Emerging Markets
NOTE: There will be a few minor scheduling changes to BCA's China Investment Strategy service in July. We will publishing next week's report and the report scheduled on July 25 one day late, on Thursday, July 5 and 26, respectively. There will also be no report on Wednesday, July 18 due to our regular summer break. Highlights In response to the sharp spike in the risk of a full-blown U.S./China trade war, many market participants have concluded that significant fiscal and/or monetary policy stimulus is forthcoming. But for now, a depreciation in the RMB is the only clear and significant policy response to the imposition of U.S. import tariffs that we can currently observe, and we would still classify it as just a remedial measure. While a falling RMB will improve the financial position of China's exporters, it also increases the risk that the U.S. will follow through with the worst of their threats. Despite two conceivable upside scenarios for the equity market, we recommend a neutral stance towards Chinese stocks within a global equity portfolio and currently view the risks as largely to the downside. We are closing our long China / short Taiwan trade for a considerable profit, and recommend that investors go long low-beta sectors within the MSCI China index. Feature Chart 1A Decisive Technical Breakdown In ##br##Ex-Tech Stocks Vs Global In a Special Alert last week, we recommended that investors downgrade Chinese ex-tech stocks versus their global peers to neutral from overweight,1 after having placed them on downgrade watch at the end of March.2 Our recommendation was made in response to the ongoing slowdown in China's industrial sector, a significant escalation in the imposition of import tariffs between the U.S. and China, and an unfavorable shift in the risk/reward balance of global risky asset prices.3 It was also timely, as Chinese ex-tech stock prices have now decisively broken below their 200-day moving average (Chart 1). Following our shift in stance, the question facing BCA's China team, as well as global investors, is straightforward: Now what? Stimulus Watch The answer to this question among many market participants is that fiscal and/or monetary policy stimulus is forthcoming. We have no doubt that China will announce some remedial or compensatory measures in response to protectionist action from the U.S. Indeed, recent statements from the Ministry of Finance (MOF) suggest that planned fiscal spending for the year will be accelerated/brought forward, and the PBOC has already made a targeted cut to the reserve requirement ratio and reduced the relending rate for small company loans. However, we have argued that the bar for a fresh round of material stimulus is higher today than it was in the past, and we continue to hold this view. Elevated debt levels, excess capacity in some parts of the industrial sector, and worries about pollution all limit the extent to which the authorities can respond with the usual barrage of infrastructure spending and increased bank lending. The economy likely needs to feel more pain before policymakers come to its aid with enough magnitude to potentially spark another upswing in economic activity. Below we outline a few perspectives on the potential for stimulus, and how investors can gauge whether policymakers are deploying enough stimulus to materially impact China's economic outlook: Fiscal Stimulus The MOF's statement reflects the first fiscal policy action that China would likely take to combat any economic weakness, which is to speed up spending that has already been approved but was planned to occur later in the year. But from the perspective of whether a policy action is likely to materially boost economic activity, frontloading pre-approved spending would qualify, at best, as a remedial measure. In our view, tracking China's budgetary government finance data represents the best method for investors to determine whether policymakers are truly stimulating via the fiscal channel. While it is true that China's shadow budget deficit is much larger than the official data show (Chart 2), there is a crucial aspect of China's recent mini-cycle that is not well understood by many investors: almost all of the expansion of China's fiscal stance from 2014-16 was from on-budget rather than off-budget spending. Given that China has been trying to limit off-budget spending as part of its structural reform program, our sense is that this time won't be different if China decides that significant fiscal stimulus is required. This is good news for investors, given that on-budget spending is easier to observe in real-time, and Chart 3 presents two simple measures that we are using to monitor China's fiscal stance, alongside their year-over-year changes: on-budget expenditure and the on-budget balance, both as a % of GDP. Based on these measures there are no signs yet that the fiscal stance is easing (in fact, the opposite has occurred over the past year), but we will watching Chart 3 closely over the coming months for any indication of a change. Chart 2China's Shadow Budget Deficit Is Large... Chart 3...But If China Stimulates It Will Likely Be On-Budget Monetary Stimulus In our judgement, the recent cut to the reserve requirement ratio is not likely to be effective at stimulating the domestic economy. Investors should note that the initial reaction of many market participants to the April 17 reserve requirement ratio cut of 1% was that it represented a shift in the PBOC's policy stance towards easing, which ultimately proved to be a false narrative. Chart 4 shows China's 3-month interbank repo rate (China's de-facto policy rate which leads average lending rates), and highlights the timing of two specific events: March 28, when news broke that the PBOC would extend the deadline for the implementation of new regulatory standards for asset management products, and April 17, when the PBOC announced its targeted reserve requirement ratio cut. The chart makes it clear that the decline in the repo rate was in response to the deadline extension rather than the repo rate cut. This is entirely consistent with the findings of our February 22 Special Report,4 particularly the fact that 75% of the monetary tightening that has occurred since late-2016 has been regulatory in nature. We have previously argued that the dip in the repo rate in response to the deadline extension would probably be temporary,5 and Chart 4 shows that the rate has indeed increased over that past two months. In short, there is no evidence that the April 17 reserve ratio cut had any measurable effect on the stance of monetary policy in China. Given this, there are two key points for investors. The first is that small cuts to the reserve requirement ratio should be viewed, at best, as remedial measures that may help blunt the impact of shock to the export sector, but they are unlikely to alter the downward trajectory of the "old economy" (the portion of China's economy that is most relevant to global investors). The second is that if cuts to the reserve requirement ratio or any other monetary policy action stimulates the provision of credit via easier lending standards (rather than by reducing the cost of borrowing), their effect should result in a pickup in broad measures of credit growth rather than a reduction in interest rates. Chart 5 highlights that, for now, no such pickup has occurred; adjusted total social financing, which excludes equity issuance but includes municipal bonds, remains in a downtrend. This series, along with its impulse equivalent, are both included in the BCA Li Keqiang Leading Indicator which is at the core of our efforts to monitor the cyclical condition of China's business cycle. Chart 4No Evidence That April RRR Cut Eased Interest Rates Chart 5No Evidence That April RRR Cut Eased Lending Standards The Exchange Rate BCA's Geopolitical Strategy team has recently argued that China is likely to retaliate to a potential tariff imposition by weakening CNY/USD. This would have the effect of improving the competitiveness of exports priced in RMB, or would bolster the revenue of exporters selling goods priced in U.S. dollars (by way of receiving more RMB after converting the dollars received). Evidence has emerged over the past week to suggest that the PBOC is indeed allowing China's currency to depreciate against the U.S. dollar. Chart 6 shows the actual CNY/USD exchange rate alongside the value that would be predicted based on its relationship with the dollar over the year prior to its early-April peak. The chart suggests that the decline in CNY/USD appears to have, until very recently, reflected the strength in the U.S. dollar. However, the chart shows that CNY/USD has fallen over the past few days by magnitude in excess of what would be expected given movements in the U.S. dollar, implying that the very recent weakness is likely policy-driven. Chart 6The PBOC Is Letting CNY/USD Depreciate We agree that depreciating the currency versus the U.S. dollar will improve the financial condition of domestic exporters, but we would also caution investors against looking at a deep depreciation in CNY/USD in an encouraging light. We have noted in previous reports that such a development would be a clear sign of an outright, full-scale trade war between the U.S. and China, and in this context currency deprecation should still be classified as just a remedial measure (i.e. it is unlikely to lead to a renewed upswing in Chinese economic activity). Bottom Line: A depreciation in the RMB is the only clear and significant policy response to the imposition of U.S. import tariffs that we can currently observe, and we would still classify it as just a remedial measure. While a falling RMB will improve the financial position of China's exporters, it may also invite even further protectionist action from the U.S. Investment Recommendations Our recommendation to cut Chinese ex-tech stocks to neutral means that investors should be looking both for upside and downside risks when judging when to make their next allocation shift. For now, our discussion above underscores that we view the risks largely to the downside. The scenario that would cause us to further downgrade Chinese stocks to underweight within a global equity portfolio is not difficult to imagine: the worst outcome in the U.S. / China trade dispute materializes, the global economy slows meaningfully, and the inertia from the ongoing structural reform program causes Chinese policymakers to limit their stimulus to compensatory, remedial measures until a painful slowdown emerges in the domestic economy. We are not yet past the "point of no return" on the way to this outcome, but the events of the past two weeks have clearly moved us further along the path. Conversely, there are two scenarios that we can envision that could cause us to upgrade Chinese stocks back to overweight: Chart 7Keep Monitoring Floor Space Sold A protectionist exchange occurs between China and the U.S. but fails to devolve to the most damaging outcome. China's remedial measures are successful at easing the pain from tariffs on domestic producers, and the economic outlook stabilizes. In this scenario the most acute risk would be removed, but the gradual underlying downtrend in China's "old economy" would be intact. In this case we would be more comfortable upgrading Chinese stocks if there was an additional reflationary tailwind, such as a boost from fiscal spending or some reversal of the monetary tightening that has occurred since late-2016. But a significant, exogenous acceleration in economic activity from some other sector of China's economy would also fit the bill, and we have argued in past reports that housing appears to be the best candidate. Chart 7 highlights that residential sales volume may now be in a gradual uptrend, which could translate into stronger construction in the months ahead. The second scenario that would cause us to upgrade Chinese stocks is straightforward: Chinese policymakers determine that the risks to growth from an export shock are unacceptably large given the existing slowdown in the industrial sector, and decide to temporarily reverse course on the structural reform path by opting for "big bang" fiscal and/or monetary stimulus. A significant and highly investment-relevant mini-cycle upswing occurred in China the last time that the authorities strongly prioritized growth, and we will watching closely for real indications of a shift in attitude in this direction. For now our judgement is that policymakers have a higher pain threshold than in the past, suggesting that this is outcome is not yet probable. Related to our decision to downgrade Chinese ex-tech stocks to neutral within a global equity portfolio, we have three updates to our trade book: We are closing our long MSCI China / short MSCI Taiwan position and upgrading our Taiwanese cyclical stance to neutral: Despite being massively overweight technology stocks, Chart 8 highlights that Taiwan is a comparatively low-beta equity market versus China. Our trade has generated a 21% return since we initiated it in February 2017, and we believe it is time to book profits. Given Taiwan's small size it is actually possible that its economy and/or equity market will suffer disproportionately if the worst U.S. / China trade outcome materializes, which could cause us to revisit the trade. But for now our judgement is that a neutral position is warranted. We are sticking with our long China onshore corporate bond trade: We would certainly expect credit spreads on Chinese corporate bonds to flare in response to a deteriorating economic outlook, but we highlighted in our June 13 Weekly Report how high the bar is for investors to lose money on these bonds.6 In short, China's corporate bond market already offers a margin of safety given its high yield and a comparatively short duration, and we do not see recent developments on the trade front as a sufficiently compelling reason to exit the trade. We are initiating a new trade - within the MSCI China index, long low-beta sectors / short benchmark: Chart 9 presents the relative US$ stock price return of a portfolio of low-beta level 1 GICS sectors within the MSCI China index, relative to the index itself. Our methodology in calculating the portfolio is the same as that employed in the A-share factor analysis that we presented in our June 13 report; namely it is a value-weighted portfolio of sectors with below-median rolling 1-year market beta.7 The chart shows that the portfolio has outperformed over time, but sold off quite substantially last year as the high-flying tech sector boosted the performance of the overall index. The relative performance trend for low-beta has recently strengthened and crossed above its 200-day moving average, which we regard as a supportive technical signal to initiate the trade. Chart 8Taiwan's Equity Market Is Low Beta Vs China's Chart 9Go Long Low-Beta Sectors Vs The Broad Market Bottom Line: Despite two potential upside scenarios, we recommend a neutral stance towards Chinese stocks within a global equity portfolio and currently view the risks as largely to the downside. We are closing our long China / short Taiwan for a considerable profit, and recommend that investors go long low-beta sectors within the MSCI China index. Jonathan LaBerge, CFA, Vice President Special Reports jonathanl@bcaresearch.com 1 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Alert "Downgrade Chinese Stocks To Neutral", dated June 20, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see China Investment Strategy Special Report, "Chinese Stocks: Trade Frictions Make For A Tenuous Overweight," dated March 28, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Pease see Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global Equities To Neutral", dated June 19, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 4 Pease see China Investment Strategy Special Report "Seven Questions About Chinese Monetary Policy", dated February 22, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "China: A Low-Conviction Overweight", dated May 2, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Pease see China Investment Strategy Weekly Report "A Shaky Ladder", dated June 13, 2018, available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 7 The current sector weights of the portfolio are: 26% telecom services, 24% industrials, 19% health care, 16% utilities, and 14% consumer staples. Cyclical Investment Stance Equity Sector Recommendations
NOTE: We will not be publishing a report next week. The next Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report will be published on Tuesday, July 10th. Highlights Global Corporates: The clash between monetary policy and the markets that we have been expecting to unfold in 2018 is upon us. Downgrade global spread product exposure to neutral (3 of 5) from overweight, and raise government bond exposure to neutral. Maintain a below-benchmark portfolio duration, however, as global bond yields have not yet peaked for this cycle. Country Allocation: Move to neutral on U.S. investment grade and high-yield corporates, while staying underweight (2 of 5) on euro area corporates. Downgrade emerging market hard currency sovereign and corporate debt to maximum underweight (1 of 5) - the combination of a rising dollar, Fed tightening and slower Chinese growth will remain a huge problem for emerging market assets. Feature Chart Of The Week3 Big Reasons To Downgrade Spread Product Last week, BCA as a firm moved to a less positive stance on global equities and credit, downgrading both to neutral from overweight on a cyclical (6-12 month) horizon.1 Dating back to our 2018 Outlook published at the end of last December, we had anticipated that we would be shifting to a less aggressive asset allocation sometime around mid-year.2 The expected trigger would be a move by central banks to a more restrictive policy stance that would start to impact future growth expectations. That time has come, and we are now recommending moving to a less bullish stance on global credit. Many of the tailwinds that supported the stellar performance of risk assets in 2017 - most importantly, coordinated global growth, accommodative monetary policies and a weakening U.S. dollar - have transformed into headwinds over the course of 2018 and are unlikely to reverse before risk assets suffer a setback (Chart of the week). At a minimum, there is now enough uncertainty, at a time when many asset classes are richly priced, to make the risk/reward balance for being long growth-sensitive assets like equities and corporate debt less attractive. This week, we are downgrading our recommended stance on global spread product to neutral (3 out of 5) from overweight, while upgrading our recommended allocation for government bonds to neutral from underweight. This represents an unwind of a long-standing recommendation that dates back to January 31st, 2017 when we strategically downgraded U.S. Treasury exposure and upgraded U.S. corporate debt.3 We are closing that recommendation at a relative total return gain of 2.3% for U.S. investment grade and 6.7% for U.S. high-yield over Treasuries (Chart 2). Chart 2Closing A Successful Overweight Stance ##br##On U.S. Corporates We still believe that global bond yields will remain under upward pressure from both higher inflation and a less favorable supply/demand balance for fixed income (more issuance, less central bank buying). The fact that bond yields will NOT be able to fall much to reinvigorate softening global growth - because of rising inflation at a time of diminished economic slack - is a critical reason why we are turning more cautious on global credit. Thus, we are maintaining our recommended below-benchmark overall portfolio duration stance, even as we upgrade our government bond allocation to neutral. We recommend placing the proceeds of a reduction of global corporate debt exposure into shorter-maturity government bonds, which we are doing in our model bond portfolio (see page 15). At the country level, we are downgrading U.S. corporate bonds, both investment grade and high-yield, to neutral from overweight. We still are of the view that U.S. corporates are better positioned to outperform non-U.S. credit, however, even in a more challenging environment for credit returns. Thus we are keeping our recommended underweight allocations to euro area corporate debt (2 out of 5 for both investment grade and high-yield). We see a much nastier backdrop brewing for emerging markets (EM), however - a stronger dollar, higher U.S. interest rates, slowing Chinese growth, diminished global capital flows - so we are downgrading both EM hard currency sovereign and corporate debt to maximum underweight (1 out of 5). In terms of other spread product categories, we are maintaining our neutral allocation to U.S. mortgage-backed securities, while downgrading U.K. and Canadian corporate debt to underweight. For those that can invest in U.S. muni debt, we are upgrading that sector to overweight (4 out of 5). The Reasons To Cut Corporate Credit Exposure Now Global credit has not performed well in the first half of 2018, with only U.S. high-yield corporates providing a positive return year-to-date among the major markets: U.S. investment grade: -3.6% total return, -1.7% excess return over duration-matched Treasuries U.S. high-yield: +0.7% total return, +1.5% excess return Euro area investment grade: -0.3% total return, -1.1% excess return Euro area high-yield: -0.5% total return, -1.0% excess return EM USD-denominated sovereign debt: -5.5% total return, -3.6% excess return EM USD-denominated corporate debt: -2.9% total return, -1.7% excess return Chart 3The Start Of Something Big? While there have been plenty of geopolitical tensions for markets to fret over this year (U.S. trade policy, North Korea), the biggest reason for the underperformance of credit is due to the most typical of reasons - tightening global monetary policy. One way to measure the stance of monetary policy is to look at the slope of government bond yield curves. According to the Bloomberg Barclays government bond index data, the "global yield curve" - the spread between the Global Treasury index yield for the 7-10 year and 1-3 year maturity buckets - is now a mere 6bps (Chart 3). That is the flattest the global curve has been since the first quarter of 2007. That is a potentially ominous sign given that the Global Financial Crisis began brewing around the same time. The global yield curve became deeply inverted in the late 1990s, as well, which preceeded the 1998 EM crisis and, later, the global telecom bust. Fundamentally, we see four main reasons to downgrade global credit now: 1. Global growth is slowing and becoming less synchronized The first half of 2018 has seen a deceleration of global economic activity from the robust pace of 2017. This has been a broad-based cooling of activity so far, with cyclical indicators like manufacturing PMIs still well above the 50 level that suggests expanding growth in all major economies. Yet there are signs that the pullback in growth may persist throughout 2018 and into 2019. The OECD's global leading economic indicator (LEI) is rolling over and our LEI diffusion index - a leading indicator of the LEI - suggests additional weakness should be expected. This is significant for credit markets, as returns on corporate bonds are highly correlated to the swings in the global LEI (Chart 4). This is true even in the U.S., which is bucking the slowing global growth trend and where confidence is booming and domestic leading indicators are accelerating (Chart 5). Chart 4Corporate Bonds Follow The Global LEI Chart 5Upside Risks For U.S. Growth That easing of non-U.S. growth is likely rooted in the slowdown underway in China. Policymakers there have been tightening monetary conditions and acting to reign in excessive debt growth. This has resulted in a slowing of overall economic growth after the stimulus-fueled boom in 2016 that helped kick-start global growth last year through robust Chinese imports and consumption of industrial commodities. Given the sheer size of Chinese demand, the global economy will look very different when Chinese imports are growing at a 30% pace rather than the current pace below 10%. Our most reliable forward-looking indicators for Chinese growth, like our Li Keqiang leading indicator, are calling for additional cooling of Chinese economic activity in the latter half of 2018 (Chart 6). This reinforces the signal given by our global LEI diffusion index, with both indicating that additional struggles in the performance of global credit markets should be expected (based off the relationship shown in Chart 4). One additional point: the ongoing trade tensions between the Trump administration and all of the major U.S. trading partners represents an additional potential downside risk to global growth. The story is still quite fluid, as it always is with this president, but the uncertainty created by the trade frictions is definitely a negative for risk assets, at a minimum. 2. Global inflation pressures are rising, most notably in the U.S. Even with the latest dip in non-U.S. growth, the global economy is still operating with the least amount of spare capacity since the mid-2000s boom. The U.S. unemployment rate is down to 3.8%, the lowest level in eighteen years. 75% of OECD countries now have unemployment rates below the OECD's estimate of the full-employment NAIRU, with capacity utilization rates also rising. The pricing backdrop is as healthy as it has been since 2011, according to the measure of world export prices from the Netherlands-based Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis which is now growing at a 10% annual rate (Chart 7). Chart 6Downside Risks For Chinese Growth Chart 7A More Inflationary Global Backdrop, Especially In The U.S. The previous two times export prices grew that rapidly in 2008 and 2011 - two very challenging years for financial markets - global CPI inflation rates expanded rapidly, especially in the U.S. Headline CPI inflation ended up reaching peaks of 6% and 4%, respectively, during those prior two episodes. Non-U.S. inflation rates also accelerated, but not to the same degree as in the U.S. A similar dynamic is playing out in 2018, with U.S. inflation rates accelerating (both headline and core), at a faster pace than in the other major developed economies. With the U.S. labor market growing tighter each month, and with U.S. growth likely to continue expanding at an above-potential pace for the next few quarters, it is unlikely that the current upturn in U.S. inflation will slow on its own. This will ensure that the Fed will continue on its planned monetary tightening path that will soon take U.S. monetary conditions into restrictive territory - eventually weighing on U.S. growth expectations and raising concerns over future downgrade and default risks, and returns, in U.S. corporate bond markets. 3. Growth and monetary policy divergences will continue to boost the value of the U.S. dollar The divergences between growth, inflation and monetary policy in the U.S. and the rest of the world are now helping raise the value of the U.S. dollar, which had declined nearly 10% on peak-to-trough basis in 2017. The dollar has been rising in 2018, which has been weighing on EM currencies and financial markets as is typically the case during periods of dollar strength. EM economies have been rapidly accumulating dollar-denominated debt in recent years, leaving EM borrowers as highly exposed to the swings in the dollar and interest rates as they have been since the late 1990s. The current backdrop is setting itself up for a repeat of the 2015/16 period when pro-U.S. growth divergences caused the dollar to soar and triggered major selloffs in EM financial assets that spilled over into U.S. and developed market equities and credit (Chart 8). Right now, the moves have been far more modest than seen in the 2015/16 period. Since the start of 2018, the U.S. trade-weighted dollar is up 4% and EM equities are down -6% (in U.S. dollar terms), while U.S. investment grade credit spreads have risen 37bps from the February lows. This is far less than the moves seen in 2015/16, where the dollar rose 16%, EM equities sold off -34% and U.S. credit spreads widened nearly 100bps. Those moves were enough to cause the Fed to delay its rate hike plans after the initial post-QE rate hike in December 2015, triggering a significant decline in U.S. bond yields (bottom panel) and the dollar that eventually stabilized global financial markets. With the U.S. economy in a much healthier position today than two years ago, and with U.S. core inflation running close to the Fed's 2% target, it will take much larger market moves than have been seen of late before the Fed would consider taking a pause on its current 25bps-per-quarter pace of rate hikes. The mechanism for that to happen will be a stronger dollar and any associated impact on U.S. financial markets. However, it must be a very large move (as it was in 2015/16) to have enough of a negative impact on the U.S. economy, U.S. corporate profits or U.S. inflation for financial markets, and the Fed, to take notice. In Chart 9, we show the U.S. trade-weighted dollar with three different scenarios for the change in the currency to the end of 2018: flat, up 5% and up 10%. We show the dollar in level terms in the top panel, while showing the year-over-year growth rate of the dollar (on an inverted scale) in the bottom three panels. In those last three panels, we also show the potential areas where a strong dollar would impact the U.S. economy the most: net exports, corporate profit growth from earnings earned outside the U.S. (using top-down profit data) and headline inflation. Chart 82015/16 Revisited? Not Yet Chart 9A Much Stronger USD Is Needed To Impact U.S. Growth & Inflation The charts show that a 10% rise in the dollar by year-end would likely take enough of a bite out of U.S. growth and inflation for U.S. equity and credit markets to sell off and for the Fed to take a pause on its rate hike plans. A more modest 5% rise in the dollar will have a more muted impact, especially with stronger underlying U.S. growth and inflation pressures than was the case in 2015/16. That latter scenario of a more moderate rise in the dollar would be our most likely scenario - one that would prove to be challenging for U.S. credit market performance. The dollar increase would be enough to keep EM financial markets on the defensive, but would not be large enough to get Fed rate hikes out of the way and allow for a big decline in Treasury yields that would help support risk assets. A slowly rising dollar is another reason to reduce credit exposure in fixed income portfolios. 4. Central bank liquidity provision through asset purchases is slowing rapidly One of our major themes for 2018 has been that the removal of the extraordinary liquidity expansion by central banks would weigh on asset returns. This would occur through the Fed allowing maturing bonds accumulated during its QE program to begin running off its balance sheet, and through a slower pace of bond buying in the case of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the Bank of Japan (BoJ). Already, the increase in developed market bond yields, and the lowering of returns in global equities and credit, have largely followed the path laid out by our indicator of central bank liquidity provision - the annual growth in the balance sheets of the Fed, ECB, BoJ and Bank of England (Chart 10). Our central bank liquidity indicator suggests that there is still more upside for global government bond yields as central banks become less directly active in bond markets. At the same time, the diminished liquidity growth means there is less investor money to be forced out of risk-free government bonds into risky assets like corporate credit, which should help erode credit market returns on the margin. This will occur through reduced inflows into credit that are just chasing yield, and a return to more fundamental drivers of credit market valuation like growth, inflation, leverage and downgrade/default risks - all of which are now on the rise in the U.S. Bottom Line: The clash between monetary policy and the markets that we have been expecting to unfold in 2018 is upon us. Tightening monetary policies, rising bond yields, slowing global growth, widening growth divergences, increasing U.S. inflation pressures, a strengthening U.S. dollar, emerging market instability, diminished central bank liquidity, reduced global capital flows, global trade tensions - all are now creating a backdrop that is more challenging for risk assets. Downgrade global spread product exposure to neutral (3 of 5) from overweight, and raise government bond exposure to neutral. Maintain a below-benchmark portfolio duration, however, as global bond yields have not yet peaked for this cycle. Asset Allocation Decisions To Be Made So in terms of our fixed income asset allocation recommendations, but in our strategic tables on page 16 and our model bond portfolio on page 15, we are making the following changes: Downgrade U.S. Investment Grade & High-Yield Corporates To Neutral (3 out of 5) The bulk of our primary indicators for U.S. credit are at levels that are consistent with a neutral allocation (Chart 11). Our top-down Corporate Health Monitor is right at the line dividing the deteriorating health and improving health regimes (although this is only because of a cyclical improvement in some of the underlying indicators). U.S. monetary policy is close to neutral, as measured by the real fed funds rate versus the Fed's r-star estimate. The U.S. Treasury curve is very flat, although it is not yet inverted as typically precedes the end of a credit cycle. Finally, bank lending standards are only modestly in "net easing" territory according to the Fed's senior loan officer survey. Chart 10Fading Impact Of Global QE On Bond Markets Chart 11Downgrade U.S. IG & HY Corporates To Neutral With all these indicators hovering around neutral levels, a neutral allocation to U.S. corporates seems justified. Additionally, we recommend cutting across all credit tiers for both investment grade and high-yield, rather than focusing on cutting a specific tier more than another. Our preferred valuation metric - the 12-month breakeven spread relative to its history - is near the bottom quartile for all credit tiers (Charts 12 & 13) without one looking particularly more expensive than the others. Chart 12Not Much Of A Spread Cushion In U.S. Investment Grade ... Chart 13... Or U.S. High-Yield Keep Euro Area Investment Grade & High-Yield At Underweight (2 out of 5) We have maintained this strategic view based on the convergence between our top-down Corporate Health Monitors for both the U.S. and euro area. Right now, the cyclical improvement in U.S. financial metrics has come at the same time as a cyclical deterioration of euro area metrics from very healthy levels (Chart 14). The spread between the two Monitors has proven to be a good directional indicator for the relative performance between U.S. and euro area credit. That spread continues to point to additional expected outperformance by U.S. corporates, even in an overall more challenging environment for global credit markets. Throw in increased Italian political turmoil, softer euro area growth and the upcoming ECB tapering of its asset purchases - which will include corporate debt that the ECB has been buying steadily for the past three years - and the case for underweighting euro area corporates, especially versus U.S. equivalents, is a strong one. Downgrade EM Hard Currency Sovereign & Corporate Debt To Maximum Underweight (1 out of 5) We have been favoring U.S. investment grade credit over EM credit the past several months. The growth divergence between the U.S. and EM has been widening, while EM market valuations had gotten very rich. Now, EM spread widening is starting to correct that mis-valuation, although is still early in the process. The spread differential between U.S and EM credit is a good leading indicator of the relative returns between the two asset classes (Chart 15), thus last year's EM outperformance is leading to this year's underperformance. Chart 14Stay Underweight Euro Area Corporates Chart 15Move To Maximum Underweight EM Credit We wish to maintain the same "two notch" gap between our recommended level of U.S. and EM credit exposure, so by downgrading U.S. corporates to neutral (3 of 5), we must downgrade EM corporates to maximum underweight (1 of 5). All of the above changes will be reflected in our model bond portfolio on page 15. One final point - we should lay out the case for out next move from here. If the Fed tightening cycle goes as we envision it will, with U.S. growth staying strong and inflation expectations rising back to levels consistent with the Fed's inflation target, then we expect the next move will be to downgrade U.S. corporates to underweight. However, if there is enough of a market setback to cause the Fed to delay its rate hike cycle, as was the case in 2016, then we may consider moving back to overweight U.S. corporates on a tactical basis. We suspect, however, that the moves today are the beginning of the end game for the current credit cycle - the negatives for corporates are now outweighing the positives, and that gap is likely to get wider in the coming months. Robert Robis, Senior Vice President Global Fixed Income Strategy rrobis@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global Equities To Neutral", dated June 19th 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "2018 Key Views: BCA's Outlook & What It Means For Global Fixed Income Markets", dated December 5th 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Global Fixed Income Strategy Weekly Report, "The Global Growth Upturn Has Legs: Reduce Duration, Upgrade Credit Exposure", dated January 31st 2017, available at gfis.bcaresearch.com. Recommendations The GFIS Recommended Portfolio Vs. The Custom Benchmark Index Duration Regional Allocation Spread Product Tactical Trades Yields & Returns Global Bond Yields Historical Returns
While copper prices remain comfortably within the $2.90 to $3.30/lb range they've occupied this year, the rising threat of a Sino - U.S. trade war spilling into the global trading system, along with slowing credit and monetary stimulus in China, will continue to roil copper markets. Refined copper prices - like most commodities - are highly sensitive to the level of world copper demand and EM imports, particularly out of Asia, which are closely tied to income. EM income growth is expected to remain strong; however, a global trade war, or a significant slowing in trade that reduces investment in EM markets and stymies income growth will be bearish for copper prices. Highlights Energy: Overweight. Going into tomorrow's OPEC 2.0 meeting in Vienna, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia apparently were divided on how much crude oil production needed to be restored to the market. Increases of as little as 300k to 600k b/d and as much as 1.5mm b/d are flying around the market in the lead-up to the meeting.1 Meanwhile, China threatened to impose tariffs on oil imports from the U.S. if President Trump goes ahead with additional tariffs. The increased Sino - American acrimony on trade issues raises the likelihood China will significantly increase oil imports from Iran, in our estimation, which will exacerbate tensions even further. Base Metals: Neutral. Copper treatment and refining charges (TC/RCs) soared at the end of last week following the closure of India's largest smelter. The Metal Bulletin TC/RC index went to an average of $85/MT at the end of last week, up from $82.25/MT. The pricing service also reported China's primary copper-smelting capacity is lower in June due to environmental constraints. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold prices dropped below $1,300/oz following the FOMC meeting last week, as Fed officials - e.g., Dallas Fed President Robert Kaplan - nodded toward a fourth rate hike this year, even though his base case remained at three. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Grains and beans are down as much as 10% in the past week, on the back of additional tariffs announced by the Trump administration - 10% on $200 billion worth of Chinese imports. The new tariffs were a retaliatory move by the administration, and represent an escalation of tit-for-tat measures by both sides. Feature Chart of the WeekMajor Drivers of Copper Prices Still Supportive Rising EM incomes and expanding world trade volumes, particularly EM imports, have supported base metals prices for the past two years. This was partly aided by expansionary fiscal and monetary policy in China, the world's largest base-metals market, in 2016, which reversed overly restrictive monetary and fiscal policy in the two years prior. For the most part, these supportive underpinnings are still in place for EM commodity growth over the next two years (Chart of the Week). However, their stability increasingly is being threatened by rising Sino - American trade tensions, and the limited room for credit and fiscal expansion in China.2 Global Copper Demand And Trade In its most recent update of global growth, the World Bank is expecting the rate of growth globally to level off this year and next. However, the Bank expects income growth in EM and developing economies - the growth engines of commodity demand - to go from 4.3% last year to 4.5% this year, and 4.7% next year. EM growth will be dominated by South Asia (Chart 2).3 EM GDP growth is of particular importance to commodity markets, since this constitutes the bulk of commodity demand growth generally, particularly in base metals and oil. For the largest EM economies, the income elasticity of demand for copper is 0.70, meaning a 1% increase in income leads to a 0.70% increase in copper consumption. The Bank notes, "The seven largest emerging markets (EM7) accounted for almost all the increase in global consumption of metals, and two-thirds of the increase in energy consumption" over the past 20 years.4 In what the Bank refers to as Low Income Countries (LICs) - a grouping of smaller economies loaded with commodity producers - GDP is expected to grow 6% p.a. on average over the 2018 - 2020 period. Chart 2World Bank Expects Solid EM Growth EM GDP growth fuels copper demand. Since 2000, a 1% increase in global copper consumption ex-China translates into an almost 2% increase in high-grade refined copper prices, based on results of our modeling. When we replace ex-China demand with China, we see a 1% increase in China's consumption translates into a 0.75% increase in high-grade copper prices over the 2000 - 2018 interval. China's growth is expected to slow going forward, in the wake of a managed slowdown, and due to the fact that, as its economy evolves, more of its growth will come from services and consumer demand, which are less commodity intensive. GDP growth also fuels trade, and vice versa. The Bank estimates the income elasticity of trade averaged 1.5% from 2000 - 07, and 1.2% from 2010 - 17, meaning a 1% increase in income has led to a roughly 1.4% growth in trade over this period. In our modeling, we've found a 1% increase in EM trade volumes translates into a 1.3% increase in high-grade copper prices, an elasticity in line with post-GFC trade growth. The other key variable in our modeling is the broad trade-weighted USD, which remains a highly important variable for copper prices. In both our global copper-demand and EM import volume models for copper prices, the level of the USD is an important explanatory variable - a 1% increase (decrease) in the USD TWIB translates into ~ 3% decrease (increase) in copper prices since 2000 in our estimates.5 Tight Credit Conditions In China Can Weigh On Copper ... We've been expecting China's managed slowdown in 2H18 to be offset by strong global demand, which, all else equal, would keep copper demand fairly stable.6 While we still do not expect a hard landing in China, the slowdown we've been expecting is showing up in weaker industrial production prints, disappointing retail sales in May, and most significantly, regulatory and liquidity tightening weighing on money and credit. Chinese demand makes up ~ 50% of global metal consumption, these markets would be especially vulnerable in the case of a significant slowdown. The fear of a more serious slump is founded on tighter financial conditions restricting capital spending, and GDP growth. Granger causality tests to determine the direction of causation between Chinese monetary variables and copper prices point to causality running from de-trended levels of all four measures of money and credit to copper prices (Table 1).7 Table 1Chinese Credit And Copper Prices: Evidence Of Causality Furthermore, y/y changes in copper prices are more highly correlated with monetary variables expressed in terms of de-trended levels, than with those same variables expressed as y/y growth rates, or impulses (Chart 3). Across the four credit and money measures, this expression yields an average correlation coefficient of 0.56, compared with 0.38 and 0.37 when expressed as y/y growth rates and impulses as a percent of GDP, respectively. Our modeling also indicates that it generally takes two to three quarters for the full effect of a change in China's credit conditions to be transmitted to copper markets. When we restrict the sample size to the period from 2010 to now we get similar results to our longer intervals (Chart 4). However monetary variables are more highly correlated with copper prices in the shorter sample. Chart 3Chinese Credit Leads Copper Prices By 3 Quarters... Chart 4...A Slightly Longer Lead Time Since 2010 Correlations in the period since 2010 average 0.61, 0.57, and 0.45 for the de-trended levels, y/y growth rates, and impulses, respectively. This can be put down to the fact that China's role as a demand market for copper has been steadily growing over this period. Given that between 2000 and 2017, China's share of global copper demand swelled from 12% to 50%, it is only natural that the impact of its domestic economy on global copper prices also increased (Chart 5). Furthermore, the time lag between Chinese monetary variables and copper markets in the more recent sample increased slightly, with money and credit variables leading prices by 9-10 months, compared to 6-8 months in the full sample. Chart 5China's Growing Role In Copper Markets Bottom Line: De-trended Chinese money and credit variables statistically cause, and are correlated with, y/y changes in copper prices. While these relationships have generally strengthened with China's growing role in the demand side of global copper markets, rolling correlations highlight that there are also extended periods of weak correlations, suggesting fundamental factors can overwhelm the impact of China's credit environment on global copper markets, as has been the case for the past two years. ...But Other Factors Can Take Over In estimating the effect of China's money and credit conditions on copper markets, we find that the relationship can be dominated by supply - demand fundamentals, and overall global macro conditions. More specifically, we find that in periods where DM equity markets outperform EM equity markets, the coefficients in our models with y/y copper prices as the dependent variable are on average 13% lower than the full sample period (Chart 6). Similarly, in periods where EM outperforms DM, the models' credit coefficients are on average 15% higher than the full sample period.8 Our modeling indicates the pre-2005 period as well as the post-2015 intervals as periods during which strong copper demand from growing DM economies weakened the long-term relationship between Chinese money and credit variables and copper prices. Given our expectation that DM demand will remain supportive, this will, to some extent, offset the negative implications of the deteriorating credit environment in China on copper demand and prices. Similarly, in periods characterized by backwardated copper markets, the magnitude of the impact of Chinese money and credit variables on copper prices is on average 35% lower than the full sample (Chart 7). On the other hand, when the copper market is in contango, the magnitude of the impact of Chinese financial variables is on average 13% higher than the full sample period. This highlights the importance of physical fundamentals, and the fact that in cases where they deviate from the direction of the Chinese credit environment - such as during a supply shock - the physical fundamentals weaken historical correlation relationships. Chart 6Credit-Copper Relationship Weakens When DM Outperforms EM ... Chart 7... And When Markets Are Backwardated To rank the top explanatory financial variables in terms of their effect on the evolution of copper prices, we estimated regression models with monetary variables, along with the broad trade-weighted U.S. dollar, and world excluding China copper demand as independent variables (Table 2). Table 2USD Usually Dominates Copper's Evolution The results, which can be interpreted as the y/y percentage point (pp) change in copper prices from a one y/y pp increase in each of the three explanatory variables, indicate that Chinese credit has a similar effect as a one y/y pp increase in world excluding China copper demand, a not-unexpected result, given the rest of the world accounts for 50% of demand. On the other hand, the USD has an outsized effect on the copper market. In our modeling, we've found that, in general, a one pp increase (decrease) in the broad trade-weighted USD translates into a one pp change in copper prices, using y/y models.9 Will Copper Vs. USD Correlations Return To Equilibrium? Our House view calls for a stronger USD going forward. Despite our expectation that DM demand will remain supportive, absent supply-side shocks, a stronger USD along with deteriorating credit conditions in China will weigh on copper prices.10 Ongoing trade disputes will only further bear down on the copper market. Stronger EM GDP growth and the associated increase in copper consumption and trade volumes will offset the strong-USD effects, but a trade war would undermine this support. A caveat to this conclusion is that while credit growth has been generally restrained, the Chinese government - fearful that its policy measures to date are spiraling out of control - may partially reverse its efforts and attempt some easing.11 Bottom Line: The impact of Chinese credit conditions on copper prices is weakened in periods where DM stock prices outperform EM, and when the copper forward curve is backwardated. In terms of the relative magnitude of the effect of China's credit conditions, we find that it has a similar sized effect as the rest of the world's copper demand on the red metal's price, while the USD has a relatively larger effect. This implies that a stronger USD, coupled with tighter financial conditions in China, will compete with expanding EM GDPs and trade growth going forward. Roukaya Ibrahim, Editor/Strategist Commodity & Energy Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 OPEC 2.0 is the name we've coined for the oil producer coalition lead by KSA and Russia. In November 2016, the coalition agreed to remove 1.8mm b/d of production. We estimate actual production cuts amount to 1.2mm b/d, while as much a 1.5mm b/d of production has been lost to depletion and a lack of maintenance drilling (e.g., infill and other forms of enhanced oil recovery). 2 Our colleague Peter Berezin, writing in this week's Global Investment Strategy, noting slowing industrial production, retail sales and fixed-asset investment, observes, China's "policy response has been fairly muted." Further, unlike 2015, when China stimulated its economy and lifted EM generally, this go-round, there is less room to maneuver owing to high debt levels and overcapacity. Please see BCA Research Global Investment Strategy Special Report "Three Policy Puts Go Kaput: Downgrade Global risk Assets To Neutral," dated June 20, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see "The Role of Major Emerging Markets in Global Commodity Demand" in the Bank's Global Economic Prospects, June 2018, beginning on p. 61. 4 The Bank's EM7 are Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, the Russian Federation, and Turkey. They account for ~ 25% of global GDP, and some 60% of global metals consumption. The income elasticities of aluminum and zinc demand for this group are 0.80 and 0.30, respectively. Please see Table SF1.1 on p. 70 of the Bank's June report. 5 The R2 statistic measuring the goodness of fit between actual copper prices and the modeled prices is 94% for the copper-consumption model, and 96% for the EM trade model over the 2000 - 2018 interval. The USD TWIB was used as an explanatory variable in both models. 6 Please see BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "China's Managed Slowdown Will Dampen Base Metals Demand," dated March 29, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 7 Given that in levels, the money and credit variables display a deterministic upward trend, we removed the trend from the data in order to isolate the fluctuations around this trend. This de-trended series is what is significant to copper demand, and thus the evolution of copper prices. 8 We use a threshold OLS model to estimate the y/y model coefficients. The average change in the value of the coefficient is based on the coefficients in the models' outputs of the four money and credit measures. 9 The R2 statistics measuring the goodness of fit between actual y/y changes and those estimated in our models were ~63% in all four models. 10 We discussed this at length last week in BCA Research Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Correlations Vs. USD Weaken," dated June 14, 2018, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 11 Some preliminary signs of potential easing include (1) the PBOC's most recent monetary policy decision in which it did not follow the US Fed's interest rate decision by hiking rates, as it generally does, and (2) a reduction in the reserve requirement ratio. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Insert table images here Trades Closed in
Highlights BCA's Geopolitical Power Index (GPI) confirms that we live in a multipolar world; Most of President Trump's policies are designed to strike out against this structural reality; Trade war with China is real and presents the premier geopolitical risk in 2018; President Trump's aggression towards G7 allies boils down to greater NAFTA risk; We remain bullish USD, bearish EM, maintain our short U.S. China-exposed equities and closing all our "bullish" NAFTA trades; Remain short GBP/USD, Theresa May's days appear numbered. Feature "We're going to win so much, you're going to be so sick and tired of winning." Candidate Donald Trump, May 26, 2016 In 2013, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy introduced the concept of multipolarity into our financial lexicon.1 Multipolarity is a term in political science that denotes when the number of states powerful enough to pursue an independent and globally relevant foreign policy is greater than one (unipolarity) or two (bipolarity). At the time, the evidence that U.S. global hegemony was in retreat was plentiful, but the idea of a U.S. decline was still far from consensus. By late 2016, however, President Donald Trump was overtly campaigning on it. His campaign slogan, "Make America Great Again," promised to reverse the process by striking out at the perceived causes of the decline: globalization, unchecked illegal immigration, and the ineffective foreign policy of the D.C. establishment. How can we quantitatively prove that the world is multipolar? We recently enhanced the classic National Capability Index (NCI) with our own measure, the Geopolitical Power Index (GPI). The original index, created for the Correlates of War project in 1963, had grown outdated. Its reliance on "military personnel" and "iron and steel production" harkened back to the late nineteenth century and overstated the power of China (Chart 1). Chart 1The National Capability Index Overstates China's Power Our own index avoids these pitfalls, while retaining the parsimony of the NCI, by focusing on six key factors: Population: We adapted the original population measure by penalizing countries with large dependency ratios. Yes, having a vast population matters, but having too many dependents (the elderly and youth) can strain resources otherwise available for global power projection. Global Economic Relevance: The original index failed to capture a country's relevance for the global economy. Designed at the height of the Cold War, the NCI did not foresee today's globalized future. As such, we modified the original index by introducing a measure that captures a country's contribution to global final demand. The more an economy imports, the greater its bargaining power in terms of trade and vis-à-vis its geopolitical rivals. Arms Exports: Having a large army is no longer as relevant now that wars have become a high-tech affair. To capture that reality, we replaced the NCI's focus on the number of soldiers with arms exports as a share of the global defense industry. We retained the original three variables that measure primary energy consumption, GDP, and overall military expenditure. Chart 2 shows the updated data. As expected, the U.S. is in decline, having lost nearly a third of its quantitatively measured geopolitical power since 1998. Over the same period, China has gone from having just 30% of U.S. geopolitical power to over 80%. Other countries, like Russia, India, Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan, have also seen an increase in geopolitical power over the same period, confirming their roles as regional powers (Chart 3). Chart 2BCA's Geopolitical Power Index Illustrates A Multipolar World Chart 3China Was Not The Only EM To Rise President Trump was elected with the mandate of changing the trajectory of American power and getting the country back on a "winning" path. Investors can perceive nearly all the moves by the administration - from protectionist actions against China and traditional allies, to applying a "Maximum Pressure" doctrine against North Korea and Iran - as a fight against the structural decline of U.S. power. Isn't President Trump "tilting at windmills"? Fighting a vain battle against imaginary adversaries? Yes. The decline of the U.S. is a product of classic imperial overstretch combined with the natural lifecycle of any global hegemon. U.S. policymakers have made decisions that have hastened the decline, but the overarching American geopolitical trajectory would have been negative regardless: Global peace brought prosperity which strengthened Emerging Markets (EM), particularly China, relative to the U.S. That said, Trump is not as crazy as the media often imply. Chaos is not necessarily bad for a domestically driven economy secured by two oceans. The U.S. tends to outperform the rest of the world - economically, financially, and geopolitically - amid turbulence. Our own updated GPI shows that both World Wars were massively favorable for U.S. hegemony (Chart 4), although this time around the chaos is mostly self-inflicted. Chart 4America Profits From Chaos Similarly, Trump's economic populism at home is buoying sentiment and assuaging the negative consequences - real or imagined - of his protectionism. Meanwhile, the threat of tariffs is souring the mood abroad. This policy mix is causing U.S. assets to outperform (Chart 5). Most importantly, the U.S. dollar is now up 2.7% since the beginning of the year, putting pressure on EM assets. When combined with continued counter-cyclical structural reforms in China, we maintain that the overall macro and geopolitical context remains bearish for global risk assets. This is not the first time that an American president has deployed both an aggressive trade policy and an aggressive foreign policy. The difference, this time around, is that the world is multipolar. A defining feature of multipolarity is that it is less predictable and more likely to produce inter-state conflict (Chart 6). As more countries matter - geopolitically, economically, financially - the number of "veto players" rises, making stable equilibria more difficult to produce. As such, bullying as a negotiating tactic worked when used by Presidents Nixon, Reagan, Bush Jr., and Clinton, but may not work today. Investors should therefore prepare for a long period of uncertainty this summer as the world responds to a U.S. administration focused on "winning." Chart 5U.S. Assets Outperform Chart 6Multipolarity Produces Uncertainty Bottom Line: There is a clear logic behind President Trump's foreign and trade policy. He is trying to reverse a decline in U.S. hegemony. The problem is that his policy decisions are unlikely to address the structural causes of America's decline. What is much more likely is that his policy will cause the rest of the world to react in unpredictable ways. The U.S. may benefit, but that is not a forgone conclusion. Investors should position themselves for a volatile summer. Below we review three key issues, two negative and one positive. The U.S. Vs. China: The Trade War Is Real The Trump administration has announced that it will go ahead with tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese imports in retaliation for forced technology transfer and intellectual property theft under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act. The tariffs will come in two tranches beginning on July 6. China will respond proportionately, based on both its statements and its response to the steel and aluminum tariffs (Chart 7). If the two sides stop here, then perhaps the trade war can be delayed. But Trump is already saying he will impose tariffs on a further $200 billion worth of goods. At that point, if Beijing re-retaliates, China's proportionate response will cover more goods than the entire range of U.S. imports (Chart 8). Retaliation will have to occur elsewhere. Chart 7Trump's Steel/Aluminum Tariffs Chart 8Trump's Tariffs On China We would expect the CNY/USD to weaken as negotiations fail. We would also expect tensions to continue spilling over into the South China Sea and other areas of strategic disagreement.2 The South China Sea or Taiwan could produce market-moving "black swan" geopolitical events this year or next.3 Chart 9Downside Risks Continue It is critical to distinguish between the U.S. trade conflict with China and the one with the G7. In the latter case, the U.S. political establishment will push against the Trump administration, encouraging him to compromise. With China, however, Congress is becoming the aggressor and we certainly do not expect the Defense Department or the intelligence community to play the peacemaker with Beijing. In particular, members of Congress are trying to cancel Trump's ZTE deal while expanding the powers of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) to restrict Chinese investments.4 These congressional factors underscore our theme that U.S.-China tensions are structural and secular.5 Would China stimulate its economy to negate the effects of tariffs? We see nothing yet on the policy side to warrant a change in our fundamental view, which holds that any stimulus will be limited due to the agenda of containing systemic financial risk. Credit growth remains weak and fiscal spending has not yet perked up (Chart 9), portending weak Chinese imports and negative outcomes for EM. The risk to Chinese growth remains to the downside this year (and likely next year) as the government continues with the reforms. Critically, stimulus is not the only possible Chinese response to trade war. A trade war with the United States will provide Xi with a "foreign devil" on whom he can blame the pain of structural reforms. As such, it is entirely possible that Beijing doubles-down on reforms in light of an aggressive U.S. Bottom Line: The U.S.-China trade war is beginning and will cause additional market volatility and, potentially, a "black swan" event, especially ahead of the U.S. midterm elections. We do not expect 2015-style economic stimulus from Beijing. Stay long U.S. small caps relative to large caps; short U.S. China-exposed equities; and remain short EM equities relative to DM. The U.S. Vs. The G6: This Is About NAFTA There was little rhyme or reason to President Trump's smackdown of traditional U.S. allies at the G7 summit in Quebec. As our colleague Peter Berezin recently pointed out, the U.S. is throwing stones while living in a glass house.6 While the overall level of tariff barriers within developed countries is low, the U.S. actually stands at the top end of the spectrum (Chart 10). The decision to launch an investigation into whether automobile imports "threaten to impair the national security" of the U.S. - under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 - falls into the same rubric of empty threats. The U.S. has had a 25% tariff on imported light trucks since 1964, a decision that likely caused its car companies to become addicted to domestic pickup truck demand to the detriment of global competitiveness. Meanwhile, only 15% of U.S. autos shipped to the EU were subject to the infamous European 10% surcharge on auto imports. This is because U.S. autos containing European parts are exempt from the tariff. Many foreign auto manufacturers have already adjusted to the U.S. market, setting up manufacturing inside the country (Chart 11). Tariffs would hurt luxury brands like BMW, Daimler, Volvo, and Jaguar.7 As such, we doubt the investment-relevance of Trump's threat against autos. Either way, the investigation is unlikely to be completed until the tail-end of Q1 2019. Chart 10Tariffs: Who Is Robbing The U.S.? Chart 11Car Imports? What Imports? Instead, investors should take Trump's aggressive comments from the G7 in the context of the ongoing NAFTA negotiations and the closing window for a deal. President Trump wants to get a NAFTA deal ahead of the U.S. midterms in November and prior to the new Mexican Congress being inaugurated on September 1.8 This means that a deal has to be concluded by late July, or early August, giving the "old" Mexican Congress enough time to ratify it before the new president - likely Andrés Manuel López Obrador - comes to power on December 1. This would conceivably give the U.S. Congress enough time to ratify a deal by December, assuming Republicans can remove some procedural hurdles before then. The rising probability of no resolution before the U.S. midterm election will increase the risk that Trump will trigger Article 2205 and announce the U.S.'s withdrawal. Trump has always had the option of triggering the six-month withdrawal period as a negotiating tactic to increase the pressure on Canada and Mexico. Withdrawing might fire up the base, while major concessions from Canada or Mexico might be presented as "victories" to voters. Anything short of these binary outcomes is useless to Trump on November 6. Therefore, if Canada and Mexico do not relent in the next month or two, the odds of Trump triggering Article 2205 will shoot up. The key is that Trump faces limited legal or economic constraints in withdrawing: Legal Constraints: Not only can Trump unilaterally withdraw from the agreement, triggering the six-month exit period, but Congress is unlikely to stop him. Announcing withdrawal automatically nullifies much of the 1993 NAFTA Implementation Act.9 Some provisions of NAFTA under this act may continue to be implemented, but the bulk would cease to have effect, and the White House could refuse to enforce the rest. Economic Constraints: The U.S. economy has far less exposure to Canada and Mexico than vice- versa (Chart 12). Certain states and industries would be heavily affected - ironically, the U.S. auto industry would be most severely impacted (Chart 13) - and they would lobby aggressively to save the agreement. But with the American economy hyper-charged with stimulus, the drag from leaving NAFTA is not prohibitive to Trump. Voters will feel any pocketbook consequences about three months late i.e., after the election. Chart 12U.S. Economy:##br## Largely Unaffected By NAFTA Chart 13NAFTA Has Made U.S. Auto ##br##Manufacturing More Competitive The potential saving grace for Canada is the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA), which took effect in 1989 and was incorporated into NAFTA. The U.S. and Canada agreed through an exchange of letters to suspend CUSFTA's operation when NAFTA took effect, but the suspension only lasts as long as NAFTA is in effect. However, reinstating CUSFTA is not straightforward. The NAFTA Implementation Act suspends some aspects of the CUSFTA and amends others (for instance, on customs fees), so there will not be an easy transition from NAFTA to a fully operational CUSFTA.10 Trump may well walk away from both CUSFTA and NAFTA in the same proclamation, or he could walk away from NAFTA while leaving CUSFTA in limbo. The latter would mitigate the negative impact on Canada, but it would still see rising tariffs, customs fees, and rising policy uncertainty. Bottom Line: We originally assigned a high probability to the abrogation of NAFTA.11 Subsequently, we lowered the probability due to positive comments from the White House and Trump's negotiating team. This was a mistake. As we initially posited, there are few constraints to abrogating NAFTA, particularly if President Trump intends to renegotiate the deal later, or conclude two separate bilateral deals that effectively maintain the same trade relationship. We are closing our trade favoring an equally-weighted basket of CAD/EUR and MXN/EUR. We are also closing our trade favoring Mexican local government bonds relative to EM. North Korea: A Geopolitical Opportunity, Not A Risk Not every move by the Trump administration is increasing geopolitical volatility. Trump's Maximum Pressure doctrine may have elevated risks on the Korean Peninsula in 2017, but it ultimately worked. The media is missing the big picture on the Singapore Summit. Diplomacy is on track and geopolitical risk - namely the risk of war on the peninsula - is fading. It is false to claim that President Trump got nothing in return for the summit. Since November 28, North Korea has moderated its belligerent threats, ceased conducting missile tests, released three U.S. political prisoners, and largely blocked off access to the Punggye-ri nuclear testing site. Now, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has held the summit with Trump, reaffirmed his longstanding promise of "complete denuclearization," reaffirmed the peace-seeking April 2018 Panmunjom Declaration with South Korea, and pledged to dismantle a ballistic missile testing site and continue negotiations. In response, President Trump has given security guarantees to the North Korean regime and has pledged to discontinue U.S.-South Korea military drills for the duration of the negotiations. Trump has not yet eased economic sanctions and his administration has ruled out troop withdrawals from South Korea for now. There is much diplomatic work to be done. But the summit was undoubtedly a positive sign, dialogue is continuing at lower levels, and Kim is expected to visit the White House in the near future. Table 1 shows that the Singapore Summit is substantial when compared with major U.S.-North Korea agreements and inter-Korean summits - and it is unprecedented in that it was agreed between American and North Korean leaders. Table 1How The Singapore Summit Stacks Up To Previous Pacts With North Korea Because Trump demonstrated a credible military threat, and China enforced sanctions, the foundation is firmer than that of President Barack Obama's April 2012 agreement to provide food aid in payment for a cessation of nuclear and missile activity. It is much more similar to that of President Clinton and the "Agreed Framework" of 1994, which lasted until 2002, despite many serious failures on both the U.S. and North Korean sides. We should also bear in mind that it was originally U.S. Congress, not North Korea, which undermined the 1994 agreement. Aside from removing war risk, Korean diplomacy is of limited global significance. It marginally improves the outlook for South Korean industrials, energy, telecoms, and consumer staples relative to their EM peers (Chart 14). In the long run it should also be positive for the KRW. Chart 14Winners And Losers Of Inter-Korean Engagement We maintain that a U.S.-China trade war will not be prevented because of a Korean deal. But we do not expect China to spoil the negotiations. Geopolitically, China benefits from reducing the basis for U.S. forces to be stationed in South Korea. Bottom Line: Go long a "peace dividend" basket of South Korean equity sectors (industrials, energy, consumer staples, and telecoms) and short South Korean "loser" sectors (financials, IT, consumer discretionary, and health care), both relative to their EM peers. Stick to our Korean 2-year/10-year sovereign bond curve steepener trade. Brexit Update: A New Election Is Now In Play Prime Minister Theresa May is fending off a revolt within her Conservative Party this week that could set the course for a new election this year. May reneged on a "compromise" with soft-Brexit/Bremain Tory backbenchers on an amendment that would have given the House of Commons a meaningful vote on the final U.K.-EU Brexit deal. According to the press, the compromise was killed by her own Brexit Secretary, David Davis. There is a fundamental problem with Brexit. The current path towards a hard Brexit, pushed on May by hard-Brexit members of her cabinet and articulated in her January 2017 speech, is incompatible with her party's preferences. According to their pre-referendum preferences, a majority of Tory MPs identified with the Bremain campaign ahead of the referendum (Chart 15). That would suggest that a vast majority prefer a soft Brexit today, if not staying in the EU. We would go further. The current trajectory is incompatible with the democratic preferences of the U.K. public. First, polls are showing rising opposition to Brexit (Chart 16). Second, most voters who chose to vote for Brexit in 2016 did so under the assumption that the Conservative Party would pursue a soft Brexit, including continued membership in the Common Market. Boris Johnson, the most prominent supporter of Brexit ahead of the vote and now the foreign minister, famously stated right after the referendum that "there will continue to be free trade and access to the single market."12 Chart 15Westminster MPs Support Bremain! Chart 16Bremain On The Rise So what happens now? We expect the government to be defeated on the crucial amendment giving Westminster the right to vote on the final EU-U.K. deal. If that happens, PM May could be replaced by a hard-Brexit prime minister, most likely Davis. Given the lack of support for an actual hard-Brexit outcome - both in Westminster and among the public - we believe that a new election remains likely by March 2019. Bottom Line: Political risk remains elevated in the U.K. A new election could resolve this risk, but the potential for a Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour Party to win the election could add additional political risk to U.K. assets. We remain short GBP/USD. Marko Papic, Senior Vice President Chief Geopolitical Strategist marko@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Monthly Report, "The Great Risk Rotation," dated December 11, 2013; and "Multipolarity And Investing," dated April 9, 2014, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Pyongyang's Pivot To America," dated June 8, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Special Report, "Taiwan Is A Potential Black Swan," dated March 30, 2018, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 4 The Senate has passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act with a rider that would boost CFIUS and maintain stringent restrictions on ZTE's business with the U.S. These restrictions have crippled the company but would have been removed under the Trump administration's snap deal in June. The White House claims it will remove the rider when the House and Senate hold a conference to resolve differences between their versions of the defense bill, but it is not clear that the White House will succeed. Congress could test Trump's veto. If Trump does not veto he will break a personal promise to Xi Jinping and escalate the trade war further than perhaps even he intended. 5 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Day One: Let The Trade War Begin," dated January 18, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Piggy Bank No More? Trump And The Dollar's Reserve Currency Status," dated June 15, 2018, available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 7 We do not include Porsche in this list as we would gladly pay the 25% tariff on top of its current price. 8 Mexican elections for both president and Congress will take place on July 1, but the new Congress will sit on September 1 while the new president will take office on December 1. 9 Please see Lori Wallach, "Presidential Authority to Terminate NAFTA Without Congressional Approval," Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, November 13, 2017, available at www.citizen.org. 10 The National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America, "Issues Surrounding US Withdrawal From NAFTA," available from GHY International at www.ghy.com. See also Dan Ciuriak, "What if the United States Walks Away From NAFTA?" C. D. Howe Institute Intelligence Memos, dated November 27, 2017, available at www.cdhowe.org. 11 Please see BCA Geopolitical Strategy and Global Investment Strategy Special Report, "NAFTA - Populism Vs. Pluto-Populism," dated November 10, 2017, available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 12 Please see "U.K. will retain access to the EU single market: Brexit leader Johnson," Reuters, dated June 26, 2016, available at uk.reuters.com. Geopolitical Calendar
Highlights As widely expected, the Fed raised the policy rate by 25bps last week. The central bank is also forecasting an additional rate hike for 2018, but one less for 2020. The labor market typically continues to improve after the economy reaches full employment, wage inflation begins to accelerate after the economy achieves full employment, while prices rise only gradually. Gold and Treasuries were the big winners and the dollar was the big loser in previous trade spats. Feature The dollar rose 1%, but gold, the S&P 500, and U.S. Treasury yields sunk last week amid a busy calendar of U.S. economic data and the Fed's new forecasts. The stats and the FOMC projections confirmed that the U.S. economy is already at full employment and that the market is underpricing the number of Fed hikes planned for this year. Meanwhile, U.S. President Trump's meeting with North Korea leader Kim Jong Un provided some relief on the geopolitical front, but there is still uncertainty on trade over impending tariffs on China. Chart 1Watch The 2.3% To 2.5% Level##BR##On TIPS Breakevens BCA's base case remains that U.S. equities will not be subject to an over-aggressive Fed until mid-2019 and that increasing bond yields are not a threat. That said, the timing is uncertain and depends importantly on how inflation and inflation expectations shift in the coming months. Inflation is only gradually moving higher at the moment and the Fed is willing to tolerate an overshoot of the 2% target. However, some inflation hawks at the Fed are worried given that the economy is already at full employment and expected to accelerate this year. The uptrend in inflation could suddenly become steeper in this macro environment. Alarm bells will ring when inflation hits 2.5% and the central bank will switch from normalizing policy to targeting slower growth, putting risk assets under pressure. We are also on the watch for a rise in the 10-year TIPS breakeven rate above 2.3% as a signal that the FOMC will become more aggressive in leaning against above-trend growth and a falling unemployment rate (Chart 1). That would be an important signal to trim exposure to risk assets. Although Trump's meeting with Kim lowered geopolitical risk, BCA's strategists note that the secular decline in U.S.-China ties and the "apex of globalization"1 are more relevant subjects than what happens on the Korean peninsula. While North Korea may still stir up concern, we recommend that investors monitor U.S.-China trade tensions, the East and South China Seas, and Taiwan. Elsewhere, U.S.-Iran tensions are the key understated geopolitical risk to markets. Moreover, BCA's Geopolitical Strategy service expects that trade-related uncertainty will persist at least until the U.S. mid-term elections in November.2 Two More In '18 As widely expected, the Fed raised the policy rate by 25bps last week. The central bank is also forecasting an additional rate hike for 2018, but one less for 2020 (Chart 2). Chart 2FOMC And Market Mostly##BR##Aligned On Economy And Rates Instead of three, the Fed now expects to deliver a total of four rate hikes in 2018. For 2019, the Fed continues to project a further three rate hikes. And for 2020, the Fed now believes only one rate hike will be warranted, down from two hikes in its previous forecast. What this means is that the Fed has simply brought forward one rate hike from 2020 to 2018. It left its median projection for the level of the Fed funds rate in 2020 unchanged at 3.375%. Moreover, the Fed kept its estimate of the neutral rate unchanged at 2.875%. In other words, the Fed is forecasting a marginally faster pace to rate hikes, but it has not changed its outlook for the full extent of the tightening cycle. This minor change to the policy outlook should not disrupt financial markets. Prior to last week's FOMC meeting, Fed funds futures were already pricing a 50% probability of a fourth rate hike this year. The bigger question is whether more upward adjustments to the interest rate outlook lie ahead. On this front, there are inconsistencies in the Fed's economic projections. In terms of the long-run steady state, the Fed believes the potential growth rate of the economy is 1.8% and NAIRU is 4.5%. Yet the Fed is forecasting real GDP growth of 2.4% and 2.0% (i.e. above-trend) for 2019 and 2020, respectively, but expects both the jobless rate and core inflation to remain steady at 3.5% and 2.1%, respectively. Above-trend growth should imply a further decline in the unemployment rate. And a jobless rate that's well below NAIRU should imply an acceleration in inflation. In turn, this should mean a higher path for interest rates. But rather than higher interest rates, the inconsistency in the Fed's economic forecasts can also be resolved in other ways. First, the Fed could simply be too optimistic on growth. If growth is weaker, then unemployment and inflation forecasts could be proven right. Second, the Fed's estimates of trend growth and NAIRU may be incorrect. If trend growth is higher and NAIRU is lower, the pressures on resource utilization and inflation will be less. Bottom Line: The tweaks to the Fed's interest rate projections are too small to have a material impact on financial market pricing. However, there is a risk that the inconsistencies in the Fed's economic forecasts will be resolved with more hawkishness in 2019. This could then prove problematic for global risk assets, depending on the evolution of inflation. Are We There Yet? The U.S. economy reached full employment in Q1 2017. The unemployment rate crossed below the Fed's measure of NAIRU in March 2017, a whopping 93 months after the start of the current expansion. Chart 3 shows that in the long expansions3 in the 1980s and 1990s, the economy reached full employment sooner; 54 months in the 1980s and 72 months in the 1990s expansion. After the economy attained full employment in the 1980s and 1990s, an average of another 27 months passed before the unemployment rate troughed. This means that the trough will occur in mid-2019 and our view is that the rate will bottom at around 3.5% in mid-2019.4 Moreover, the 1980s' economic recovery lasted another 34 months once the economy hit full employment and another 47 months once full employment was breached in the 1990s. If this historical pattern holds, then the next recession will begin in late 2020. This date is consistent with our prior work5 on the start date of the next downturn. Chart 3The Economy At Full Employment In Long Cycles The labor market typically continues to improve after the economy reaches full employment. Initial claims for unemployment insurance, as a share of the labor force, move lower for another two years, on average, after labor market slack disappears (Chart 4, panel 2). The monthly non-farm payrolls job count follows a similar pattern and it does not turn negative for another four years (panel 3). The Conference Board's jobs easy/hard to get shows that the labor market is hotter than in the previous long expansions (panel 4). The conclusion is that the labor market will continue to tighten for another year or so, consistent with our outlook. Wage inflation begins to accelerate after the economy achieves full employment. Chart 5 shows increases in the average hourly earnings (AHE), the Employment Cost Index (ECI), and compensation per hour after the unemployment rate fell below NAIRU in the 1980s and 1990s. However, unit labor costs (ULCs) did not accelerate in those years until well after the economy hit full employment. Many of these measures of wage inflation are also on the upswing today. However, none of the indicators are rising as quickly as they did in the 1980s and 1990s (See Appendix Table 1 for more details on performance of labor market, wage and inflation metrics after the economy reaches full employment). Inflation initially remained tame even after labor market slack was taken up in the previous two long expansions. Chart 6 shows that neither headline nor core CPI accelerated sharply after the economy arrived at full employment in the '80s and '90s. However, headline CPI inflation began rising not long after full employment was reached. It took a little longer for core inflation to perk up. Moreover, inflation tends to peak as the unemployment rate troughs. This occurs, on average, about three years after the unemployment rate crosses below NAIRU. Chart 4The Labor Market When##BR##The Economy Is At Full Employment Chart 5Wages And Compensation When##BR##The Economy Is At Full Employment Chart 6Inflation When The Economy##BR##Is At Full Employment Bottom Line: The U.S. economy has been at full employment since early 2017, but investors should be patient if they expect a marked acceleration in inflation. Inflation is already at the Fed's target and BCA expects two more rate hikes this year and at least three more increases in 2019 as inflation moves closer to 2.5%. Stay underweight duration. The labor market is as tight as it was at this point of the previous two long expansions. Moreover, the trends in inflation and wages are similar, although from a lower level. That said, while inflation is more muted today, interest rates are much, much lower, and the Fed does not want a major overshoot. If we follow the same path as the previous two long expansions, then inflation will rise only gradually, and the next recession is a ways off. But watch for an acceleration in ULC, because in the average of the last two long expansions, an acceleration in ULC coincided with an acceleration in core CPI inflation. That would cause the Fed to become more aggressive. Trump's Focus On China The U.S. is an old hand at trade wars and economic conflicts, with an endgame of dollar depreciation and compromises on trade.6 Since 1970 there have been seven major trade disputes involving tariffs, including the one that began in March of this year. Some were brief and several of those periods overlapped. Moreover, many other factors affected investment returns, including recessions, wars, major terrorist attacks, and financial crises. As a result, these periodic trade tiffs make it difficult to discern the implications for the financial markets. During episodes of trade-related uncertainty, stocks underperform Treasuries, the dollar falls both pre- and post-dispute, and gold performs much better both during and after. Treasuries are the most consistent performer, and this asset class beat stocks during five of the six periods. Meanwhile, the dollar fell during 5 of the 6 trade spats (Table 1). Chart 7 shows the performance of a wider set of U.S. financial assets before, during, and after trade tensions erupt. Table 1U.S. Stocks, Treasuries, The Dollar, Gold And Trade Disputes Chart 7U.S. Financial Assets And Trade Spats We begin our discussion of trade spats and their implication for financial markets in the early 1970s. In August 1971, with the dollar steeply overvalued, President Richard Nixon abandoned the gold standard and imposed a 10% surcharge on all dutiable imports. The purpose of the tariff was to force the U.S. allies to appreciate their currencies against the dollar. Some appreciation occurred as a result of the Smithsonian Agreement, but the effects were short-lived. The U.S. could not afford to alienate its allies amid the Cold War and removed the restrictions four months later. Table 1 shows that S&P 500 increased by nearly 40% in the year prior to the 1971 trade spat, but the economy was recovering from the 1969-70 recession. Equities easily beat Treasuries (+17%), the dollar declined by 3%, and gold jumped by 22%. However, during late 1971, the S&P 500 underperformed Treasuries, the dollar dropped by 5%, and gold was little changed. In the 12 months after the trade issue was resolved, U.S. stocks beat bonds, the dollar continued to move lower, and gold surged. This occurred as inflation ramped up. In a trade dispute episode during the 1980s, then President Reagan and a Democrat-leaning Congress became concerned with trade deficits and a sharply rising dollar. The Plaza Accord in 1985 consisted of a German and Japanese promise, once again, to appreciate their currencies. From 1985-89, a U.S.-Japan trade war was waged over Japan's growing share of the U.S. market and certain unfair trade practices affecting goods such as cars, semiconductors, and electronics (Chart 8). The combination of yen appreciation, voluntary export restraints and tariffs, resulted in compromises, and in the early 1990s the U.S. removed Japan from its list of targets. Chart 8The U.S.-Japan Trade Spat In The 1980s During the 1985-89 dispute, the U.S. stock market crashed, economic growth surged, inflationary pressures mounted, and the Fed hiked rates. Nevertheless, stocks crushed bonds as the dollar tumbled by 40% and gold soared by 30% (Table 1). Note that gold fell in the year before the trade dispute began and in the year after it ended. In the late 1990s, a series of trade disputes erupted between the U.S. and the European Union, most significantly on a tax device that allowed companies reduced taxes on profits derived from export sales. The EU won its case against the U.S. at the WTO and the U.S. eventually repealed the offending provisions in its tax code. At the same time, from 1999-2001, the U.S. contested EU policies on banana imports. Then in March 2002, President George W. Bush imposed steel tariffs affecting Europe, but these were subsequently reversed in December 2003 in the face of retaliatory threats. Trade tension in the late 1990s and early 2000s developed alongside the tech boom, the 2001 recession and recovery, and the first Gulf War. The 10-year Treasury outperformed the S&P 500 as Bush's steel tariffs were in effect, but the early part of this period coincided with the accounting scandals that buffeted U.S. equity markets. The U.S. dollar dropped nearly 25%, although the Fed cut rates in 2002 and 2003. Gold climbed 34% in this period, outpacing both stocks and bonds. President Trump's trade positions are reminiscent of both Nixon's and Reagan's policies and his trade team includes a notable veteran of the U.S.-Japan trade war, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. The focus, however, is not entirely the same. True, there is still a fixation on privileged manufacturing industries like steel and autos, both in the Section 232 actions on steel and aluminum and in the NAFTA renegotiation. But there is today a heightened focus on China's abuses of the international trade system, in particular its technology theft and intellectual property violations (the Section 301 actions). For investors, the critical issue is to separate the two areas of focus. The U.S. grievances with Europe, NAFTA, and Japan will cause more volatility this year and beyond, but are ultimately more manageable than those with China. U.S.-China trade tensions are caught up in a Great Power rivalry that will likely persist throughout this century, making trade tensions a permanent feature of the relationship going forward.7 China's rapid military growth and technological acquisition threaten U.S. global dominance. China will view any imposition of tariffs by the U.S., or demands for dramatic RMB appreciation, as a strategic attempt to derail China's rise. Moreover, while Congress will not attack President Trump for retreating from the trade war with the allies, it will attack President Trump for compromising on China. Recent U.S. elections have swung on Rust Belt Midwestern states that resent America's deindustrialization. In 2020, Democrats will attempt to reclaim their credibility as defenders of American workers and "fair trade," especially against China. President Trump stole their thunder with his protectionist platform. There is unlikely to be a "trade dove," and especially not a "China dove," in the White House from 2020-24. Bottom Line: The U.S. has historically used punitive trade measures to force its allied trading partners to appreciate their currencies versus the dollar. It has also sought to protect politically sensitive industries. Today, however, the trade war with China is inextricably tied to a strategic conflict that will play out over decades. Trump will likely impose Section 301 tariffs on China after June 15 and any deal to avoid confrontation will merely delay the decision on tariffs until after November's mid-term elections. Investors should recall that bonds beat stocks, the dollar fell, and gold rose during previous periods of trade tension. We also note that shifts in correlations between key U.S. asset classes tend to occur as trade spats begin and end, especially in the past 30 years (Chart 9). Moreover, gold usually continues to climb and the dollar falters even after these disputes are resolved. Chart 9U.S. Asset Class Correlations During Trade Disputes John Canally, CFA, Senior Vice President U.S. Investment Strategy johnc@bcaresearch.com Matt Gertken, Associate Vice President Geopolitical Strategy mattg@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's 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 Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump's Demands On China," published April 4, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 3 Please see BCA Research's Bank Credit Analyst Monthly Report, published March 2017. Available at bca.bcaresearch.com. 4 Please see BCA Research's U.S. Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Tightening Up", published May 14, 2018. Available at usis.bcaresearch.com. 5 Please see BCA Research's Global Investment Strategy Weekly Report, "Q2 2018 Strategy Outlook: It's More Like 1998 Than 2000," published March 30 2018. Available at gis.bcaresearch.com. 6 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Political Risks Are Understated In 2018," published April 12, 2017. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. 7 Please see BCA Research's Geopolitical Strategy Weekly Report, "Trump, Year Two: Let The Trade War Begin," published March 14, 2018. Available at gps.bcaresearch.com. Appendix Appendix Table 1Key Labor Market And Inflation Indicators At Full Employment