Trump support trajectory ex-controversial comments? Thus Chart 7 shows our back-of-the-envelope "technical" analysis of Trump's support. The reason polls are constantly oscillating may be that, with each egregious comment, Trump's real fans become "shy fans" and decline to select him during polling. But his true level of support may be very much on par with Hillary Clinton. Chart 7Trump's Surprising Resilience Bottom Line: There is some anecdotal evidence that Trump's support is underestimated by the polls. Hillary Clinton has to carry a +3% lead in the polls on November 8 for us to have any confidence in our quantitative model's predictions that she is indeed the favorite to win. This is no longer the case. Qualitative Model: "White Hype" Is Still Not Enough Our qualitative model relies on testing Trump's electoral strategy - boosting the share of the white vote accruing to the GOP - in the real world. We concluded in March that Trump did have a path to victory, albeit a very narrow one.6 Our colleague Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist of the BCA Global Investment Strategy, did so as early as September of last year.7 Our research showed that Trump's strategy is mathematically viable, at least in 2016 when the white share of the total population remains large enough. We specifically showed that Trump would only need to increase white voters' support by 1.7% and 2.9% in Florida and Ohio, respectively, to flip those states. We also pointed out that getting a 5.7% swing in Iowa could be feasible. Chart 8 shows the result of our qualitative work on the White Hype model. It illustrates that while Florida and Ohio are well within Trump's grasp, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin would require a very large swing of white voters in Trump's favor: 13.9%, 7.8%, and 8.1% respectively. Chart 8Trump Needs X Percent Of White Voters To Switch To The GOP We used the figures from Chart 8 to create Trump's "ideal Electoral College map." Map 1 shows how our White Hype model grafts onto the Electoral College. Even if we give Trump Ohio, Florida, Iowa, and North Carolina (the latter because Mitt Romney won it in 2012), Trump still needs 11 Electoral College votes to win the election. Map 1Trump's Ideal Electoral College Map Where could he get those 11 votes? The answer is Virginia (13) or a combination of Colorado (9) and either Nevada (6) or New Hampshire (4). In other words, Virginia and Colorado are critical to Trump's chances of winning the election and he remains behind Clinton by 5.2% and 4% in the two respectively. In addition, while Trump has narrowed his lead on Clinton nationally, we have only noticed significant narrowing of the state polls in Florida, Ohio, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Michigan. In Michigan and New Hampshire, however, Clinton's lead remains 6.3% and 5.6%. Meanwhile, the narrowing has been either minor or non-existent in Colorado, Maine, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin (Chart 9). In each of these states, Clinton's lead is either around or above 5%. Unless the FBI investigation or some other surprise changes the dynamic, Trump's recent rally appears to be concentrated in states that are either GOP strongholds, are predicted to go to Trump by our "White Hype" model in Map 1, or are out of his reach anyway (like Michigan). Chart 9Trump's Comeback In The Swing States Bottom Line: State-by-state analysis of the polls shows that our White Hype model remains a cogent guide for this election. Trump can win both Ohio and Florida and he may still lose the election. This is because his White Hype electoral strategy works in those two critical states, but appears insufficient to overcome the Democrat advantage in white voters in the Midwest (Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin). Ultimately, we stick to our call from March: this election will come down to Virginia and Colorado, two states where Clinton's lead remains 5.2% and 4% respectively. That said, Trump has momentum nationally and in swing states. Investment Implications: Hedging A Trump Victory Our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou of the BCA Global Alpha Sector Strategy pointed out in September 30 missive that volatility typically spikes in October of each U.S. presidential election.8 Charts 10 and 11, as well as Table 2, summarize the findings of his research that looked at the last seven presidential cycles going back to 1988. We agree and suspect that this year's election could see even more volatility in November given the narrowing in the polls and the ongoing FBI investigation into Clinton's email scandal. Chart 10October Surprises The Markets, 1988-96 Chart 11October Surprises The Markets, 2000-12 Table 2VIX Spikes The Month Before The U.S. Election We recommend that our clients read Anastasios research first, and then put on his volatility hedge by buying a VIX 20-25 bullish call spread for November 16th expiry (capturing the election result), and to sell a 13 strike November 16th VIX put in order to bring down the cash outflow. The total cost for this hedge is $0.80/contract with a maximum gain capped at $5/contract, as of intra-day trading at the time of writing November 1. There is downside risk with selling the put option, but Anastasios points out that the VIX is unlikely to fall below 10, thus the risk to the downside is losing the $0.80/contract plus $2.68/contract assuming the VIX collapses to the 2014 closing low. In addition, we would hedge for a Trump victory by initiating the following trades: Currencies: Mathieu Savary, Chief Strategist of BCA's Foreign Exchange Strategy, recommends that we hedge a Trump win via a long USD/SEK trade. As our colleague Peter Berezin has posited before, the USD will rally if Trump wins due to the combination of coming fiscal expansion and risk aversion flows.9 Meanwhile, SEK would be hurt due to the realization by investors that globalization is at an end, given that Sweden is a small, highly open, economy. Trump's trade policies will be a nail in the coffin of globalization, proving our "Apex of Globalization" theme.10 Additionally, investors may want to do the obvious and short "NAFTA currencies" versus the USD. Sectors: Our favorite way to hedge a Trump victory via U.S. sectors would be to go long biotech / short S&P 500 exporters.11 Biotech would rally on the news that the risk of Clinton's regulatory action against pharmaceutical industry has dissipated. Meanwhile, major U.S. multinational exporters would be hurt by the twin effects of USD's likely appreciation and our "Apex of Globalization" theme, which would be supercharged following a Trump victory. Clients could alter this hedge by replacing biotech with financials, given that a Trump victory would allay investors' fears of further regulation against the financial industry. Fixed Income: BCA's U.S. Bond Strategy strategist, Ryan Swift, believes that a simple "buy-Treasurys" hedge is the best way to deal with the risk-off of a Trump presidency. A more long-term idea would be to underweight municipal bonds in a bond portfolio. A Trump tax-cutting administration would de-value the tax advantage in municipal bonds.12 Another hedge - this one courtesy of Rob Robis, Chief Strategist of BCA's Global Fixed Income Strategy - may be to consider a 2-year/30-year Treasury curve steepener. If the USD were to appreciate following a Trump victory, the Fed may think twice about a December rate hike, especially if the stock market sells off at the same time. The front end of the Treasury curve would rally in that environment. Meanwhile, the long end may react to the prospect of big deficit-financed fiscal expansion that Trump has promised, thus steepening the curve. The initial risk-off move after a Trump win may push the entire yield curve lower, but the bond market may quickly begin to price in the potential medium-term fiscal ramifications of a Trump presidency. What To Watch For On November 8? There are three things investors should watch on November 8, the day of the election, and in its immediate aftermath: Final results: In 2012, the statistical result was projected by the news networks around 11:30pm EST Nov. 6, according to the New York Times. Romney's concession speech occurred just after midnight on November 7. In the 2008 election, the result was projected by CNN as early as 7pm EST on election day (November 4), but that was due to the fact that the Obama win over Senator John McCain was a landslide. Obviously the 2000 election is a reminder that the results may not be clear immediately. The result in Florida was announced by 8pm EST on election day in favor of Gore, but the counting in the wee hours of the morning favored Bush. Gore conceded privately to Bush, then the tally went back to Gore, who withdrew his concession, and finally Bush was given the final tally several days later. The official result was not declared until November 26; Gore did not concede until December 12. The electoral college will vote on December 19, so states will have to resolve any recounts or disputes by December 13. Congress counts and certifies the result on January 6. Margin of victory: It is now clear that a Clinton win, if it were to happen, will be a narrow one. It is almost guaranteed at this point that the chances of a Democratic sweep in the House of Representatives is at zero. This is a positive development for the market as a Democratic sweep would mean a slew of anti-business regulation out of Congress. Nonetheless, a narrow Clinton win - with sub-50% of the vote - would give Hillary Clinton an extremely weak mandate. On top of the numbers, she will clearly have to deal with an unprecedented amount of investigations while in office. The chances of a compromise between the White House and GOP in Congress is therefore declining. Our "best-case scenario" of a Clinton-Paul Ryan compromise is therefore also very low. This will put in jeopardy any possibility of modest fiscal stimulus under a Clinton White House, or of corporate tax reforms. The gridlock that will emerge from Congress under a Clinton presidency may, therefore, not be so sanguine after all. A Tie? What happens if the Electoral College vote is tied, or if by a fluke neither candidate wins a majority? There is a non-negligible probability that both Trump and Clinton could end up with 269 votes - i.e. one vote short of the 270 absolute majority required to win the White House. After all, Al Gore lost the 2000 election by only five electoral votes. How is the U.S. president chosen in that case? The House of Representatives convenes, allots one vote to each state (whose representatives must decide among themselves), and chooses the next president by a majority of the states. The presidential candidates in this case would be chosen from the top three recipients of electoral college votes.13 Here is the kicker: the vice-president would be chosen by the Senate from the top two candidates, meaning that Trump or Clinton would serve as the other's vice-president! Given the Republican majority in the House and among the states, Trump would likely prevail as president with 66% of the House vote, leaving Clinton to become vice-president. The United States would finally do what should always be done with squabbling children - force them to play on the same team! Faithless Electors: Another possibility is that an Electoral College member or "elector" could refuse to cast his or her ballot for the candidate chosen by popular vote in that elector's state. Electors are chosen by the political parties and are presumed to be staunch loyalists, but sometimes they deviate or make mistakes. Hardly more than half the states have passed laws to prevent or punish these so-called "faithless electors." No such elector has ever changed the outcome of a presidential race, but in an extremely tight race, abstentions, mistakes, or conscientious objection in the Electoral College could occur. The Supreme Court would have to settle any ensuing challenges, and would normally be expected to reassert the elector's independence to vote for any eligible candidate. Of course, the Supreme Court is currently undermanned at eight justices. If they were to split along ideological lines, any constitutional issues emanating from this election would remain gridlocked for a time, which would be a period of extreme uncertainty. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Geopolitical Strategy marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Editor mattg@bcaresearch.com David Boucher, Editor/Strategist davidb@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "You've Been Trumped!" dated October 21, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see FiveThirtyEight, "Who Will Win The Presidency?" dated October 31, 2016, available at fivethirtyeight.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and European Investment Strategy Special Report, "With Or Without You: The U.K. And The EU," dated March 17, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: Final Forecast & Implications," dated October 12, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 5 Of the four examples, only Bush Sr. in 1988 and Truman in 1948 are really relevant today. First, the Theodore Roosevelt transition to William Taft happened more than 100 years ago. Second, Hoover took over from eight years of Republican rule when the economy was at a peak, which is hard to compare with the post-financial crisis environments after 1929 and 2008. Thus the only relevant victories for the incumbent party following a multi-term presidency occurred after the reigns of two iconic presidents: Ronald Reagan and Frank D. Roosevelt, two of the greatest American presidents. 6 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," dated September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy Weekly Report, "Quarterly Review And Outlook," dated September 30, 2016, available at gss.bcaresearch.com. 9 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three (New) Controversial Calls," dated September 30, 2016, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The Apex Of Globalization: All Downhill From Here," dated November 12, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 The S&P 500 globally-exposed industry groups index is derived by BCA's U.S. Equity Strategy. 12 Please see BCA U.S. Bond Strategy, "Trading The Municipal Credit Cycle," dated October 18, 2016, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com. 13 Technically, then, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, the likeliest third-place candidate, would be eligible to become president under the House of Representative vote. Politically, however, it would be nearly impossible to orchestrate. The deadline for the House to decide this "contingent election" would be January 20, at which point the vice-president, elected by the Senate, would serve as acting president until the House resolved the issue. If the House and Senate have not chosen a president and vice-president by January 20, a new law must be passed to decide the outcome. Oh the humanity! Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election Primer: Let's Get Ready To Truuuumble," dated February 29, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Special Report

Highlights Clinton has a 65% chance of victory. She wins the election with 334 electoral votes. Trump has low odds of winning key swing states Virginia and Colorado. A Trump win requires a shock; it is not impossible by the historical record. A Clinton win is initially bullish and could bring some compromise. However, the median voter is moving to the left. The 1990s are gone. Feature BCA's Geopolitical Strategy made its initial U.S. general election forecast thirteen months ago in September 2015.1 We argued that the two most likely outcomes were: GOP Sweep Scenario: a Republican sweep (presidency and Congress) with a moderate candidate at the head of the party ticket; Democratic President / GOP Sweep of Congress: a Democrat win in the White House and a GOP that holds onto the House and Senate. Both outcomes would be positive for the markets given that (1) a GOP sweep would entail pro-market reforms (corporate taxes, de-regulation, entitlement reform, and modest fiscal spending) and (2) a divided government has historically produced a market-positive outcome. In December, we updated our forecast with a call that Hillary Clinton was a clear frontrunner given that a Trump nomination would greatly reduce the probability of a GOP sweep.2 Our reasoning then was that an anti-establishment Republican would fail to gather enough votes in the ideological middle of the American electorate. Although Trump has given Clinton a hardly believable run for her money, we continue to believe that misogynistic, racist, and narcissistic rhetoric are off-putting to the median American voter and distract from Trump's policy message (such as it is).3 In this final extended forecasting effort ahead of the election, our intention is to add value on three fronts: Get the final forecast right. Introduce the investment implications of our forecast. Ask what we have learned from this election so far. Quant Election Model: Trump Is A Red Herring Until very recently, the electoral polls showed a close race between Secretary Hillary Clinton and Mr. Donald Trump (Chart 1). However, our "Polls-plus" model, built using historical macroeconomic and election data since 1980, has been projecting a strong Clinton victory for some time. Based on our latest forecast, Hillary Clinton will win the 2016 presidential election in a landslide, with a projected electoral vote count of 334 (Chart 2). In the following section, we introduce our model, its results, and explain why the predicted Clinton victory is so comfortable. To be clear, our model has favored Clinton well before the most recent series of gaffes by Mr. Trump. Part I: Structural Econometric Model Our econometric work combines state-level election and economic data as well as trends in national politics and opinion. The model's dependent variable is the difference in the share of the vote received by the Republicans and Democrats in each state. The explanatory variables break down into the following categories: Voting Patterns: Each state's previous election results, back to 1980, are computed as the differential between Republican and Democratic vote share, and used to gauge voter predisposition. We also include a momentum variable which measures the change in the differential between the two previous elections. Economic Variables: We use changes in state and national economic conditions prior to the elections to capture the macroeconomic context. These include national GDP, oil prices, and state-level disposable income. Political Intangibles: We include three different qualitative variables to capture political attitudes. "Polarization" is computed to factor in the likelihood that the incumbent party will be voted out after staying in power for multiple terms. The "alternative choice" measures the presence of a prominent third party. We also include current presidential approval ratings. Using these variables, and strictly avoiding any advantage of hindsight, our model correctly predicted the winner of every election since 1984 (Table 1 and Appendix 1): 2012 - Obama v. Romney: The model slightly overestimated President Obama's support in West Virginia, Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, and Tennessee. 2008 - Obama v. McCain: The model produced an accurate forecast on an aggregate level, but again underestimated Obama's support. It misallocated electoral votes in 7 states. 2004 - Bush v. Kerry: Our analysis was only off by giving two extra electoral votes to Bush, but once more misallocated votes in 7 states. The Third Party Vote In 1992, 1996, and 2000: The model accurately predicted the winner in each contest but produced more volatile results as our sample started to shrink. In addition, the strong third-party candidacy in 1992 and 1996 distorted the results. These two elections were a key bellwether for the success of our model in 2016, as this year also features prominent third-party choices. Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party is currently polling around 6.3%. 1984 and 1988: Our earliest set of elections produced results that were quite close to reality despite a limited sample size. Although this is somewhat surprising, it is to be expected given the landslide victories that occurred in both instances. Part II: Econometric Modeling Meets Polls Most of the components from our econometric model are slow-moving structural factors. Opinion polls, on the other hand, change based on periodical surveys. They are more volatile, but provide a good indication of the day-to-day pulse of the electorate. For this reason, we created an augmented version of our econometric model using probabilities constructed from polls. First, we transformed our econometric forecasts into probabilities by using two scenarios and the historical volatility of our estimates. The two scenarios are based on the potential impact of the third parties: one in which they gather 5-10% of the popular vote, and the other in which they fail to reach that threshold. From there, we calculated the historical standard deviations for each scenario, getting the lower and upper limits of the election forecasts. Giving the two limits equal chances of occurring, we calculated the GOP's chances to win each state. We then added opinion polls to this model. We used the election probabilities from FiveThirtyEight, which are computed using simulations from a collection of weighted and adjusted polls, to add a shorter-term dimension to our forecast.4 We give a 60% weight to the probabilities from the polls and 40% to our structural econometric model to ensure that we capture the momentum effect. Part III: 2016 Election - All Hype, No Fight Our polls-plus model suggests that Clinton has a 65.4% chance of winning the election (Table 2). This is somewhat lower than the probability derived by other polls-plus models - such as FiveThirtyEight and the New York Times. Further, our model shows that Clinton already has 279 electoral votes in states where she has more than a 70% chance of winning (Chart 3). By the same standards, Trump has secured only 170 votes. These results mean that even under the unlikely scenario where the GOP wins all the remaining swing states (North Carolina, Arizona, Florida, Ohio, and Iowa), if all else stays the same, the Democrats still win with 279 electoral votes. Intriguingly, our "White Hype" model back in March produced the same result using an entirely different method (it asked simply what share of the white vote Trump needed to win the swing states). At that time we argued that Trump had a very good chance to win Florida, Ohio, and Iowa, but that it would still be insufficient to win the election.5 In other words, our White Hype model correctly forecast in March the ultimate probabilities that our polls-plus model is now gauging from the combination of econometric results and opinion polls in October. Put differently, after winning the swing states (North Carolina, Arizona, Florida, Ohio, and Iowa), where the odds of winning are between 32% and 57%, the GOP would still need to steal the electoral votes in Virginia or Colorado (the latter in combination with Nevada or New Hampshire), away from the Democrats, where they are favored to win at 71.6% and 79.7%, respectively.6 This remains as unlikely now as it was in March.7 Bottom Line: Given the structural economic and political dynamics currently in place, our quantitative estimates show that Clinton is the clear favorite. Clinton has a 65.4% chance of winning the 2016 election, with an expected 334 electoral votes. Qualitative Election Model: Time To Dump Trump Thanks largely to the analysis of our colleague Peter Berezin, Chief Strategist of the BCA Global Investment Strategy, we took Donald Trump seriously long before most.8 We analyzed his electoral strategy - boosting the share of the white vote accruing to the GOP and away from the Democratic Party - and concluded that Trump did have a path to victory, albeit a very narrow one. Our research showed that Trump's strategy of increasing the Republican share of the white vote was mathematically the correct strategy for a GOP candidate to pursue, at least in 2016 when the white share of the total population remained large enough. We specifically showed that Trump would only need to increase white voters' support by 1.7% and 2.9% in Florida and Ohio, respectively, to flip those states, which seems quite reasonable and feasible.9 We also pointed out that getting a 5.7% swing in Iowa could be feasible. On the other hand, we showed that "flipping" Midwest states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin would require a very large swing of white voters in Trump's favor: 13.9%, 7.8%, and 8.1% respectively. At those numbers, Trump would have to win nearly 70% of Michigan's white voters, 65% of Pennsylvania's, and 58% of Wisconsin's. Of the three, Wisconsin looks the most feasible. On the other hand, the GOP only managed to pick up 52% of the state's white share in 2004, the last time a Republican candidate for president won an actual majority of the popular vote since 1988. So, getting to 58% is a high bar given Wisconsin's recent electoral history. How did our model hold up in terms of state-by-state polling? It did quite well! As we predicted, Trump has been doing relatively well in Iowa, Florida, and Ohio (Chart 4). In Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, Clinton's lead has remained higher than 5% through most of the election cycle and even through the periods where the media narrative shifted against her (Chart 5). Bottom Line: Despite a narrowing in the polls in mid-September - particularly following Clinton's September 11 health scare - we still concluded in our September Monthly Report that "the presidential race is Clinton's to lose."10 This is because both our quant (polls-plus) and qualitative (White Hype) models have correctly predicted that Trump's path to victory is extremely narrow. He would have to hold all of the swing-states where the White Hype model makes him competitive, and then also win either Virginia or Colorado plus Nevada, where he has struggled in the polls. Risks To Our View - A Trump Surprise! What scenario could occur between now and November 8 that throws off our forecast of a Hillary Clinton victory? As we have claimed from the beginning of the contest, Trump requires an exogenous factor to push him over the finish line. Given that Clinton's lead is now 6% in the polls, and that Trump is running out of time, he may need an act of God. That said, Trump has come a lot closer to winning the election than our polls-plus model suggests. Were it not for his idiosyncratic personality, the Democrats would have been a lot more vulnerable in 2016 than our predicted election outcome indicates. Why? Research by Professor Allan Lichtman, who has accurately predicted every U.S. presidential election since 1984, is instructive. Lichtman has called the election for Trump.11 His so-called "Keys" method - first outlined in a 1981 article and in his 1990 book, The Thirteen Keys To The Presidency - is a simple true or false quiz with thirteen propositions. If six or more of the answers are "false," the incumbent party loses the Oval Office (Table 3). For instance, if it is true that the average GDP growth per capita is higher in the past four years than the preceding four years, then that fact favors the incumbent. Today, this "long-term economic key" favors Hillary (Chart 6). In 2016, at least five of Lichtman's keys clearly favor the GOP: In the House of Representatives, the incumbent Democrats lost seats in the 2014 midterm elections, relative to the 2010 midterms (Chart 7). The Democrats do not have an incumbent candidate advantage. Obama achieved no major policy initiative in the second term. There was nothing comparable in effect to the Affordable Care Act, his signature legislation (Chart 8). Obama achieved no major foreign policy success. The Iran nuclear deal is too controversial to satisfy this key, although we suspect that history will judge it as a major success. Instead, the public focus has been on the disastrous intervention in Libya and the dithering in Syria. Hillary Clinton is not charismatic, which is an understatement (Chart 9). In addition, Gary Johnson, of the Libertarian Party, is a third-party candidate who could garner more than 5% of the vote (Chart 10). Under Lichtman's methodology, this is a key that hurts the incumbent. Of course, Libertarians may suck more votes away from Trump than Clinton. But Lichtman has signaled this issue as a crux of the election, and thinks it favors Trump. Moreover, in our view, Lichtman's keys could predict an even worse outcome for Clinton than Lichtman himself admits. Lichtman is very forthright about the fact that the keys require subjective judgment of the sort that professional historians make all the time. We would note, first, that the contest in the Democratic primary was serious. Sanders performed nearly as well as Clinton herself did in 2008, and better than other second-rank Democratic contenders going back to 1984 (Chart 11). Second, social unrest has likely risen in Obama's second term, or at least is perceived to have done so (Chart 12). Thus the primary contest and social unrest could trigger two more strikes against the incumbent party, without even debating whether Obama administration scandals or Trump's charisma qualify as keys against the Democrats.12 We think that Lichtman's model speaks volumes about the built-in vulnerability that the Democratic Party has faced throughout 2016. It also supports our initial September 2015 forecast, which gave largely even odds to both a moderate GOP presidential candidate and Hillary Clinton. As such, Trump's defeat will be a disaster for the Republican Party and will initiate a period of introspection - if not civil war - within the organization. Bottom Line: Trump does have good odds of winning the election if Clinton's lead in the polls drops below 3% between now and Election Day. If Trump gets back within striking distance, it will suggest that Clinton cannot shake him even after the media narrative and GOP establishment turned against him. With a 3% gap in the polls, the "turnout thesis" would become a lot more cogent. This is the thesis that Clinton will struggle to get members of the "Obama coalition" (millennials and minorities) to come out and vote, while Trump will motivate the registered but non-voting white population to turn out for him. At this point in the cycle, however, we doubt that Trump will re-test this level of competitiveness. Investment Implications: More Bullish Than Priced-In A Trump surprise would trigger a correction in equity markets, which is already due based on valuations, earnings, and other factors. We would expect the USD, as a key safe haven, to rally sharply both on Trump policy uncertainty and heightened geopolitical risk. We would also expect bond yields to fall initially, as part of a broad risk-off move, but then sell off due to the implication of more inflationary fiscal policies. Trump's policy proposals suggest a budget deficit blowout at least comparable to that under George W. Bush, which went from 2% to almost -4% of GDP. A combination of more spending and less tax revenue would blow the top off the bond market. What about the expected Clinton victory? First, markets love divided government (Table 4). Why? Because spending remains in check and no new onerous policies are likely. This will likely be the case if the GOP keeps the House of Representatives. However, we also think a Republican House could be conducive to dealing with Clinton, particularly on a modest fiscal stimulus: Clinton is not Obama: She will enter the Oval Office unpopular and without a strong mandate. She may not win over 50% of the popular vote. The Senate is in play, with polls at RealClearPolitics suggesting that the Democrats would win at least the four seats they need (leaving Vice-President Tim Kaine to cast the tie-breaking vote on legislation). The House is unlikely to be in play. Thus, unlike Obama in 2009, she will have a slim Senate majority at best (not filibuster-proof) and a GOP-held House. She will have to cut deals to advance her agenda. The Grand Coalition Lives: In the past few years, Congress has passed a number of important bills because establishment Republicans voted alongside Democrats (Chart 13). This coalition would remain in place, cemented by the populist threat to both camps represented by Trump and Sanders. The Knives Will Be Out For The Tea Party: Trump's rise and fall would be seen as an infamous debacle that cost the Republicans a highly significant election well within their reach. The Republican establishment will be determined to regain the reins of the party apparatus and brand. The Tea Party and other populist or anti-establishment Republicans will be blamed not only for giving Clinton the keys to the White House but also for giving the Democrats the advantage on the Supreme Court for a generation. True, Republicans could take away a narrow reading of the election results. They could blame the entire loss on Trump, not the party, given that Trump and the party had a bad relationship and Trump endorsed various positions at odds with conservative platforms and principles. They could therefore draw the conclusion that the correct strategy for the future is not to change policies or compromise with Democrats, but simply avoid running inexperienced, flamboyant mavericks for president. This view would be supported by the fact that, with a Clinton victory, moderate Republicans in more competitive districts, not arch-conservatives in bright red ones, are more likely to lose seats in the House. Ironically, this means that House Republicans could be just as zealous in opposition as they were under Obama, or more, and thus poised to resume the game of obstruction. This is possible, but we think the anti-establishment will be on the defensive, at least initially. Clinton will receive some kind of honeymoon period after dealing a devastating blow to the GOP. There will be Republicans ready to compromise, under the leadership of Paul Ryan, who did not accept the House speakership in order not to compromise. And the far-right will have at least some waverers in their midst. As such, we can see the potential for modest corporate tax reform (broadening the tax base without lowering the effective corporate tax rate). Even though such reform is not extraordinary, it should boost economic growth by helping small and medium-sized businesses grow. We can also see the GOP under Paul Ryan agreeing to modest increases in fiscal spending in return. Our colleague Anastasios Avgeriou, Chief Strategist of BCA's Global Alpha Sector Strategy, cogently argues that fiscal spending only comes amidst recessions. Chart 14 shows that mentions of "fiscal stimulus" in the news media are positively correlated with junk bonds and VIX, and negatively correlated with the yield curve. As such, fiscal stimulus only begins being contemplated when the pain of a recession hits. Could this time be different? Yes. 55% of Americans think the economy has not recovered from the Great Recession, and some polls suggest that over half think the U.S. is still in recession. As such, while a recession may not be occurring in reality, it may as well be as far as politicians are concerned. Moreover, the public apparently cares less about the deficit and debt than in the recent past: the number of Americans naming deficits as the "top priority" has fallen from 72% to 56% in the past few years. And again, the populist groundswell will reinforce the need to lift growth through policy. Beyond an immediate relief rally, we would fade any idea that Clinton's victory means a return to the Bill Clinton-environment for corporate profits and stock performance. A structural shift to the left is underway in American politics, both generational and economic, as we argued in June.13 Clinton will not be able to betray her pledges to Bernie Sanders supporters if she wants to be a two-term president. Thus, on a sectoral basis, we would expect Clinton to have quite a few negatives (Table 5). First, she would portend greater state involvement in healthcare, especially Big Pharma, despite the idea that repealing the Affordable Care Act would cause more uncertainty than keeping and changing it. We also would not expect her to be as favorable to the financial community as her list of donors suggests, given the challenges she faces on her left regarding financial regulation. On energy, she will benefit renewable energy companies more so than conventional ones, given her commitment to turning the U.S. into a "twenty-first century clean energy superpower." We would expect her to be good for defense stocks, both because she has a lifetime of foreign policy hawkishness and because of the global trend of multipolarity, which increases both the number of global conflicts and the risks of additional conflicts.14 For Trump, there is little reason to speculate - he has no experience governing, has flip-flopped on many policy stances, and is generally unorthodox and impossible to predict (e.g. his healthcare "plan"). If we had to venture a guess, we would say that, like Clinton, he will be positive for defense stocks. His aggressively anti-regulatory positions on the financial and energy sectors should be a boon for both. A critical thing to remember is that recent American presidents do not have a bad track record of getting what they want (Box 1). Like all leaders, they are at the mercy of constraints and structural factors, whether political, military, economic, or social. Yet they also command a powerful (and increasingly so) executive branch of government in the world's most powerful country. If Clinton wants higher taxes on the wealthy and a stronger state hand in healthcare, she will most likely get them. If Trump wants tougher border security and deep corporate tax cuts, he will likely get those as well. Congress is a check, but only that. BOX 1 U.S. Presidents: Promises And Performance Over the past 28 years, each new president has generally succeeded in passing the signature items on his agenda. George Bush Sr. is the major exception. He took office in 1988 with a pledge of keeping growth rates constant, creating 30 million new jobs over eight years, keeping the peace abroad, and improving the budget deficit without raising taxes. Instead, after only one year in office, he faced a recession that caused a 1.2 percentage point drop in the growth rate from Reagan's average, resulting in only 2.6 million increase in the civilian labor force his first term, 12.4 million wide of the mark. He was famously forced to raise taxes, despite saying "read my lips: no new taxes," and the budget deficit expanded from 2.7% to 4.5%. Finally, Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait drew him into the Gulf War. Bill Clinton got luckier. His chief pledge was to raise wages, shift government investment from defense to the domestic economy, make healthcare more affordable, and reform welfare. He failed in healthcare, but generally succeeded in other initiatives. Wages admit of some debate - average earnings grew faster than under Reagan-Bush, though median earnings did not. Still, Clinton presided over a longer more stable period of wage growth than his predecessors (Chart 1). Non-defense investment rose 19% (defense barely grew) and its share in federal spending rose from 10% to 12%. The participation rate in cash assistance and food stamp programs declined sharply, as did the length of time on the dole. George W. Bush came to power on the promise of reforming social policy - health, education, social security - and essentially transferring the Clinton budget surplus to voters through tax cuts. He succeeded in taxes, education (No Child Left Behind Act), and health (Medicare expansion), aided by Republican majorities and popular support after the September 11 attacks. He failed to partially privatize social security, however. Barack Obama promised to make the tax code more progressive, make healthcare accessible and affordable, reduce energy dependency on the Middle East, and phase out the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has generally achieved these goals: the number of uninsured adults fell from 18% to 11%, healthcare price inflation has slowed from about 4% under Clinton and Bush to 3% per year, and U.S. energy imports have fallen from 33% to 25% of total consumption. However, while Obama succeeded broadly in withdrawing troops from the Middle East (Chart 2), he has failed to "finish" the war in Afghanistan. There are three chief takeaways: First, circumstances can overrule any president's plans, as occurred with George Bush Sr. Second, winning an election in reaction to a recession, as did Clinton and Obama, or suffering a crisis early in one's term, like Bush Jr., provides a tailwind for a president's initiatives. The flipside is that inheriting strong economic growth on the coattails of a popular two-term president may put an administration at risk of a cyclical downturn or general failure to meet expectations. (Warning for a Hillary Clinton administration!) Third, Congress can block some but probably not all of a president's plans. Clinton, Bush, and Obama each began with their own party controlling the legislature, which gave an early advantage that was later reversed. Clinton lost on healthcare but achieved bipartisan welfare reform. For Obama, legislative obstructionism halted various initiatives, but his core objectives were either already met (healthcare), not reliant on Congress (foreign policy), or achieved through compromise after his reelection (expiration of Bush tax cuts for upper income levels). For Bush Jr., the legislature switched after six years of his administration, yet social security had already proved to be the "third rail" of politics that he feared - he failed to reform it despite his own party's control of Congress. Final Thoughts: Lessons From 2016 The 2016 election has taught us some critical lessons. First, the world never would have believed, in the immediate aftermath of the global financial crisis, that populism would be more disruptive in the Anglo-Saxon countries than in continental Europe. But that is what has happened. The United States and the United Kingdom have both seen an explosion of pent-up forces as a result of decades - particularly the past 16 years in the U.S. - of declining middle classes, rising inequality, and weak median incomes.15 The consequences are only just beginning to be felt, and are of far greater global significance coming from the U.S. than the relatively small U.K. The chief of these is that, in the U.S., the median voter has clearly moved to the left on economic policy. Trump's victory over an army of seasoned, relatively orthodox GOP contenders in the primary exposed the fact that the party's grassroot voters no longer care deeply about fiscal austerity and no longer wish to tolerate the corporate incentive for importing cheap labor. Rather, they want government to give them more goodies and protections. This fact, taken along with the demographic trends favoring millennials and minorities (who tend to vote left on economic policies), portends a shift by which the GOP attempts to capture left-leaning voters in a way that Bill Clinton and the "New Democrats" shifted to capture right-leaning centrist voters in the wake of Ronald Reagan and the collapse of the USSR. Part of this process will involve a political alignment in the U.S., now that the GOP's deep fractures have been exposed for all the world to see. Trump's candidacy could never have occurred if there had not first been a power vacuum at the center of the party. If Trump wins, it will be a veritable revolution for both parties. Fiscal conservatism (and social conservatism, for that matter) will have little to show by way of official party machinery. The global consequences will be highly disruptive as well since the executive branch has extensive power over all actions of the federal bureaucracy, trade, and foreign policy, and since the GOP will not obstruct Trump initially (whatever happens in the aftermath of any radical policy changes). If Trump loses, as mentioned above, the anti-establishment trend in the Republican Party will suffer the brunt of the blame - whether Tea Party or other. Though messy, this result could in fact be bullish for the U.S. in the long run, since it would discredit populism in the party and give a boost to reformers who seek to re-brand and redesign the party to respond to changes in the electorate. Thus, in 2020, either Clinton's policies will be working and Americans will not be demanding change, or they will not be working, and Americans will have a reformed GOP as an alternative. Alternatively, Trump's loss could fuel populism by showing the way for a similar candidate with similar policies yet who does not lack in charisma, oratory, and party backing. Trump's strategy of boosting white support for the GOP is demographically and mathematically possible at least until 2024. Or perhaps a different kind of Republican (or Democratic) candidate could attempt to capture aspects of Trumpism, given his left-tilt on economic policy, while appealing to the Democratic coalition of women, millennials, and minorities. The GOP shakeup should be watched closely. Lastly, the 2016 election has amplified a point that we have long emphasized: the news media works in narratives. These narratives work as a filter that preempts and distorts the presentation and, to some extent, reception of facts. This phenomenon was influential in Trump's rise - the first "Twitter" candidacy - as well as his recent decline. Similarly, it made the race competitive when Clinton's various scandals were "trending." As a result, investors cannot be too wary of what the mainstream press or financial "smart money" says about any particular political trend or event. It is essential to separate the wheat from the chaff by using empirics and looking at macro and structural factors to identify the constraints rather than the preferences of candidates or politicians. Trump's constraints, as we have contended, are too high. Appendix 1 shows the state-by state performance of the econometric model (without polls) for each of the past 8 elections. It compares the model's forecast (no hindsight bias) with actual results. APPENDIX 1 Back-testing GPS's Econometric Election Model 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election - Forecast & Investment Implications," dated September 9, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see Bank Credit Analyst Strategic Outlook, "Stuck In A Rut," dated December 17, 2015, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 #shocker. 4 For a more detailed explanation of FiveThirtyEight's methodology, please see "A User's Guide To FiveThirtyEight's 2016 General Election Forecast," dated June 29, 2016, available at http://www.fivethirtyeight.com. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "U.S. Election: The Great White Hype," dated March 9, 2016, available at gps.bcareseach.com. 6 The Democrats' probability of winning Nevada and New Hampshire are 74.4% and 80% respectively. 7 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "U.S. Election: Is The Election Over?" in Monthly Report, "Who's Afraid Of Big Bad Trump?" dated August 10, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 8 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Trumponomics: What Investors Need To Know," September 4, 2015, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 9 The assumption being that the turnout, non-white vote share, and white turnout do not change from 2012. In other words, our model only focuses on the white share of the vote for the Republican candidate. We assume that Clinton will not benefit from an anti-Trump tailwind among minorities, which is a big assumption given the pernicious effects of the "White Hype" strategy on the minority support of a Republican candidate. On the other hand, we also do not change the white voter turnout, which is unfair to Trump as he would likely be able to boost the white turnout as he increases the GOP share of the vote. 10 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy, "U.S. Election Update - The Home Stretch," in Monthly Report, "Transformative Vs. Transactional Leadership," dated September 14, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 11 Please see our book review below for a discussion of Lichtman's latest book. See also Peter W. Stevenson, "Trump Is Headed For A Win, Says Professor Who Has Predicted 30 Years Of Presidential Outcomes Correctly," Washington Post, September 23, 2016, available at www.washingtonpost.com. 12 Lichtman addresses the issues of Sanders, scandals, and Trump's charisma in Peter W. Stevenson, "This Professor Has Predicted Every Presidential Election Since 1984. He's Still Trying To Figure Out 2016," Washington Post, May 12, 2016, available at www.washingtonpost.com. 13 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Introducing: The Median Voter Theory," dated June 8, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 14 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, and "Annus Horribilis," dated January 20, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 15 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "The End Of The Anglo-Saxon Economy?" dated April 13, 2016, available at gps.bcaresearch.com.

Dear Client, This week, I am currently on the road visiting clients across Europe. We are sending you an abbreviated weekly report as well as a Special Report from our Geopolitical Strategy team entitled “U.S. Election: Final Forecast & Implications”. Not only does this report encompass a detailed analysis of the upcoming U.S. presidential election and its implications for the future of U.S. politics, it also introduces GPS’s poll-plus model, a model which currently forecasts a Clinton victory. I trust you will find this piece very informative. Best regards, Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy Highlights The U.S. dollar is consolidating its recent gains, but it offers more upside in the months ahead A Trump victory would supercharge any dollar strength, but is likely to hurt the dollar in the long-term. In Japan, no more fiscal drag and a tightening in the labor market will ultimately result in a lower yen, courtesy of higher inflation expectations and falling real rates. The Australian labor market points to weaknesses in the domestic economy. Any EM turmoil could launch an AUD bear phase. Feature The U.S. dollar continues to consolidate its recent gains. While the dollar is expensive, it still offers upside potential. Monetary divergences remain in favor of the U.S. economy. U.S. labor market slack is disappearing and the rising share of salaries and wages in the national income pie is likely to further support consumption. Shifting the distribution of economic gains toward workers signifies that the middle class is gaining ground relative to households at the summit of the income ladder. This process should help consumption because the middle class has a much higher marginal propensity to consume than the top 1% (Chart I-1). If consumption growth remains healthy, job creation is likely to fan additional wage pressures, creating a virtuous circle for U.S. households and consumption. This virtuous cycle is likely to help the Fed increase rates over the next two years, providing a source of support for the dollar (Chart I-2). Chart I-1Shifting Income To The Middle Class Will Support Consumption Chart I-2A Virtuous Cycle For The Dollar In terms of the presidential election outcome, the shift of the median voter to the left signifies that redistributionist policies are likely to become an ever growing part of the U.S. political discourse. This reality is likely to provide another source of support for the U.S. dollar, at least for now. While a Clinton victory will not halt these trends, a Trump victory would likely supercharge any dollar bull market. While vague in details, Trump's economic plan involves much more infrastructure spending financed with debt issuance, i.e. a large amount of fiscal stimulus that would remove the need for any dovish tilt to the Fed's stance. Moreover, by raising the specter of protectionism, a Trump victory could revive inflationary forces in the U.S. economy. Protectionism, while negative for profits, would decrease the trade deficit, temporarily lifting U.S. GDP. Since the supply side of the economy has been hampered by tepid levels of investment (Chart I-3), we could see a situation where demand is in excess of supply. This would prompt an even more hawkish Fed. However, although a Trump victory would be a dream for dollar bulls, caution is warranted. In the long-term, a Trump administration implies a falling fair value for the dollar. For one, by lifting inflation, a Trump victory would hurt the PPP value of the greenback. Second, a Trump victory would also ultimately lead to a degradation of the USD's role as the global reserve currency, making the -40% of GDP net international investment position of the U.S. more difficult to sustain (Chart I-4). Finally, by shielding the economy from the competitive pressures of globalization, a Trump victory would likely result in a deterioration of U.S. productivity vis-à-vis the rest of the world. Chart I-3Low Capital Stock Growth Would Crystalize The##br## Inflationary Effect Of A Trump Presidency Chart I-4The Dollar Needs Its ##br##Reserve-Currency Status Yen Signs pointing toward a strong wave of yen weakness are slowly coming together. In recent years, the yen has closely followed real rates differentials (Chart I-5). With the BoJ guaranteeing a limit on the upside for nominal rates, any improvement in the economy is likely to cause inflation expectations to increase, and thus real rates, to fall. What are the signals pointing toward higher inflation expectations and a lower yen? First, the labor market is tightening. The job-opening-to-applicants ratio is at a 15 year high and employment growth remains healthy (Chart I-6). Meanwhile, the participation rate of women in the labor force is at all-time highs, and at 73.5%, the employment-to-population ratio for prime-age women is already above U.S. levels. In fact, it is at similar levels to those experienced in the U.S. during the boom years of the late 1990s. Thus, the declining likelihood that more women will enter the labor force eliminates a wage-suppressing factor. Chart I-5USD/JPY: A Function Of##br## Real Rate Differentials Chart I-6Japan: Female Labor Participation Now Exceeds ##br##The U.S. Japanese Wages Can Now Rise Second, the Japanese shipment-to-inventory ratio is improving. Thanks to lean-inventory techniques, this ratio tends to be most elevated at the bottom of economic slowdowns, reflecting depressed sales rather than bloated inventories. Historically, growing shipments relative to inventories are associated with rising inflation expectations (Chart I-7). Third, the drag from fiscal policy is dissipating. Budget tightening is leveling off, lifting a big brake on domestic demand (Chart I-8). Moreover, we expect fiscal stimulus to gather momentum in 2017, especially in the form of wage policy. This provides an additional support for Japanese inflation expectations. If no further fiscal stimulus comes to fruition in Japan, we expect USD/JPY to rally toward 110-115 in the next 18-months. If aggressive fiscal stimulus and a wage policy are implemented, the upside for USD/JPY could be much greater, in the order of 120 or more. Chart I-7Japanese Shipment-To-Inventory##br## Ratio And CPI Expectations Chart I-8The Dissipating Japanese ##br##Fiscal Drag Yet, while the cyclical outlook for the yen is bearish, the shorter-term outlook is more nuanced. Any EM-selloff triggered by tightening global liquidity conditions could prompt downward pressures on Japanese inflation expectations. This would mechanically lift Japanese real rates and the yen. Hence, we recommend investors sell the yen on a long-term basis but hedge this position by buying JPY volatility over the next 3-6 months. Australian Dollar The Australian dollar is at a tricky spot. Technically, the AUD has been forming a tapering wedge, a pattern that often heralds a large move in this currency. How will this pattern resolve itself? We expect a bearish outcome. The domestic economy is displaying some worrying signs. Not only is full-time employment contracting, but so are total hours worked (Chart I-9). This is likely to weigh on household income and on consumption. This is especially problematic as Australian gross fixed capital formation continues to contract at a 4.5% annual pace. The result is that inflationary pressures in Australia will be kept at bay. In the process, the RBA could adopt a more dovish bias. Chart I-9Australian Domestic Conditions ##br##Are Deteriorating Chart I-10Australian Exports To ##br##China Are Still Falling... Additionally, despite a stabilization in Chinese growth, Chinese imports from Australia continue to contract (Chart I-10). Not only has this happened as iron ore prices have rebounded, but also, as economic conditions have improved in EMs that are highly levered to the Chinese cycle (Chart I-11). Our expectation is that the Chinese industrial sector is likely to experience a slowdown in the months ahead, courtesy of a falling fiscal impulse (Chart I-12), which begs a question: What does the future hold for Australian exports? Chart I-11...Despite Rising Taiwanese##br## Industrial Production Chart I-12Tightening Global Liquidity Is A Headwind##br## For EM Financial Conditions And Growth Finally, our bullish U.S. dollar stance is a tough hurdle for commodity prices to overcome (Chart I-13). Weakness in commodities would represent a negative terms-of-trade shock for Australia and the AUD. Moreover, the PBOC continues to use a lower RMB as an engine of reflation, and we stand by our bearish JPY forecast. Because of these two developments KRW, SGD, and TWD, are very likely to experience further downside. Historically, Asian currency weakness correlates closely with a weak AUD (Chart I-14). Chart I-13Commodities And The Dollar:##br## Joined At The Hip Chart I-14AUD Performs Poorly When ##br##Asian Currencies Sell Off We are already shorting AUD/USD in the context of a short commodity currencies trade. We are considering buying EUR/AUD, as the euro is less sensitive to the dollar, EM spreads, and commodity prices versus the AUD. Also, EUR/AUD is more attractive from a valuation perspective, trading 5% below its PPP fair value. This cross is also supported by a favorable balance-of-payments backdrop, with the euro area registering a 7.7% of GDP current-account differential relative to Australia. Buying EUR/AUD represents a way for investors to bet on a weaker AUD while decreasing their exposure to the U.S. dollar risk factor. Mathieu Savary, Vice President Foreign Exchange Strategy mathieu@bcaresearch.com Currencies U.S. Dollar Chart II-1USD Technicals 1 Chart II-2USD Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "There are risks of hanging around zero too long. And if the economy can withstand [a hike], I think it's appropriate to move" - Philadelphia Fed President Patrick Harker (October 26, 2016) Report Links: Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 The Euro Chart II-3EUR Technicals 1 Chart II-4EUR Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "In the euro area, we have a long way to go before we exhaust the productivity improvements that have already taken place in the U.S" - ECB President Mario Draghi (October 25, 2016) Report Links: Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 The Yen Chart II-5JPY Technicals 1 Chart II-6JPY Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "Since the employment situation has continued to improve, no further easing of monetary policy may be necessary... at any rate, I would like to discuss this thoroughly with other board members at our monetary policy meeting" - BoJ Board Member Yutaka Harada (October 12, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 British Pound Chart II-7GBP Technicals 1 Chart II-8GBP Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "Our judgment in the summer was that we could have seen another 400,000-500,000 people unemployed over the course of the next few years...So we're willing to tolerate a bit of overshoot in inflation over the course of the next few years in order to avoid that situation, to cushion the blow" - BOE Governor Mark Carney (October 14, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Australian Dollar Chart II-9AUD Technicals 1 Chart II-10AUD Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "We have never thought of our job as keeping the year-ended rate of inflation between 2 and 3 percent at all times...Given the uncertainties in the world, something more prescriptive and mechanical is neither possible nor desirable" - RBA Governor Philip Lowe (October 17, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 New Zealand Dollar Chart II-11NZD Technicals 1 Chart II-12NZD Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "There are several reasons for low inflation - both here and abroad. In New Zealand, tradable inflation, which accounts for almost half of the CPI regimen, has been negative for the past four years. Much of the weakness in inflation can be attributed to global developments that have been reflected in the high New Zealand dollar and low inflation in our import prices" - RBNZ Assistant Governor John McDermott (October 11, 2016) Report Links: Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 The Fed is Trapped Under Ice - September 9, 2016 Canadian Dollar Chart II-13CAD Technicals 1 Chart II-14CAD Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: ""Given the downgrade to our outlook, Governing Council actively discussed the possibility of adding more monetary stimulus at this time, in order to speed up the return of the economy to full capacity" - BoC Governor Stephen Poloz (October 19, 2016) Report Links: Relative Pressures And Monetary Divergences - October 21, 2016 The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Swiss Franc Chart II-15CHF Technicals 1 Chart II-16CHF Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "We don't have a fixed limit for growing the balance sheet; it's a corollary of our foreign exchange market interventions - which we conduct to fulfill our price stability mandate" - SNB Vice-President Fritz Zurbruegg (October 25, 2016) Report Links: Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Global Perspective On Currencies: A PCA Approach For The FX Market - September 16, 2016 Clashing Forces - July 29, 2016 Norwegian Krone Chart II-17NOK Technicals 1 Chart II-18NOK Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "A period of low interest rates can engender financial imbalances. The risk that growth in property prices and debt will become unsustainably high over time is increasing. With high debt ratios, households are more vulnerable to cyclical downturns" - Norges Bank Governor Oystein Olsen (October 11, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 The Dollar: The Great Redistributor - October 7, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Swedish Krona Chart II-19SEK Technicals 1 Chart II-20SEK Technicals 2 Policy Commentary: "[On Sweden's financial stability]...it remains an issue because we are mismanaging out housing market. Our housing market isn't under control in my view" - Riksbank Governor Stefan Ingves (October 17, 2016) Report Links: The Pound Falls To The Conquering Dollar - October 14, 2016 Long-Term FX Valuation Models: Updates And New Coverages - September 30, 2016 Dazed And Confused - July 1, 2016 Trades & Forecasts Forecast Summary Core Portfolio Tactical Trades Closed Trades

Highlights We expect the U.S. House of Representatives to remain in GOP hands, but the Democrats could take razor-thin control of the Senate if Clinton wins the Presidency. The current, market-bullish status quo of divided government will continue. The chances of cooperation between a Clinton Administration and the House is actually quite good on some issues. We would expect House Republicans to give in to a modest infrastructure spending plan from Clinton, in exchange for corporate tax reform. There is now bipartisan support in the U.S. for removing the sequester, opening the door to some fiscal stimulus. A shift in focus from monetary to fiscal policy will be quite bullish for the dollar, which could rise by 10% in trade-weighted terms. The Japanese government appears to be preparing another shot of fiscal stimulus, which would be quite bearish for the yen and bullish for Japanese stocks when combined with the Bank of Japan's new yield curve policy. A number of headwinds that have held back U.S. growth this year will give way, generating 2½-3% real GDP growth in 2017. Positive growth surprises will encourage the FOMC to tighten in December and another five times over 2017/18. However, the speed of rate hikes will depend on how quickly the dollar appreciates. Dollar appreciation will undermine U.S. EPS growth next year. We view this as a headwind for stocks, but not something that will prevent modest gains in the S&P 500 next year. A key risk is that a surging dollar and a more hawkish FOMC sparks a correction in EM assets in the near term, spilling over into developed market bourses. Given elevated valuations, the risk/reward balance still favors a defensive strategy, with no more than a benchmark allocation to stocks. Several trends support our recommendation to maintain slightly below-benchmark duration within fixed- income portfolios. Among them, the annual growth rate in total central bank assets for the U.S., Euro Area, the U.K. and Japan is on the verge of peaking even assuming the ECB extends, which means that the period of maximum downward pressure on global term premia is over. Continue to overweight indexed bonds versus conventional issues. Oil prices should be able to hold up in the face of dollar strength given that we expect the tightening oil market will dominate. However, base metals will struggle. Feature As we go to press, Hillary Clinton is poised to win the Presidency of the United States following a tumultuous and divisive campaign. The key question now is the Senate race, where less controversial Republicans are contesting close elections. The GOP is at high risk of losing four Senate seats, with another three in play. Democrats need only four seats to take the Senate because, assuming that Clinton wins the presidency, Vice-President Tim Kaine would then cast the tie-breaking vote in that body. We expect the GOP to hold onto the House. This means that the current, market-bullish status quo of a divided government will continue. With the House remaining in Republican hands, and Democrats clinging to a potential razor-thin control of the Senate, the Clinton White House would be constrained on some of its most left-leaning policies. Unlike Obama, Clinton's victory will not be a popular sweep. She will likely receive less than 50% of the popular vote and will be the first candidate ever elected that has more voters saying they dislike her than like her (Chart I-1). Therefore, the odds are slim that Clinton will come to power with the same level of confidence and agenda-setting mandate as Obama did in 2008. Chart I-1Clinton And Trump: The Least Charismatic Candidates Ever Nonetheless, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service believes that the chances of cooperation between a Clinton Administration and the House is actually quite good on some issues. On corporate tax reform, it is difficult to see a reduction in effective tax rates, but a deal could be struck to broaden the tax base by closing various loopholes. This would be negative for some S&P 500 multinational corporations, but would benefit America's small and medium-sized enterprises. Paul Ryan and moderate Republicans understand that there has been a paradigm shift in America and that the median voter has moved to the left. As such, we would expect House Republicans to give in to a modest infrastructure spending plan from Clinton, in exchange for corporate tax reform. There is now bipartisan support for removing the sequester. Even a modest infrastructure plan could make a substantive difference for the economy given the high fiscal multipliers of government spending in an economy with low interest rates. The political shift to the left means that a Clinton-Ryan coalition will care less about the concerns of America's large corporations than previous governments, leading to policies that will result in higher effective tax rates on major corporations, a dollar bull market (in conjunction with tighter Fed policy, see below), and rising wages over the next four years. The election outcome will also be positive for bombed-out U.S. health care stocks. Even if the Democrats take the Senate, a Republican-held House will make it difficult for Clinton to push through legislation that does serious damage to the sector's pricing power. Health care stocks are oversold and cheap, at a time when consumer demand is solid and our pricing power proxy is rising much more quickly than overall corporate sector pricing. In terms of the macro implications, a shift in focus from monetary to fiscal stimulus will be quite bullish for the dollar. Below we discuss the important changes coming in the global investment landscape stemming from a renewed dollar bull phase. U.S. Growth: Expect Upside Surprises Any boost to U.S. infrastructure spending is unlikely to show up in GDP until the second half of next year. Nonetheless, there are other reasons to be more upbeat than the consensus on growth prospects for the first half as well. It is important to note that U.S. real final sales to private domestic purchasers, a good measure of underlying demand growth, has grown at almost 2½% over the past year, and was up 3.2% in the second quarter sequentially. A number of headwinds conspired to hold back the headline GDP growth figures, but these headwinds should moderate next year (Chart I-2): The five-quarter inventory correction is almost unprecedented in its length, but there are some high-frequency indicators (i.e. durable goods inventories and the inventory component of the ISM manufacturing index) that suggest that the correction is coming to an end (Chart I-3). Inventory destocking only needs to stabilize to boost GDP growth, since it is the change of the change in inventories that affects GDP growth. Chart I-2U.S. 2016 Growth Headwinds To Fade Chart I-3Inventory Rebuilding Has Commenced Some of this year's slowdown reflects a pullback in the contribution of federal and state & local government spending. Nonetheless, this will not last long because state and local government revenues are trending higher and this sector spends all it takes in. As noted above, we also expect a boost from infrastructure spending at the federal level. Housing starts and residential investment hit a soft patch this year. The second quarter dip was mainly due to a warm winter, which pulled forward home-improvement spending. The NAHB homebuilders index heralds a rebound in housing activity in the coming months, in line with the improvement in household formation. Indeed, housing starts are still 20-25% below estimates of the amount of construction necessary to keep up with population growth. We also expect a little more capital spending once the election is out of the way, profits begin to expand again and industrial production growth improves early in the New Year. Moreover, the oil rig count has started to recover, suggesting that energy capex should stabilize and perhaps even improve. Overall corporate capital spending intentions have perked up (Chart I-4). The trade sector will be a drag on growth, especially if the dollar appreciates as we expect. Nonetheless, we believe that the unwinding of the other headwinds that have dogged the economy this year could provide real GDP growth of 2½-3% in 2017. Stronger-than-expected growth will have a positive impact on America's trading partners via import demand, but it is the response of the dollar that could really shake up global financial assets. The reasoning behind our strong dollar view is straightforward: interest rates differentials are the strongest predictor of currency trends on a 12-18 month horizon. Relative economic performance between the U.S. and the rest of the world suggests that interest rate differentials will move even further in favor the U.S. dollar. Chart I-5 highlights that the dollar tends to appreciate when U.S. interest rates are in the upper half of the interest rate distribution of the G10. With few central banks outside of the U.S. in a position to be able to lift interest rates, gently rising U.S. rates will keep the U.S. among the global developed market (DM) high-yielders for many years. Chart I-4Capex Plans Have Improved Chart I-5U.S. Sitting Atop The Global Interest Rate Distribution Buoys The Dollar Real interest rate differentials may shift even more than nominal rates in favor the dollar. Inflation expectations should rise in Europe and Japan to the extent that their respective currencies weaken and their economies receive a boost from improved U.S. import demand. But since neither central bank will allow much of an increase in local bond yields, rising inflation expectations will translate into lower real yields in the Eurozone and Japan. This will reinforce the dollar's bias to appreciate. The ECB could upset this forecast by announcing that it will taper the asset purchase program beginning in March of next year, but we believe it is more likely the central bank will extend the QE program for another six months. In Japan's case, the nominal yield curve is now fixed by the Bank of Japan out to 10-years. How Much Will The Dollar Appreciate? This is a difficult question. A central bank can tighten monetary conditions, but does not have control over how much of the tightening comes via interest rates and how much through currency appreciation. Our sense is that over the next couple of years the fed funds rate will need to rise to 2% in nominal terms (0% in real terms) and the dollar will appreciate by 10% in trade-weighted terms, to avoid an economic overheating and an overshoot of the inflation target. We expect the Fed to tighten in December, followed by two more quarter-point hikes in 2017. But, of course, an outsized dollar response to the initial rate hikes would temper the speed of Fed tightening. A 10% rise seems aggressive, but it would still leave the broad trade-weighted dollar index well below previous peaks. Wouldn't Such A Dollar Surge Kill Any Hopes Of A Recovery In U.S. Profits? Undoubtedly, dollar strength presents a direct and non-trivial risk to the earnings outlook. Our U.S. EPS model foresees a return to positive earnings growth early next year, and a full-year expansion of 5-6% (Chart I-6). This is based on three important assumptions: (1) industrial production returns to modest but positive growth next year; (2) oil prices are roughly unchanged from current levels, allowing profits in the energy patch to recover with a lag; and (3) nominal GDP growth accelerates modestly relative to labor compensation. Chart I-6The U.S. Profit Outlook However, we assumed in the base case scenario presented in May that the dollar is unchanged. Re-running the model with a 10% dollar appreciation over the next year would shave about 2-3 percentage points off of EPS growth next year (Chart I-6). In other words, EPS would rise next year, but only modestly. Can The S&P 500 Rally In The Context Of Dollar Strength? Chart I-7Stocks Can Appreciate With The Dollar An appreciating dollar is clearly a headwind, but it is the case that the S&P 500 rallied along with the dollar in the last three major dollar bull markets: 1978-1985, 1994-2002, and 2011 to today (Chart I-7). One could point to special factors in each episode. Nonetheless, our point is that if the dollar is appreciating because growth outside the U.S. is deteriorating, then the backdrop is negative for U.S. equities. But if the dollar is appreciating because the U.S. economic growth backdrop has brightened (with no deterioration elsewhere), then U.S. stocks can rally despite the negative impact of the dollar on profits. Indeed, the direction of causation reverses at times: it is the rally in U.S. risk assets (along with higher rates) that attracts foreign capital and pushes the dollar higher. A tax holiday on foreign retained earnings would also be positive for the dollar and risk assets. That said, the currency shifts we expect over the next year will favor Eurozone and Japanese stocks to the U.S. market in local currency terms. This is particularly so for Japan if more aggressive monetary and fiscal policies manage to sharply devalue the yen (see below). According to our models, a 5% depreciation of the euro and a 10% drop in the yen in trade-weighted terms would boost EPS growth next year by 3 and 5 percentage points, respectively, in the Eurozone and Japan (Chart I-8). Monetary policy divergence and relative valuation also support our recommendation to favor Japanese and Eurozone stocks versus the U.S. Chart I-8The Eurozone Profit Outlook What Does Our Dollar Outlook Mean For EM Assets? Continuing liquidity injections from the ECB and BoJ are positive for emerging market (EM) assets. Unfortunately, this will not shield emerging markets from a 10% dollar rise, especially if it is accompanied by another downleg in commodity prices (Chart I-9). A stronger greenback is likely to cause distress among over-leveraged EM borrowers given that 80% of EM foreign-currency debt is denominated in dollars. Chart I-10 illustrates that there have been no periods when EM share prices rallied amid strength in the trade-weighted U.S. dollar since the early 1980s. Meanwhile, the gap between EM and U.S. nonfinancials' return on equity (RoE) remains deeply negative, which historically has been associated with EM currency depreciation. Chart I-9Dollar Strength Is Negative For Commodities... Chart I-10...And Emerging Markets The implication is that the recent rally in EM risk assets and currencies will not last. Investors should avoid this space. A dollar rally would also be a headache for the People's Bank of China (PBoC). Allowing the RMB to depreciate aggressively versus the dollar to avoid an appreciation in trade-weighted terms could ruffle political feathers in the U.S. and spark capital flight. The PBoC will likely manage the RMB's decline versus the dollar and allow it to appreciate in trade-weighted terms, while tightening capital account controls to prevent capital from fleeing the country. This outcome is slightly negative for the economy and could generate some financial market volatility as the process unfolds. We believe that China will be able to maintain GDP growth of around 6½% next year and that there will be no financial crisis related to China's high debt levels. Nonetheless, China's transition away from an investment-led to a consumer-led expansion means that the tailwind for commodity demand and EM exports will not return. FOMC: Some Like It Hot The probability of a Fed rate hike in December eased a little in recent days due to some disappointing economic data, such as the September readings on retail sales and the CPI, along with comments from Fed Chair Yellen on the benefits of allowing the economy to "run hot". Some others on the FOMC share her views, but many do not. As we highlighted in last month's Special Report,1 Yellen will not overrule the consensus on the FOMC. The appetite to test the limits of the supply side of the economy is simply not broad enough, as visions of the inflationary 1970s still loom large in some policymakers' minds. The Fed may end up being too slow in tightening policy and generate an overheated economy by accident, but the idea of purposefully engineering a temporary inflation overshoot is off the table. The hawkish shift in the consensus can be observed in the latest FOMC minutes. Not only did three members vote for a rate hike in September, but "several" members felt that a rate hike was a "close call". The remaining doves often point out that the Fed's preferred measure of inflation, core PCE, is still below the 2% target. However, this measure is an outlier; all other popular measures of underlying inflation are near or above 2% and are in a clear uptrend. Wage growth, although somewhat mixed across the various measures, is also trending up (Chart I-11). The doves already lost two members this year (Williams and Rosengren). More will jump ship if core PCE moves up in the coming months as we expect, although a 10% dollar appreciation by itself could shave almost a half point off of inflation next year (Chart I-12). Chart I-11U.S. Wage Pressure Is Growing Chart I-12The Inflation Impact Of Dollar Strength Recent data disappointments are a concern, but the bounce in both the ISM manufacturing and nonmanufacturing surveys in September, especially in the new orders components, is a sign that the soft patch will not endure. It would require a significant disappointment in the October and November payroll reports for the FOMC to stand pat at the December meeting. Beyond this year, our base-case outlook calls for five quarter-point rate hikes over 2017 and 2018, compared to only two rate hikes currently discounted in money markets. This forecast is uncertain because an even larger portion of the overall tightening in monetary conditions than we expect could come via the dollar. Indeed, there is a significant risk that dollar strength and Fed tightening sparks a correction in risk assets. The TINA phenomenon (There Is No Alternative) has forced many investors to take more risk they are comfortable holding. Valuations are also rich. This is the main reason why our investment recommendation is cautious, including only a benchmark allocation to equities in a balanced portfolio. We maintain that stocks will outperform bonds and cash on a 1-2 year horizon, although total returns will be depressed by historical standards. Moreover, we would not be surprised to see a 10% correction in the major equity bourses in the coming months. Investors with a short-term horizon should consider buying some insurance against this risk. What would it take for us to upgrade stocks to overweight? We would like to see significant fiscal stimulus in some combination of the U.S., Eurozone and Japan. It would be particularly bullish if the stimulus occurs outside the U.S., because a pickup in global growth would allow the Fed to tighten without driving the dollar significantly higher. This scenario would improve the outlook for equities inside and outside of the U.S. Finally, a 10% equity correction would create enough value that we would be quite tempted to upgrade the sector. Japan Prepares For The Next Step The dollar's ascent will be particularly acute versus the yen if we are right that more aggressive policy action looms in Japan. We argued in last month's Overview that fiscal stimulus will be particularly powerful in the context of the Bank of Japan's (BoJ) new policy framework. Instead of targeting a pace of asset purchases, the central bank is effectively fixing the yield curve by promising to hold the 10-year yield near to zero. By fixing the yield curve and by committing to maintain this policy until Japanese inflation moves above the 2% target, the BoJ is hoping to raise inflation expectations and drive down real bond yields. Fiscal stimulus in this environment would be quite effective because nominal yields would not be allowed to rise in response. Any increase in inflation expectations would flow directly into lower real yields and weaken the yen, thus reinforcing the initial thrust of fiscal policy. The timing and amount of additional fiscal spending is not clear, but the Japanese Diet is currently deliberating the third revision to the second supplementary budget. Government officials have signaled that there will be more coordination between monetary and fiscal policy in the future. The government is also debating ways to boost household income, including raising government wages, lifting the minimum wage and providing tax incentives for the private sector to be more generous on the wage front. Any efforts to boost income will add to upward pressure on actual inflation and inflation expectations. Given that the market is discounting inflation of only 0.26% per year on average over the next 20 years, the balance of risks favors an inflation rate that surprises to the upside. The resulting downward pressure on real interest rates, at a time when U.S. real rates will be rising, will depress the yen. Our currency experts expect the yen to weaken to 125 versus the dollar, representing a decline of roughly 10% in trade-weighted terms. We estimate that this would add about a half point to Japanese headline consumer price inflation next year (Chart I-12). A successful policy push would ultimately be quite bearish for JGBs. However, a critical element in the plan is that the BoJ prevents a premature rise in nominal yields. We do not expect any JGB selloff for at least a year. This means that, while total returns for JGBs will be poor (or negative for some maturities), the market will outperform the other major government bond markets in currency hedged terms if global yields rise in the coming months as we expect. The implication is that investors should favor JGBs over Bunds and, especially, Treasuries within global hedged bond portfolios. Also, stay long inflation protection in Japan, overweight the Nikkei and underweight the yen. Reason To Be Bond Bearish Chart I-13Reasons To Keep Duration Short Our fairly hawkish view on the Fed is a key factor behind our recommendation to keep duration slightly short of benchmark within bond portfolios. More broadly, the global deflation beast is far from tamed, but the firming in selected commodity prices is reducing some of the downward pressure on inflation in the advanced economies. Oil prices have breached $50/bbl on hopes that OPEC-Russia talks will result in production cuts. Our commodity strategists do not expect any agreement to have much of a lasting impact on oil prices. Indeed, there is a risk that oil prices correct if the talks ultimately fail. However, we still expect WTI to trade between $40 and $65/bbl until 2020. The annual growth rate for the continuous commodity index has reached positive territory for the first time since 2014, which is translating into a more positive pricing environment for manufactured goods and overall headline inflation rates for both developed and emerging economies (Chart I-13, bottom panel). This has given inflation expectations a boost in the major markets, at a time when output gaps in developed countries are narrowing (the gap is near to being fully closed in the U.S.). Several other factors favor a below-benchmark duration stance at least for the near term (Chart I-13): Global growth is improving slowly. The global leading economic indicator (LEI) is rising and our diffusion index shows that 10 of 15 countries have rising LEIs. We expect the U.S. economy, in particular, to surprise to the upside. The prospect of even a little fiscal stimulus is bond bearish, following years of austerity in the major developed countries. The downward pressure on global term premia is dissipating as the BoJ has switched away from quantitative targets for asset purchases to fixing the yield curve. The ECB is likely to extend the QE program by another six months, but the central bank is unlikely to lift the pace of purchases from the current level. The annual percent change in total central bank assets for the U.S., Euro Area, the U.K. and Japan is on the verge of peaking even assuming the ECB extends, which means that the period of maximum downward pressure on global term premia is over (Chart I-14). Chart I-14Liquidity Growth Peaking Out The market expects that real short-term interest rates will stay in negative territory until at least the middle of the next decade, even in the U.S. There is plenty of room for the forward yield curve to reprice higher if growth turns out to be better than expected. This is particularly the case in the U.K., where fears of a post-Brexit economic bust and a fresh shot of stimulus from Bank of England sent the pound and gilt yields to extremely low levels. Our global bond and currency services recommend taking profits on overweight gilt/underweight sterling positions, and shifting in the opposite direction. Finally, bond sentiment indicators are still bullish, particularly in the U.S. Treasury market. Nonetheless, we are far from frothing bond bears. We do not believe that the fixed income market has moved into a secular bear phase, and would likely shift to benchmark or even above-benchmark duration if the 10-year Treasury yield reached 2%. Yields could eventually re-test the year's lows if there is a sharp equity correction. This is a market to be traded for now. Conclusions A more upbeat view on global and, especially, U.S. growth prospects is positive for risk assets, but the adjustment process could be painful as investors come to grips with what this means for the Fed. Extremely low Treasury yields imply that the consensus has "bought into" the Secular Stagnation thesis for the U.S., or at least to the view that America will never again be able to grow above 2%. The pickup in growth we expect will arrive at a time when there is accumulating evidence of an acceleration in wages, signaling that the labor market has reached full employment. A shift in focus away from monetary and toward fiscal stimulus, both inside and outside the U.S., is also bond-bearish. The bond market appears to be ignoring these trends so far, although rising inflation expectations suggest that we may be at the edge of a change in market expectations for growth, inflation and the Fed outlook. A significant shift up in the dollar would limit the bond market selloff, and it would be positive for the major economies outside of the U.S. Nonetheless, a 10% dollar appreciation would carry its own risks, including a hit to the U.S. profit outlook. On its own, dollar strength would not prevent the S&P 500 from rising, but there is a non-trivial risk that it wreaks havoc in the EM and commodity space for a time, reverberating back into developed markets. The bottom line is that investors should remain focused on capital preservation, with no more than an overall benchmark weighting in equities with a bias toward defensive sectors. Within bond portfolios, keep duration on the short side and favor high-quality spread product to government bonds in the major countries. High-yield bonds would benefit from stronger-than-expected economic growth in the U.S., but value is poor and balance sheets are deteriorating; the risk/reward balance is unattractive. European investment-grade bonds issued by domestic issuers are more attractive than the U.S. market because of improving balance sheet health. Favor real-return bonds to conventional issues in the major countries and add exposure to floating-rate notes. Our dollar view means that base metals should be avoided, despite the fact that we expect that China will be able to stabilize growth at around 6-7%. Oil should be able to hold up in the face of dollar strength given that we expect a tightening oil supply/demand backdrop. Both gold and silver would weaken if the dollar continues to appreciate and real bond yields rise in the near term. Nonetheless, rising inflation should overwhelm these negatives in the medium term. This implies that precious metals deserve a strategic place in investors' portfolios, although the near-term could be rough. Finally, we have received many questions on the risks posed by mushrooming U.S. student debt. This month's Special Report, beginning on page 19, takes an in-depth look. We conclude that student debt is a modest economic drag, but is not a source of risk to the government's finances and does not represent the next "subprime" crisis. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst October 27, 2016 Next Report: November 24, 2016 1 Please see The Bank Credit Analyst, "Herding Cats at the Fed," October 2016, available at bca.bcaresearch.com II. Student Loan Blues: Can't Repay What I Borrowed Incentives ingrained in the U.S. higher-education system have contributed to an alarming escalation in student debt over the last 15 years. About 43 million Americans owe a total of almost $1.2 trillion for their education, making student loans the second largest category of consumer debt next to mortgages. Some are comparing this trend to the housing subprime crisis, arguing that student debt is a major drag on growth at a minimum, and the source of another financial crisis at worst. Delinquency rates have surged and the 5-year cumulative default rate on student debt has reached almost 30%. Thankfully for the taxpayer, the recovery rate on defaulted student loans is extremely high, at around 80%. Sticker prices at most institutions have mushroomed, although few students pay the full fare. Rising tuition fees only explain about half of the surge in student debt. Education still pays, although the benefits have waned versus the costs. Moreover, students with debt lag significantly those with no debt in terms of wealth accumulation and home ownership after graduation. The rise in default rates have been due to the influx of non-traditional student borrowers after 2007, who come from lower income families and have had poorer educational and employment outcomes. However, the wave of such borrowers has faded, which means that overall delinquency and default rates will decline in the coming years. Debt service payments, while onerous for many families, are not a major drag on overall real GDP growth. The increased propensity of 18-35 year-olds to live with their parents has trimmed annual real GDP growth by 0.14% per year since 2007, although student debt is only one of many underlying causes. The student loan program is at worst only a minor drain on the Federal government's coffer because of the high recovery rate. The bottom line is that student debt is a social issue, and to a lesser extent, a macro issue. But it is not a financial stability issue. Student debt is not the next subprime. "We are not doing these young people any favors by giving them loans that they cannot afford, that they cannot discharge in bankruptcy, and that could be a drag on their financial well-being even into retirement". - Sheila Bair, former FDIC chief, Bloomberg interview, September 26, 2016 Ms. Bair was one of the first to warn about the risks posed by the U.S. subprime MBS market, well before Lehman went bust. Few were listening then, but more are listening now as she sounds the alarm bell regarding student loans. About 43 million Americans owe a total of almost $1.2 trillion for their education, making student loans the second largest category of consumer debt next to mortgages (Chart II-1). Ms. Bair notes that, like the MBS market before 2007, cheap and freely available credit is fueling prices (tuition in this case). Banks handed out mortgage loans to many who could not afford them in the 2000s, just as the Department of Education (DoE) is doing today with student loans. It is difficult to assess borrowers' ability to repay student loans. Some argue that the DoE is not even trying. The trajectory of student debt is indeed alarming (Chart II-2). In inflation-adjusted terms, the total value of loans outstanding has quadrupled since 2000, representing an annual average compound rate of 9.4%. The rise reflects both an increase in the number of borrowers and more borrowing per person. Average debt/person has jumped from $17,300 in 2007 to almost $28,000 in 2015 (amounts vary across data sources). Rising debt levels occurred across the family income distribution. Chart II-1Student Debt: The Next Subprime? Chart II-2Student Loan Statistics These figures understate the true debt levels because they include only loans that are made under the federal loan program, representing 81% of the total. The remainder are private loans, mostly originated by banks. Private loans do not enjoy the same borrower protection afforded to federal loans, and carry a significantly higher interest rate (average of almost 14% in 2016, compared to federal loan rates of 3.76%). The data on private loans are sparse due to limited reporting, but a study based on 2012 data showed that the average amount of debt for students with private loans was almost $40,000 at that time.1 Sticker Shock It is easy to blame rising tuition fees given soaring "sticker prices" at most institutions. The average posted fee for tuition and room & board has increased by 30% in inflation-adjusted terms since 2007 at public universities, and by 23% at private non-profit institutions (Charts II-3A & II-3B). However, due to grants, tuition discounts and tax credits for education, only a small fraction of students pay the posted rate. For the 2015/16 school year, the net price that the average student paid at a private non-profit institution was $26,400, far less than the almost $44,000 sticker price. Chart II-3ATuition & Fees: Public Institutions Chart II-3BTuition & Fees: Private Institutions Chart II-4The Distribution Of Student Debt The Brookings Institute estimates that only about 50% of the escalation in student debt in the past two decades can be explained by rising tuition costs.2 Another quarter reflects rising educational attainment; kids are staying in school longer to get a leg up in the highly competitive workplace. The remainder of the total rise in debt was left unexplained in the study. Other possible contributing factors include policy changes that expanded eligibility for federal loans programs, and the housing bust that made it more difficult for families to borrow against the value of their homes for education purposes. There was also a change in the background characteristics of borrowers after the Great Financial Crisis (see below). The share of students suffering with an extraordinary amount of debt is growing, although they still represent a small portion of the total for federal loans (Chart II-4). Five percent of student debtors owe more than $100,000 each, up from 2% in 2007. Another 10% hold between $50,000 and $100,000. About two-thirds of student borrowers owe less than $25,000. A Student Debt Crisis? Another Brookings paper provides estimates for the debt service burden associated with federal student loans. The burden is calculated as the median debt service payment divided by median earnings of employed borrowers for two years after entering the repayment period (Chart II-5).3 This ratio rose from about 4½% in 2004 to 7.1% in 2013. Unfortunately, more recent data are not available. The average interest rate on the outstanding loans has moderated since 2011, although not nearly as quickly as the drop in market interest rates.4 Nonetheless, the continued escalation in the stock of debt per person in recent years means that the debt service-to-income ratio has likely continued to escalate since 2013, despite the moderation in the average interest rate paid. The jump in student loan delinquencies has raised red flags regarding the number of borrowers in financial distress, feeding concerns that a student loan debt crisis is on the horizon. The 90-day delinquency rate for student loans has increased from about 7% in 2007 to 11% in 2012, where it has hovered ever since according to the Federal Reserve Bank of NY data (Chart II-1). However, since only about 55% of all loans are in the repayment period, the actual delinquency rate among those in repayment is almost double the official figures. Loans are considered to be in default when they are more than 270 days past due. Brookings estimates that the 5-year default rate for student loans entering the repayment period five years earlier reached 28% in 2014, up from 16% for the five-year period ending in 2007 (Chart II-6).5 Perhaps surprisingly, the default rate is still far below the peak rate of more than 40% in the late 1990s. Chart II-5Debt Service Burden Is Rising Chart II-6Defaults Are Rising Thankfully for the taxpayer, the recovery rate on defaulted student loans is extremely high, at around 80%.6 This is because borrowers are not able to discharge federal student debts during bankruptcy. Congress has passed legislation making it very difficult for borrowers to avoid repaying. The DoE has the authority to use a number of extraordinary collection means. These include garnishing a portion of borrower's wages or seizing any payment a borrower may receive from the federal government. Education Still Pays, But Not For Everyone Chart II-7Debt And Wages For 20-40 Year Olds The good news is that education still pays for the average or median borrower. Chart II-7 shows that, while the average amount of student loans has escalated, it is still well below the average wage for those borrowers in the 20 to 40-year age group.7 The gap between wages and debt has narrowed over the past 15 years, but the increase in lifetime earnings potential still far exceeds the rise in accumulated debt for the average or median student. Of course, student loans have not paid off for everyone. News reports have highlighted plenty of examples of students that have graduated with crushing debt burdens and poor job prospects. Nonetheless, the Brookings study found that, for the vast majority, "the increase in borrowing would be made up for relatively early in the career of a worker with mean earnings".8 The Digest of Education Statistics show that, in 2013, the median annual earnings for full-time workers with a Bachelor's degree in the 25 to 34 age group was $48,530, compared with $30,000 for workers with just a high-school diploma. The bad news is that it is taking much longer to repay these debts. The mean term of repayment has increased from 7½% in 1992 to about 13½ years in 2010.9 Extended repayment and income-driven repayment plans can increase the loan term to 20, 25 or even 30 years. In some cases, borrowers will still be paying for their education when their children enter college!10 There is also evidence that the debt burden is causing some young adults to delay marriage and live with their parents for longer than they otherwise would. More Debt And Less Wealth Young student debtors also lag significantly relative to their peers in terms of wealth accumulation. A Pew Research Center study found that households headed by a young, college-educated adult without any student debt obligations have about seven times the typical net worth ($64,700) of households headed by a young, college-educated adult with student debt ($8,700; Chart II-8).11 Net worth is lower for those with student loans not just because their overall debt levels are higher; the value of their assets trailed as well. This gap is despite the fact that those households with a degree had almost double the annual income of those in the study that did not. Even comparing only households headed by young adults that did not attain a degree, accumulated wealth for those with student debt fell far short of those who avoided debt. One explanation is that money being absorbed by student debt repayment is unavailable to accumulate assets. A Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) of Boston study12 estimated that a 10% increase in student loan debt per household is associated with a 0.9% decline in the value of total wealth. Student loan burdens also mean that households end up relying more on other types of debt, such as auto loans and credit cards, according to the Pew study. Chart II-8Higher Debt, Lower Wealth... Table II-1...And Lower Homeownership Student debtors are also less likely to own a home after 2009 (Table II-1). Before 2009, the FRB of Boston study found that 30-year olds with a history of student loans had a higher homeownership rate than those without student debt. This makes sense because the boost to household income from obtaining more education should make it easier to quality for a mortgage. However, the relationship between student debt and homeownership switched after the Great Recession. The economy-wide homeownership rate has fallen sharply since home prices peaked in 2006, but the drop was more severe for those with student loans. This is probably due to the erosion in future income expectations following the recession for those with student debt, as well as more limited access to additional credit based on these individuals' existing debt loads (i.e. lower credit scores). Alternatively, student debtors may simply be reluctant to add to their overall leverage in light of the more uncertain economic outlook. A Fed study estimated that every 10% increase in student debt per person now results in a 1 percentage point drop in the homeownership rate for the first five years after graduation.13 Non-Traditional Borrowers Led The Surge In Delinquencies... While student debt burdens are unlikely to ameliorate anytime soon, the default rate should moderate in the coming years. Brookings (2015) conducted a detailed assessment of the characteristics of student loan borrowers and how they changed after 2007, by matching administrative data on federal student borrowers with earnings data from tax records. The study split the sample into "traditional" and "non-traditional" borrowers. Traditional borrowers are defined to be those attending 4-year public and private institutions because they tend to be typical in nature; they start college in their late teens, soon after completing high school, are dependent on their parents for aid purposes, pursue 4-year degrees and, frequently, head on to graduate study. This group historically represented the majority of federal borrowers and loan amounts. Non-traditional borrowers historically made up only a small portion of the total. These are defined to be those borrowing for 2-year programs (primarily community college) or to attend for-profit schools. The study found that non-traditional borrowers have largely come from lower-income families, tended to be older (i.e. not supported by parents), attended institutions with relatively low completion rates and faced poor labor market outcomes after leaving school (Chart II-9). Lower median wages and higher rates of unemployment meant that non-traditional borrowers tended to default on their student loans at a higher rate than traditional students. Student borrowing is counter cyclical; it tends to accelerate during recessions as unfavorable labor market conditions encourage people to return to school or to stay in school longer. The flow of new borrowers accelerated particularly sharply during the Great Recession, as intense pressure on State budgets led to cuts in scholarships by public institutions. Access to alternative credit markets was also curtailed during and after the Great Financial Crisis. Chart II-9Non-Traditional Students Had Poor Labor Market Experience Chart II-10Surge In Non-Traditional ##br##Borrowers After 2007 Student loan inflows (i.e. the number of new borrowers) and outflows (the number paying off loans) are shown in Chart II-10. Inflows trended higher from 2000 to 2007, while outflows were fairly flat, leading to an upward trend in the net inflows. Inflows subsequently surged during the recession, reaching a peak in 2010. The jump in new borrowers was concentrated among non-traditional students. The number of non-traditional borrowers grew to represent almost half of all new borrowers soon after the recession. The wave of students who had begun to borrow during the recession entered the repayment period in increasingly large numbers from 2011 to 2014. The early years of repayment are the most precarious because debtors are just starting their careers and their earnings are the most variable. The rise in the share of non-traditional borrowers largely explains the surge in the overall default rate since 2011. In contrast, the majority of traditional borrowers have experienced strong labor market outcomes and relatively low rates of default. Of all the students who left school, started to repay federal loans in 2011, and had fallen into default by 2013, about 70% were non-traditional borrowers. ...But The Worst Is Over The situation has since begun to reverse. Inflows and the net change in the number of borrowers has declined since 2012, particularly at 2-year and for-profit institutions. The moderation of the pace of inflows, the change in the composition of borrowers (less non-traditional), and efforts by the DoE to expand the use of income-based repayment programs will put downward pressure on delinquency and default rates in the coming years. Economic Impact Of Student Debt There are several channels through which rising student debt can affect overall economic growth. Spending by households with student debt will be curtailed both by the need to service the loans and by the fact that these households have lower levels of net worth. They are also less likely to own a home or form a small business. (1)Debt Service Burden And The Wealth Effect Table II-2 presents estimates of the value of aggregate debt service payments as a percent of GDP. This is based on the median debt service-to-earnings estimates from the Brookings Institute and median income for households where the head is less than 35 years of age in the Survey of Consumer Finances. If we assume that every dollar paid to service student loans is a dollar not spent on goods and services, then Table II-2 implies that the resulting drag on the level of real GDP has doubled from 0.17% of GDP in 2004 to 0.34% in 2013 (latest year available). However, it is the increase over time that matters for GDP growth, not the level. The rise of 0.17% was spread over nine years, suggesting that the drag on GDP growth was minimal. Moreover, this represents an overestimate of the actual drag, because households with student debt have leaned more heavily on other types of debt in an attempt to maintain their living standards. Table II-2The Debt Service Drag On GDP Lower levels of asset accumulation and net worth will also undermine consumer spending. However, we believe that accounting for both the "wealth effect" and the debt-service effect on GDP would be double counting. Chart II-11Spending On Education ##br##Not A Growth Driver Education spending also provides a possible offset to the negative impact of debt service on GDP growth. However, in terms of household spending on education, in inflation-adjusted terms there has been virtually no growth in consumer spending on higher education over the past 15 years despite all the extra spending in nominal dollars (Chart II-11). Data on government spending specifically on higher education is not available, but spending on all levels of education including primary and secondary schools has declined as a fraction of real GDP since the early 2000's. The implication is that total spending on higher education by households and governments has not provided any offset to the drag on GDP growth from student debt since 2007. (2)Housing Market Earlier, we cited Fed estimates that every 10% increase in student debt per person results in a 1 percentage point drop in the homeownership rate for the first five years after graduation. The economy-wide homeownership rate has fallen by 5.5 percentage points since the beginning of 2007, reaching 62.9% in the second quarter of 2016. We estimate that rising student indebtedness could account for as much as 1½ percentage points of the total 5½ percentage point drop. This is based on the Fed's estimates, the rise in the share of student loan borrowers among the total number of households and the increase in student debt-per-person. Again, this estimate likely overstates the impact because we are implicitly assuming that every new student borrower since 2007 ultimately forms a new household upon graduation. Undoubtedly, a portion of student borrowers formed a household with other student borrowers. Even if this estimate is close to the truth, it is not clear that there is a large impact on GDP growth. The formation of new households will result in an expansion in the housing stock one-for-one (assuming no change in inventories). Whether they decide to rent or buy, this will boost the residential investment portion of GDP. Buying a home or condo often results in home renovation and purchases of new furnishings, thus providing the economy with a larger boost compared to new households that rent. Nonetheless, the difference is difficult to estimate and is probably small enough to ignore. Another way to approach the issue is to gauge the impact on the housing market of the greater propensity of 18-35 year olds to live with their parents. Those living at home jumped from 19.2 million in 2007 to 23.0 million in 2015. The proportion of those living at home of the total population of 18-35 year olds rose from 28% to 32%. If the ratio had not increased over the period, it would have resulted in an extra 2½ million young people leaving home. If we assume that one-quarter of them move in with someone else who is also leaving home, then it would result in an increase in the housing stock of more than 1.8 million units since 2007 (condos or single family homes). We estimate that the resulting boost to residential construction growth would have added an average 0.14 percentage points to real GDP growth each year since 2007. Of course, it is not clear how much of the "living at home" trend is due to student loans as opposed to low earnings or poor job prospects. This estimate thus overstates the direct impact of student loans on the housing market. Nonetheless, it is instructive that the living-at-home phenomenon has been a non-trivial drag on economic growth via new home construction. (3) New Business Creation Academic research has also linked rising student indebtedness to a slower pace of new business creation. Research by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia points out that approximately 60% of new jobs in the private sector are created by small business.14 The U.S. Small Business Administration states that small firms receive approximately three-quarters of their capital needs in the form of loans, credit cards and lines of credit, which often have a personal liability attached. Having student loans reduces one's debt capacity and thus the ability to obtain small business loans. The Fed study compared student loan data and new business formation across U.S. counties. The Fed estimates that an increase of one standard deviation in student debt results in a decrease of 70 in the annual pace of new small business creation, representing a decline of approximately 14½%. Chart II-12 shows the inverse correlation between student debt and new business formation across U.S. states. Chart II-12Student Debt Hinders Small Business Creation The impact of a slower pace of new business creation on overall economic growth is unclear. A student that does not create a new business for whatever reason will likely end up working for an already existing company that is growing, expanding the supply side of the economy anyway. True, small businesses create a lot of jobs, but they lose a lot too because the failure rate for these firms is high in the early years. Some claim that the less vibrant new business environment since 2007 reflects a less dynamic economy, helping to explain the dismal productivity record since that time. However, this flies in the face of the fact that the small business sector is less productive overall than large businesses. Chart II-13 demonstrates that there is a rough correlation between the new firm creation rate and real GDP growth per capita at the state level. However, it is not clear which one is driving the other. Our sense is that, while a less vibrant new business backdrop likely contributed to the poor post-Lehman economic record, it is far from the major driving factor. Chart II-13GDP Growth And Small Business Creation: Which One Is The Driver? (4) The Federal Budget Could the surge in delinquency rates wind up costing the taxpayer a bundle? Eighty percent of all student loans are either made directly by or are backed by the federal government, generating a potentially large contingent liability. Fortunately for the taxpayer, the recovery rate on student loans is extremely high. Moreover, the Federal government makes money on the spread between the student loan rate and the rate at which it finances these loans (Treasury yields). Congress sets the loan rates and they are kept well above Treasury yields. Under Congressional accounting rules, the cost of a student loan is recorded in the federal budget during the year the loan is disbursed, taking into account the amount of the loan, expected payments to the government over the life of the loan, and other cash flows, all discounted to the present value using interest rates on U.S. Treasury securities. By this accounting rule, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Federal government will make a net profit of almost $200 billion over the 2013-2023 period.15 However, a more reasonable "fair value" accounting method, which includes the costs of collection and other items, shows that the student loan program will cost the taxpayer roughly $100 billion over the same period. Either way, the bottom line is that the student loan program is at worst only a minor drain on the Federal government's coffer. Delinquency and default rates are likely to moderate in the coming years. But even if default rates were to surge to new highs for some reason, the recovery rate is so elevated that the impact on the Federal budget balance would be lost in the rounding. Conclusion It seems clear that incentives ingrained in the U.S. higher-education system have contributed to an alarming escalation in student debt over the last 15 years. There has been a vicious circle in which increased federal loan limits supported institutions' ability to raise tuition fees, resulting in a greater need for federal loans. Some for-profit institutions have been criticized for offering shoddy education, for graduating too many students in disciplines for which job prospects are poor, and for encouraging students to load up on high-cost debt. The U.S. spends almost 80% more per pupil on higher education than the OECD average, and yet some argue that this has not resulted in better educational outcomes. The social impact of student leveraging is clearly negative. The benefits of education have narrowed relative to the costs. Financial stress has increased along with debt service burdens, especially for non-traditional borrowers, and repayment periods have been extended to an average of over 13 years. These trends have caused young people to delay marriage and home purchases. This is a serious political and social issue that needs to be addressed. That said, we do not agree with Ms. Bair that student debt is the next "subprime" crisis. Delinquency and default rates are likely to fall in the coming years. These loans have not been packaged into opaque financial instruments and distributed throughout the investment world. The vast majority of the loans are federally backed and the recovery rate is very high. Even if there is a wave of mass defaults, the federal deficit might rise slightly but there is no channel through which the shock can propagate through the financial system. The bottom line is that student debt is a social issue, and to a lesser extent, a macro issue. But it is not a financial stability issue. Mark McClellan Senior Vice President The Bank Credit Analyst 1 "Student Debt and the Class of 2015," Annual Report of the Institute for College Access & Success, October 2016. 2 Beth Akers and Matthew Chingos, "Is a Student Loan Crisis on the Horizon?" Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings, June 2014. 3 Adam Looney and Constantine Yannelis, "A Crisis in Student Loans? How Changes in the Characteristics of Borrowers and in the Institutions They Attended Contributed to Rising Loan Defaults," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Fall 2015. 4 Most federal student loans are at a fixed rate set by Congress. 5 Brookings (2015). 6 http://www.edcentral.org/edcyclopedia/federal-student-loan-default-rate… 7 The data are only available to 2010, but we have estimated figures to 2013. 8 Brookings (2014). 9 Brookings (2014). 10 Student loans generally have a 10-year term, but loans consolidated with the federal government are eligible for extended repayment terms based on the outstanding balance, with larger debts eligible for longer repayment terms. 11 "Young Adults, Student Debt and Economic Well-Being," Pew Research Center, May 14, 2014. 12 Daniel Cooper and J.Christina Wang, "Student Loan Debt and Economic Outcomes," Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, October 2014. 13 Alvaro Mezza, Daniel Ringo, Shane Sherlund and Kamila Sommer, "On the Effect of Student Loans on Access to Homeownership," Finance and Economic Discussion Series of the Federal Reserve Board. 2016-2010. 14 Brent Ambrose, Larry Cordell, and Shuwei Ma, "The Impact of Student Loan Debt on Small Business Formation," Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Working Paper, July 2015. III. Indicators And Reference Charts Equity markets ended the month slightly lower as investors come to grips with the economic and profit implications of the pending Fed rate hike and Brexit. While TINA is still in play, caution abounds, as highlighted by waning investor sentiment and continued weakness in our Equity Technical indictor. Rising bond yields and a stronger dollar contributed to a weakening in our Monetary Indictor, trends that no doubt contributed to the overall diminished appetite for risk over the month. Our Equity Valuation Indicators have improved somewhat, but still remain in overvalued territory. Net earnings revisions have become constructive and positive earnings surprises increasingly outpaced negative ones. Despite this, we would need to see a close to 10% price depreciation for U.S. equities to appear attractive, as outlined in Section 1. Our Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) indicators continue to send a positive message for stock markets. 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. Investors often say they are bullish but remain conservative in their asset allocation. At the moment, the low levels of the WTP indicators suggest that flows have been stronger into bonds than into stocks. From a contrary perspective, this means that there is "dry powder" available if investors decide to move more aggressively into equity markets. The U.S. and Eurozone indicators appear to have bottomed out last month and continue their ascent. This should be bullish for both U.S. and Eurozone equities. The U.S. dollar notched a strong month with a gain of more than 3%. This has tightened financial conditions as can be seen in the decline of our Financial Conditions Index. The deviation from its 12-month moving average is even more pronounced, turning negative after several months of treading water in "easing" territory. Our Dollar Composite Technical indicator displayed a violent move higher, but has yet to breach a level consistent with previous episodes of overextension; the USD can rally further. The yen is showing signs of entering an extended period of depreciation. Net speculative positions are extremely elevated and the 40-week rate of change appears to have formed a trough, rebounding from all-time lows. In a similar vein, the euro is also displaying weakness as its 40-week rate of change is crossing into negative territory. As outlined in Section 1, we expect a 10% appreciation in the U.S. dollar, a 10% depreciation in the yen and a 5% depreciation of the euro in trade-weighted terms. The commodity complex ended the month flat, with a more robust global growth backdrop offsetting the negative impact of a strong U.S. dollar and higher rates. While the advance/decline line ticked up, a positive sign for a potential broad-based gain across currencies, gold had a less than stellar month. The outsized impact of financial variables (U.S. dollar strength and higher real rates) on the yellow metal led to a more than 5% price decline. Our Commodity Composite Technical Indicator surged deeper into overbought territory, indicating that it might be time to take some risk off the table. The balance of risks for commodities excluding oil is to the downside. As mentioned in Section 1, an appreciating U.S. dollar and elevated yields will eventually feed through to weakness in the space. EQUITIES: Chart III-1U.S. Equity Indicators Chart III-2Willingness To Pay For Risk Chart III-3U.S. Equity Sentiment Indicators Chart III-4U.S. Stock Market Valuation Chart III-5U.S. Earnings Chart III-6Global Stock Market ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance Chart III-7Global Stock Market ##br##And Earnings: Relative Performance FIXED INCOME: Chart III-8U.S. Treasurys And Valuations Chart III-9U.S. Treasury Indicators Chart III-10Selected U.S. Bond Yields Chart III-1110-Year Treasury Yield ComponentsChart III-12U.S. Corporate Bonds And Health Monitor Chart III-13Global Bonds: Developed Markets Chart III-14Global Bonds: Emerging Markets CURRENCIES: Chart III-15U.S. Dollar And PPP Chart III-16U.S. Dollar And Indicator Chart III-17U.S. Dollar Fundamentals Chart III-18Japanese Yen TechnicalsChart III-19Euro Technicals Chart III-20Euro/Yen Technicals Chart III-21Euro/Pound Technicals COMMODITIES: Chart III-22Broad Commodity Indicators Chart III-23Commodity Prices Chart III-24Commodity Prices Chart III-25Commodity Sentiment Chart III-26Speculative Positioning ECONOMY: Chart III-27U.S. And Global Macro Backdrop Chart III-28U.S. Macro Snapshot Chart III-29U.S. Growth Outlook Chart III-30U.S. Cyclical Spending Chart III-31U.S. Labor Market Chart III-32U.S. Consumption Chart III-33U.S. Housing Chart III-34U.S. Debt And Deleveraging Chart III-35U.S. Financial Conditions Chart III-36Global Economic Snapshot: Europe Chart III-37Global Economic Snapshot: China